Every now and then someone will raise the ques­tion, "Are Baptists Evan­gelicals?" A short definition of an evangelical is one who identifies with and defines himself by the theological heritage that came out of the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century.

I don’t believe that it is a liability to stand alongside the theological giants of the 16th centu­ry. Nor am I embarrassed to identify with a leading exponent of evangelicalism (note his influence in the beginning of Christianity Today) and the most famous Southern Baptist of the 20th century, Billy Graham, who has been associated with evangelicalism his entire life.

Why did some Southern Baptists object to the label, "evangelical"? I believe there are three primary rea­sons.

First, evangelicalism is identified with a fairly definite set of doc­trines. Some Southern Baptists believe that the only doctrines that define us are "priesthood of believ­ers" and “soul competency.”  While I believe these doctrines without a question, you don’t get a true Baptist just by mixing these together and baking for 45 minutes.

Second, evangelicalism for some conjures up the idea of a rigid doc­trine of inerrancy. The fact is, the first generation reformers them­selves did not work out elaborate doctrines of scripture.  Calvin’s doctrine of the knowledge of God is instructive but not exhaustive.Third, some believe "evangelical­ism" is synonymous with "Calvin­ism," and that is the current SBC theological "hot button."

I believe with Baptist theologian and former Baylor professor, Bernard Ramm, that Baptists are, indeed, proud heirs of what he called "the evan­gelical heritage."

What is that heritage?

In short, evangelicalism affirms, first, the final authority of Scripture in matters of faith and ethics (sola scriptura).      

Second, evangelicals affirm "sal­vation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone for the glory of God alone." This definition does not harmonize with the Council of Trent and the Roman Catholic doc­trine of justification.

Third, evangelicals subscribe to the "priesthood of all believers," a doctrine carefully crafted to correct the medieval abuses of the Roman Catholic Church.

Someone may object—“don't we criticize the reformers' doctrine of the church?” Yes, and rightly so. But ecclesiology (the doctrine of the church) is not of the essence of evangelicalism.  The reformers themselves fought about this. Soteriology (the doc­trine of salvation) is the essence of evangelicalism. Furthermore, the authority of Scripture was an evan­gelical essential necessitated by the egregious control of doctrine by the papacy.

Someone else may object—“why would we want to define ourselves with reference to ‘Protestants.’ Baptists have never been Protestants since we were never part of the Roman Catholic Church?”

There is a school of Baptist history that argues that Baptists are not Protestants.  I accept some of their convictions.  But it is also true that Baptists, while distinct from Lutherans, Presbyterians (Calvinists), and other groups that emerged in the 16th century, were also influenced by the theological developments that came out of the Protestant Reformation.  British Particular Baptists and early American Baptists were powerfully branded by the theology that came out of this movement.

Another objection could be that it is uncharitable and unnecessary to continue using terms that emphasize past grievances with the Roman Catholic Church when many of those issues are no longer relevant.  Furthermore, they might say, our goal today should be reconciliation and fellowship rather than sectarianism.

I have a great deal of sympathy with this point.  But the facts are that many of the doctrinal concerns addressed by the Reformers have never been satisfactorily addressed by the Roman Church.  The point is not to keep alive past grievances but to stay true to scripture, even when the commitment to truth makes fellowship with some groups more difficult.

If you listen to some folk, you would think that being a Baptist is about believing three things: the priesthood of believers, the separa­tion of church and state and auton­omy of the local church. Those doctrines are “baptistic,” and they are important.   But commitment to those beliefs does not preclude our claiming the Refor­mation as an important formative force for doc­trine.  

The root reason why some reject identifying Baptists with evangelicalism is possible to discern. They have been party to a view of scripture that is contrary both to the Refor­mation tradition and the Baptist heritage.  They seem to think it is better to leave their bibliology (the doctrine of scripture) unstated than to state it and be found to embrace views that are foreign to both the evangelical heritage and to historic Baptist theology.

I am one who is extremely proud of our Baptist heritage.  I sympathize with the “radical reformation,” as the early Baptist and Anabaptist movement has been called.  But I also identify with that great revival called the Protestant Reformation.  I don’t have to disown my Baptist brethren to do so.  Neither do I whitewash the harsh treatment of Anabaptists by some of the Reformers.  There’s no denying it; it happened.  

So I’m an evangelical Baptist—or a Baptist evangelical.  Where’s the problem?

Alan Day, Senior Pastor