There are two major frameworks of Biblical Theology in Protestant Christianity: Dispensationaliam and Covenant Theology. Simplistically, Dispensationaliam says there is a big discontinuity between Israel and the Church, while Covenant Theology says there is a great continuity between Israel and the Church. While the Southern Baptist Covention has a mix of Calvinist and Arminian congregations, my understanding is that the seminaries tend to the Calvinist side. Neither Dispensationaliam nor Covenant Theology would sit well with Reformed Baptists, so I was wondering what these seminaries teach. New Covenant Theology is a more recent framework that tries to chart a middle path between Dispensationaliam and Covenant Theology. Do any of the SBC seminaries teach NCT? Or do they teach their own framework that similarly tries to chart a path between the two, but differs in the details? Or do they teach traditional Dispensationaliam or Covenant Theology? The SBC seminaries may not all teach the same framework, but as there are only six, it shouldn't be too hard to summarise what they do.

I have yet to see anyone speaking in tongues in a Southern Baptist church. Having said that, the lack of speaking in tongues does not necessarily mean that Southern Baptists *never* speak in tongues or that they do not believe in it as a general rule. Clearly they seem to avoid it. Nonetheless, what is the Southern Baptist belief regarding speaking in tongues?

NPR has been reporting on this topic in the past few days1 and from my understanding this won't necessarily affect local congregations. Southern Baptist Convention website states : >Jesus Christ is the head of the local church—we are not. Each church is responsible before God for the policies it sets and decisions it makes. or Article XIV >Such organizations have no authority over one another or over the churches. They are voluntary and advisory bodies designed to elicit, combine, and direct the energies of our people in the most effective manner. **My question is**: Will this have any other side effects/impacts besides changing the constitution and having fewer congregations part of the convention? Will this affect SBC relationship with Woman’s Missionary Union ? The SBC FAQ also states >The Convention recognizes the biblical language concerning the office of pastor. The BF&M statement says, “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the **office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture**.” The passages that assign the office of pastor to men do not negate the essential equality of men and women before God, but rather focus on the assignment of roles. making the whole topic is slightly confusing, i.e. is this vote to make this policy more official as part of the constitution and will there be fewer side effects then predicted? Related: - What is the biblical justification for permitting female pastors? - In a congregationalist church, who is in charge and what does this imply for women in authoritative roles? 1 See [this article](https://www.npr.org/2024/06/11/nx-s1-4996537/southern-baptist-convention-will-decide-whether-to-expel-churches-with-women-pastors) (6/11/24), [this article](https://www.npr.org/2024/06/12/nx-s1-5002004/southern-baptist-convention-set-to-vote-on-whether-to-ban-female-pastors) (6/12/24), [this article](https://www.npr.org/2024/06/04/nx-s1-4992298/southern-baptists-are-meeting-in-indianapolis-and-they-have-a-full-agenda) (6/4/24)

I am looking for a scholar familiar with Baptist history to provide an introduction to the early history of the Baptists. In particular, I want to learn about the founding and early development stages of the Baptist denominations, including an explanation of the situation when the Southern Baptists separated from the Northern Baptists in the USA.

This is something I read from [hrc](https://www.hrc.org/resources/stances-of-faiths-on-lgbt-issues-american-baptist-church-usa#:~:text=Although%20ABCUSA%20shares%20many%20traditions,and%20the%20Cooperative%20Baptist%20Fellowship.) >Although ABCUSA shares many traditions, beliefs and values with other Baptists, ABCUSA is a distinct entity from its relatives, the American Baptist Association (ABA), the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), the Alliance of Baptists, and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. (this is why I assume these groups are even comparable) So we have - [ABCUSA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Baptist_Churches_USA) , a " mainline Baptist Christian denomination" - [ABA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Baptist_Association) , "an association of Baptist churches" - [SBC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_Convention) , "a Christian denomination based in the United States" - [AoB](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_of_Baptists) , "a fellowship of Baptist churches and individuals" - [CBF](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_Baptist_Fellowship) , "a Christian fellowship of Baptist churches" Notably, only the last two are considered "fellowships" while the first 3 are either denominations or associations, which becomes even more confusing when you consider that they are all under the Baptist denomination, which is a subsect of Protestantism. Obviously these are groups of churches that associate with each other, but what makes each group an association, denomination, or fellowship? Is there even a meaningful difference? Are some of these interchangeable?

Part of the "Arminian" position (as I understand it) is essentially as follows: Fallen people are of such a morally corrupted nature that, when hearing the gospel of how they can and must be saved by the finished work of Christ through repentance and faith, they would never respond in repentance and faith unless the Holy Spirit was also working in their hearts to help persuade them. Only when the hearing of the gospel is accompanied by the gracious and powerful wooing of the Spirit ("prevenient/enabling grace") are they then faced with a choice that has the capacity to go either way - namely, the choice to yield to or to resist the gracious calling of the Spirit to accept the gospel message. [That is, for example, how Arminians would typically understand [John 6:44,65](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+6%3A44%2C65&version=NKJV).] My question is: > Do Southern Baptist traditionalists agree with this viewpoint? Are there significant differences among Souther Baptist traditionalists on this matter? From listening to Prof Leighton Flowers (a leading apologist of Southern Baptist traditionalist soteriology), I get the impression that he and other traditionalists would disagree with this viewpoint. It seems that instead, traditionalists believe that the will of fallen people is, in and of itself, of sufficient libertarian freedom to be able to respond positively to the message of the gospel (though this belief is by no means to the negation of the fact that God does help persuade people's free will in the direction towards accepting the gospel). From this, one might assume that traditionalists are (on these particular matters) a form of semipelagian. But Prof Flowers strongly refutes this, stating firmly that traditionists reject the idea that fallen people would ever take an initiative step in seeking God. To me, this is quite an interesting and subtle distinction that is being raised here: Why would people's will be sufficiently libertarian to be able to respond positively to the gospel message without the necessity for additional help, and yet not sufficiently libertarian to be able to initiate, prior to hearing the gospel message, a search for a means of reconciliation with God such as would be answered in the gospel? This makes me wonder whether I have misunderstood something. [Regarding John 6:44,65, I think Prof Flowers understands these verses specifically in connection with a judgmental hardening of the Jews.]

When someone dies their soul either goes to heaven or to hell, there is no true end for a soul, only for the body because energy cannot be created or destroyed. By the same token, when someone is born their soul couldn't have been created, therefore the soul must have already existed? At some point in the development of a baby, the ensoulment happens. When exactly this happens is not a universally-agreed-upon thing and may in fact be considered a controversial topic due to the atmosphere around abortions. This entire subject is completely out of the topic of this question. My question is simply, where does a new human being's soul come from, since it can't have been created? Since Christianity does not follow the idea of reusing souls, i.e. reincarnation, and souls cannot be created or destroyed, where do "new" souls come from? Concerning denominations, I am interested in hearing for all, but since one needs to focus on one, I would prefer Southern Baptist.

I live in Kentucky, and a predominant preacher in this state is a man named Paul Chitwood, who is the executive director of the Kentucky Baptist Convention. In 2015, Chitwood wrote an article called [Kentucky Baptist and marijuana](https://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/kentucky-baptists-and-marijuana) . My concern is not whether a child should be taken from their parents for consuming a [plant that’s less harmful than sugar](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/30119/does-the-dea-have-authority-to-prohibit-any-substance) . According to the Southern Baptist Convention, what is the Biblical basis for using the government’s aggression against people who do not live up to their own ideological standards- such as people with dependency issues?

There is an old man in our neighborhood who is a member of a Southern Baptist congregation, though for various reasons he does not attend the local church. He asked me what I thought about the question, "Might a person read the Scriptures, remembering Jesus and the Cross, and take communion (the wine and the flat bread) alone at home, by one's self?" He reminded me that various wealthy people throughout history had their own chapels, priests and attendants that served the communion supper, "at home alone." Do the Southern Baptists have a position on private home-communion?

It seems that some doctrines and beliefs are not taught openly. I was curious, what is the Southern Baptist doctrine regarding predestination? Do they believe in unconditional election or complete lack of free will?

Is there is a list of which translations of the Bible are accepted by the Southern Baptist Convention?

Does the Southern Baptist Convention consider other religions like Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam evil, demonic, and satanic?

The Bible often speaks of death as "sleep" and Ecclesiastes 9:5 says dead aren't aware of anything. Yet many Christians claim reward or punishment begins immediately when one dies. If there is really no death, but just immediate transformation from physical to spiritual beings what is death? Why do these same Christians speak about the resurrection which means standing back up to life? I would like a Southern Baptist perspective.

I've heard Christopher Hitchens say this a few times now, > We are the pure and chosen few And all the rest are damned There’s room enough in hell for you We don’t want heaven crammed. I've found it on cited on [Slate](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2011/10/is_mormonism_a_cult_who_cares_it_s_their_weird_and_sinister_beli.html) . What is the origin of this rhyme? Slate says it is southern Baptist but nothing more. It's not in the Bible itself (I searched).

It's Catholic Dogma that Jesus was one man with two natures. I was reading an answer to a question on this site where a brother in Christ of the Southern Baptist persuasion was talking about "the man Jesus". Is this just a figure of speech or does it hearken back to the days of Arius when it was fashionable to talk about Jesus being sometimes God?

In the Old Testament God meted out his justice through people, or he himself meted out justice immediately through his own hands: All Scripture is quoted from the King James translation. > Exodus 19:12 and 13 And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death: 13 There shall not an hand touch it, but he shall surely be stoned, or shot through; whether it be beast or man, it shall not live: when the trumpet soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount. > > Exodus 2:12 And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand. > > Numbers 14:11 and 12 And the LORD said unto Moses, How long will this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they believe me, for all the signs which I have shewed among them? 12 I will smite them with the pestilence, and disinherit them, and will make of thee a greater nation and mightier than they. However, with the advent of Jesus another precept was initiated. >Matthew 5:21 and 22 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Here we find Jesus not only directing us not to kill, not to even berate them for what they say. As a Southern Baptist I must wonder why the Same God, would change his Justice imposition so drastically. Is there any explanation for this in any doctrinal belief in any denomination which addresses this?

Is it true that the Southern Baptist denomination marks no distinction between member and non-member, Christian or non-Christian, in that *everyone* is encouraged to participate in the events (sitting in the sanctuary during worship service, engaging in Bible Study groups, participating in charities, going to Sunday school, donating money to charity programs, etc.)? Or does this behavior vary from congregation to congregation (since the entire denomination operates on a congregational level by direct democracy), where some congregations may be more open to outsiders and some congregations may only reserve activities for believers or for members only, but the only difference between a member and non-member is that the member is allowed to vote and assume leadership? So, a person can be a regular churchgoer, hearing the sermons every week and sending the children to Sunday school, and not really become a member or become baptized until the person chooses to assume leadership in the church community? I suspect that it all boils down to the Baptist belief that baptism is the outward sign of inward conversion. Therefore, a person may choose to remain unbaptized or not officially become a member, unless the person wants to assume leadership roles, such as deacon.