Distinctive Baptist Beliefs:
Nine Marks that Separate Baptists from Presbyterians
Distinctive Baptist Belief #1—
Soul Competency, the Priesthood of Believers, and Religious Liberty

August 24, 2011


By Dr. Lemke, Provost, Professor of Philosophy and Ethics, occupying the McFarland Chair of Theology, Director of the Baptist Center for Theology and Ministry, and Editor of the
Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.


Calvinists, Arminians, and Baptists Together for the Evangelical Gospel

All denominations that broadly share the Reformation heritage share more beliefs in common than beliefs that differ. This is true of Baptists, Arminians, and Presbyterians/the Reformed tradition – we agree on many more points than we disagree. Like most evangelicals, we share the same affirmation of orthodox Nicean Christianity, along with other key beliefs accented in the Reformation:

Sola Scriptura – Scripture is the ultimate plumb line for all Christian truth claims.

Soli Deo Gloria – God alone deserves glory.

Sola Gratia and Sola Fide – Salvation by grace alone through faith alone.

Solus Christus — Salvation is available only through Christ because of His substitutionary atonement for our sins.

The Sovereignty of God over All His Creation – This is our Father’s world.

The Security of the Believer – God secures the salvation of the believer (not affirmed by some Arminians).

The Perfect Omniscience and Complete Foreknowledge of God – God knows all things – past, present, and future.

The Imperative of the Proclamation of the Gospel by the Church – The Great Commission must be obeyed.

Despite these many points of agreement, it is the points of disagreement that garner the most attention.[1] In an earlier post entitled “The Middle Way,” I asserted that we centrist Baptists are “the middle way” between Arminians, on the one hand, and Calvinists/Presbyterians, on the other. Since some reviewers of our book Whosoever Will (which was, after all, a critique of five-point Calvinism) associated the contributors to Whosoever Will as being nearer Arminianism than Calvinism, I listed at least twelve points of doctrinal disagreement between centrist Baptists and Arminians. In this series, however, I would like to point out nine points of difference between centrist Baptist beliefs and the Presbyterian/Reformed tradition.

Given my involvement in the John 3:16 Conference and in writing Whosoever Will, some readers might expect me to begin listing the five points of Calvinist soteriology as the main points of difference between Baptists and Presbyterians. It is true that centrist Baptists such as me may disagree on several of these points with persons who imbibe in the Reformed tradition, but it would be inaccurate to say that the five points as popularized in the “TULIP” were the main points of difference between Reformed and Baptist theology, or that these so-called “doctrines of grace” are foreign to Baptist theology. In fact, the Particular Baptist tradition plays a long and deep role in Baptist theology, a role that is seeing a revival (I use the word circumspectly with regard to this subject matter) in our day. It is possible for a five-point Calvinist to affirm most or all of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, though it is sad for me to see increasing numbers of Calvinistic-leaning churches and church plants who ignore or eschew our SBC confession of faith, apparently because of their inability to affirm it, and endorse other doctrinal statements instead which they apparently find more consonant with their beliefs, such as the Second London Confession, the similar Philadelphia Confession, or the Abstract of Principles.

At any rate, these nine Baptist doctrinal distinctives I will discuss do not include the five points about soteriology. In fact, most of the nine points that I will be addressing were explicitly held by the Particular Baptists in contradistinction from the Presbyterian or Reformed theology from which they separated themselves. These, then, are distinctively Baptist beliefs. The first Baptist distinctive I will address is actually a cluster of interrelated beliefs — soul competency, priesthood of all believers, and religious liberty.

Distinctive Baptist Belief #1 –
Soul Competency, Priesthood of all Believers, and Religious Liberty

Calvin’s original model for Presbyterianism in Geneva was as an established state religion, a theocracy. When Presbyterians and their Congregationalist successors arrived in New England, they imposed the strictest limitations on religious liberty in the New World. After fighting a long rear guard action against religious liberty, the New England states were the last to relinquish Congregationalism as the established church. Even in the last fifty years, conservative Presbyterians such as R. J. Rushdoony have headed a movement known variously as Christian Reconstructionism, Theocratic Dominionism, or Theonomy, which would put the church in charge of civil government.[2] So, to say the least, Presbyterians have not been at the forefront of the fight for religious liberty.

It is an established fact of history that religious liberty is a doctrine most associated with Baptists. From our inception, Baptists have been separatists rather than establishmentarians; advocating religious liberty rather than the establishment of a state church. Many Baptists came to America seeking to avoid the religious persecution they had experienced in Europe, only to find it transported to America as well. Roger Williams, pastor of the first Baptist church in America, was exiled to Rhode Island from the Massachusetts Bay Colony because of his religious convictions. He wrote The Bloody Tenet of Persecution (1644) and The Bloody Tenet of Persecution, Made Yet More Bloody (1652) to protest the religious persecution in Massachusetts, driven by the established Congregationalist church associated with Jonathan Edwards and others. Imprisonment, taxation, whipping, and seizure of property were commonplace vehicles of persecution. John Clarke, who detailed persecution by Calvinist authorities in Ill News from New England, was imprisoned with Obadiah Holmes for the “sin” of ministering in Massachusetts. Holmes was also brutally whipped thirty times with a three-pronged whip. Governor Endicott explained that these Baptist ministers were being imprisoned because they “denied infant baptism” and that they “deserved death.”[3] Isaac Backus, originally a Congregationalist deeply influenced by Jonathan Edwards’ theology, helped restore Calvinistic soteriology to the Separate Baptists. But he was tireless in writing tracts and petitions for religious liberty in Connecticut. His mother, like many Baptists, was imprisoned for thirteen weeks for refusing to pay the tax for the established Congregationalist church.[4]

The Baptist leader John Leland, after playing a key role in winning religious freedom in Virginia and helping obtain the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, moved back to Massachusetts and experienced even more persecution. He wrote tracts such as The Rights of Conscience Inalienable; and therefore Religious Opinions not Cognizable by Law: Or, The Highflying Churchman, Stript of His Legal Robe, Appears a Yahoo (1791), in which he called for religious liberty in Connecticut for not only Baptists but for “Jews, Turks, heathen, papists, or deists.”[5] He even brought a 1,200 pound block of cheese to the White House on January 1, 1802, to lobby President Jefferson for religious liberty.[6] The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution became law in 1791, but the Presbyterian/Congregationalist established churches in the New England states doggedly fought against disestablishment, and Massachusetts did not disestablish the Congregationalist state church until 1833.[7] So while Baptists were at the forefront of the fight for religious liberty, Presbyterians and Congregationalists fought it in a delaying action for four decades after the First Amendment granted freedom of religion.

Baptists saw the need for religious freedom not just from their own experiences, but from their convictions about soul competency (individual responsibility and accountability before God), the priesthood of all believers, believer’s baptism, and a gathered church.[8] Only in a setting of religious freedom could individuals be free to actualize these foundational Baptist beliefs.[9]


[1] The “Baptist distinctives” literature includes the classic volume edited by J. M. Frost, Baptist Why and Why Not (Nashville: Sunday School Board, 1900), and is summarized in R. Stanton Norman, More Than Just a Name: Preserving Our Baptist Identity (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2001) and The Baptist Way: Distinctives of a Baptist Church (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2005).

[2] The classic presentation of this position is in R. J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, 3 vols. (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1973). More recently, Kenneth Stewart has built a strong case that it would be inaccurate to say that all Presbyterians are theonomists. See “Myth 7” in Kenneth J. Stewart, Ten Myths about Calvinism: Recovering the Breadth of the Reformed Tradition (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2011). While this is undoubtedly the case, it is beyond dispute that as a matter of history, persons in the Presbyterian and Reformed tradition have advocated state churches, and have not been strong advocates of religious liberty and separation of church and state.

[3] William R. Estep, Revolution within the Revolution: The First Amendment in Historical Context, 1612-1789 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 86-92.

[4] Ibid., 97-119.

[5] Ibid., 157-170. John Leland, The Rights of Conscience Inalienable; and therefore Religious Opinions not Cognizable by Law: Or, The High-Flying Churchman, Stript of His Legal Robe, Appears a Yahoo, is available online at http://classicliberal.tripod.com/misc/ conscience.html.

[6] Stephen Waldman, “The Framers and the Faithful: How Modern Evangelicals Are Ignoring Their Own History,” Washington Monthly (April 2006), available online at http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0604.waldman.html.

[7] An excellent survey of disestablishment of state churches is provided by Carl Esbeck, “Dissent and Disestablishment: The Church-State Settlement in the Early American Republic,” Brigham Young University Law Review (February 6, 2004), 1-69; available online at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3736/is_200402/ai_n9474018/pg_1. Esbeck notes that for John Adams in 1775, disestablishing the state church was about as likely as dislodging the planets from their orbits in the solar system (p. 44).

[8] BF&M, Art. 17. For more, see G. B. Eager, “Why Local Churches and Not State Church,” in Baptist Why and Why Not, 267-278.

[9] The next article in this series is “Baptist Distinctive #2 – The Age of Accountability.” If you would like to preview the entire series, you can see the larger article from which these posts are drawn, plus responses from three theological perspectives, from a paper presentation for the a conference sponsored by the Baptist Center for Theology and Ministry at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. You can see them at Steve Lemke, “What Is a Baptist? Nine Marks that Separate Baptists from Presbyterians,” Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry 5, no. 2 (Fall 2008):10-39, available online at http://www.baptistcenter.com/Documents/Journals/JBTM%205-2_Baptists_in_Dialogue_Fall_08.pdf#page=11.  It is posted in this blog format in SBC Today to facilitate discussion on these issues.

Leave a Comment:

All fields with “*” are required

 characters available

Dr. James Willingham

The Five Points in Baptist Life in America come first and foremost. Providence, Newport, Boston, Charleston, and a few other churches were Sovereign Grace from the start. These truths were what enabled the Baptists to be responsible and libertarian; they waited on God to act and faithful witnessed while they waited. It was the Regular or Particular Baptists as well as the Sovereign Grace believers among the Separate Baptists who came up with the solution that brought about the union between Separates and Regulars in 1787 in Virginia, viz, the rule allowing that the preaching that Christ tasted death for every man shall be no bar to communion. There was something about the soteriology of this theology that produced four of the greatest events in world history, after our Lord’s sacrificial work and the Great Reformation. These were the First and Second Great Awakenings, religious liberty, and the launching of the Great Century of Missions. The truths that many of the so-called Centrist Baptists cannot accept very readily are the lost masterpiece of Awakening and Mission theology. Rightly preached they evoke responsible behavior and produced balanced, flexible, creative, magnetic, and enduring believers and churches, spiritually mature Christians. Most Southern Baptists today do not know the facts, the biblical, theological truths, that were the mainspring of the phenomenal accomplishments in our history. We need more Baptist history and better informed Baptist historians to teach it.

Steve Lemke

Dr. Willingham,
Thank you for sharing your perspective, however, as noted in the article, this post is NOT about the five points of soteriology. I would be glad to discuss with you the actual topic of the article — the Baptist distinctives of soul competency, priesthood of all believers, and religious freedom.

Dr. Bob Kary

I thoroughly enjoyed reading your thesis interpretation of Baptist distinctives. Even more, it is a joy for me to connect once again with a man I greatly appreciated as a professor of mine at W.B.C.,and a basketball player. Pastor of First Baptist,Hoxie,Ar.

Ken Stewart

Dear Steve:
This looks to be an interesting series; I will be following it.
On this current item, though, I want to suggest that some categories get blurred.

1) It can be granted that the European and English experiments with state Protestantism left inadequate scope for religious liberty. (Pre-Reformation Catholicism had the same blind spot). Whether that state Protestantism was Lutheran, Anglican or Reformed/ Presbyterian made little difference when it came to religious liberty. So, to be fair to draw a Baptist/Presbyterian contrast is only one part of an admittedly larger picture. It could as easily be a Baptist/Anglican or Baptist/Lutheran contrast if one is considering the ‘old world’.
2) With this admitted, some further distinctions are needed. If one lived in Restoration England after 1662, Baptist, Presbyterians and Congregationalist preachers all did time in jail because they insisted on preaching outside the established church; their meeting places could be and were all ‘raided’. All were ‘nonconformist’ and ‘dissenting’. Whatever advantages had been guaranteed to the Presbyterian and Reformed tradition in Geneva or Scotland counted for nothing in a country where this viewpoint was not established by law. Thus, it needs to be admitted that the establishment idea is not intrinsic to the Reformed tradition. It had to do without it indefinitely in France, for example.
3)When these European Christian traditions were exported to the new world, unforseen things happened. The Congregationalists, persecuted in Old England, became the establishment in certain New England colonies such as Massachusetts and Rhode Island. To my knowledge, Presbyterianism was not ‘established’ with these kinds of advantages in any colony. In fact, in colonial Virginia (where Episcopalianism enjoyed establishment privileges comparable to Old England) Baptists and Presbyterians were both discriminated against as ‘dissenters’ much as they had been in England. Each gained considerable advantages when Episcopalianism forfeited this favored status in Virginia in the early 19th century.
All this is meant simply to serve as a caution against ‘absolutizing’ the tendencies of these traditions as if permanently at variance. Take away the state establishment of religion and Presbyterians and Baptists stand on the same ground.

Steve Lemke

Dr. Stewart,
I’m afraid I’m still seeing a rather sharp distinction on this issue. Yes, Presbyterian groups have been persecuted in some countries. But in every case in which they have had an opportunity, they have seized the opportunity to become the established state church, and have dominated and persecuted other Christian traditions. The early Anabaptists were persecuted in Geneva and Zurich, and hundreds of other such stories were repeated in post-Reformation Europe. The Baptists and Anabaptists have NEVER become an establishment church, and have opposed that notion even when they were in the strong majority.

Yes, these traditions were transported to America. The Congregationalists were not formally “Presbyterians,” but they were clearly in the Reformed tradition, and as I cited in the article, it was the Congregationalists who persecuted the early Baptists such as Roger Williams and Isaac Backus (as well as all other denominational and religious traditions). And, as I mentioned, it was the Congregationalists who drug their heels about relegating the dominance of their established church in states decades after Baptists lobbied for and secured the First Amendment through John Leland and others.

So, the result is this: persons in the Reformed tradition have classically and repeatedly stood strongly for being the established church, and have resisted efforts to take away that power. Baptists have NEVER favored being an established church, even in Rhode Island where they could have. And Baptists were and are at the forefront of the fight for religious liberty; while some thinkers in the Reformed tradition are still calling for theonomy. In my mind, this is as stark a contrast in beliefs and in historical precedents as one can draw.

Brad Whitt

Dr. Lemke,

Thank you so very much for this initial post and I look forward to reading more of what you have to share. I am so thankful for your thoughtful writing and research. It is a real help to young pastors like myself who are serving Jesus through local Southern Baptist churches. Have a blessed day.

Ron Hale

Dr. Lemke,
It seems that I remember reading that Baptists (in early 18th century) Virginia were imprisoned for child abuse — why? Because they chose not to baptize their infants.

Also, in some cases Baptist marriages were not viewed as be legal.

Have you seen these instances in your studies? Thanks for this valuable series!!

Dr. James Willingham

Dear Dr. Lemke: I am perhaps as well aware of Baptist and their distinctives as you are, having spent six years cover over 250+ sources and accumulating some 3000 5×8 notecards, written on both sides (so some 6000 pages of material), but I am protesting your separation of the doctrines of grace from the crucial issues of soul competency, the priesthood of all believers, and religious freedom. The early American Historian, George Bancroft, whose work dominated the American History scene for most of the 19th century, called the U.S. government a Calvinistic Republic. What he was referring to was the recognition by those who held to Sovereign Grace that one could not trust even the most religious in positions in any kind of government that tended to too much authority. After all, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The answer to the problem of depravity/disability (men being unable to resist their tendency to sin and usurpation) is a checks and balances type of situation. Thus, you have the separation of the various branches of the government, executive, legislative, and judicial with each branch having designated responsibilities.

The nursery for this whole situation was the Congregational and Baptist Churches (the latter being Congregational in church government). Thomas Jefferson thought of the local Baptist church near Monticello (I think it was the Buck Run Baptist Church, but I do not have my notes available at the moment) as an excellent nursery to prepare people for self government which is what the American Church government is all about. The Presbyterians were a little closer to the kind of government of the Congregational and Baptists, and there was actually a moving back and forth between the the Congregationalists and the Presbyterians on the part of Pastors (I think Jonathan Edwards first church was Presbyterian before he replaced his relative (grandfather, I think) in a Congregational Church).

Remember the works of Roger Williams, Dr. John Clarke, Isaac Backus, John Gano, John Manning, and other of the early Baptists in America were written on the issue of religious liberty from the perspective of Sovereign Grace which also happened to be the view point of their opponents and which they used as one of their weapons to
persuade their opponents that the doctrines of grace could have a different outcome.

In the long run those early Baptists won, and it would be remissness on my part to allow the idea that a discussion of soul competency, the priesthood of the believer, and religious freedom can really be conducted without the context of Sovereign Grace which was there always as a part and parcel of those truths. Also, I remind you that the First and Second Great Awakenings and the launching of the Great Century of Missions as well as the launching of the Southern Baptist Convention and our oldest schools grew out of that Sovereign Grace context and theology which nurtured and produced soul competency, the priesthood of the believer, and religious freedom.

Indeed, our very message involves such truths as Luther Rice the father of missions among Southern Baptists indicated long ago:
Speaking of the obligations of ministers to be faithful in teaching the
whole truth, in reply to one who seemed afraid to hear the decrees of
God adverted to in the pulpit, he says: “Does the brother mean to im-
ply that ‘purposes and decrees’ are not found in the Bible, and do not,
therefore constitute any part of ‘the gospel?’ If found here, why
should they not be preached? Ought not every preacher of the gos-
pel be able to say with Paul: ‘For I have not shunned to declare unto
you all the counsel of God,’….” James B. Taylor. Memoir of Rev. Luther
Rice. Baltimore, Md.: Armstrong and Berry, 1840. p.337.

I do not call attention to this to be contentious, but simply to affirm how closely linked the doctrines of grace are with the whole of the American experiment and with these truths of soul competency, the priesthood of the believer, and religious liberty. Remember, dear sir, how that the allowance for your position was done by those who held firmly to Sovereign Grace, but who saw the liberty and the wisdom in allowing for one who could not see past the statement in Hebs.2:9 where Christ tasted death for every man though they as the main body held to particular redemption. From such people America learned religious liberty, the priesthood of the believer, and soul competency. As George W. Truett declared in his Centenary Address for C.H. Spurgeon at the Royal Albert Hall in London where he was introduced by the Prime Minister of the British Empire, “Calvinism magnified the sovereignty of God and placed a crown on the head of the individual man,….It reminded man of his direct and inescapable responsibility to God.” George W. Truett, “C.H. Spurgeon Centenary,” The Inspiration of Ideals. Grand Rapids, Mi.: Baker Book House, 1950. reprt.1973.p.161.

Steve Lemke

Thanks for your comments, Dr. Willingham. I’m glad that you agree with me that the five points of Calvinistic soteriology are not among the things that divide Baptists from Presbyterians. As I said in the article, “it would be inaccurate to say that the five points as popularized in the ‘TULIP’ were the main points of difference between Reformed and Baptist theology, or that these so-called ‘doctrines of grace’ are foreign to Baptist theology. In fact, the Particular Baptist tradition plays a long and deep role in Baptist theology, a role that is seeing a revival . . . in our day.” And, as I also noted, “these nine Baptist doctrinal distinctives I will discuss do not include the five points about soteriology. In fact, most of the nine points that I will be addressing were explicitly held by the Particular Baptists in contradistinction from the Presbyterian or Reformed theology from which they separated themselves.”

So, I’m glad that you affirm that some Baptists and most Presbyterians affirm the “doctrines of grace.” I think you’re pretty safe from contradition with that assertion.

Dr. James Willingham

Dear Dr. Lemke: Your description of some Baptists and most Presbyterians might apply to today, but it beggars the facts to assert that concerning our predecessors (and in some cases, ancestors) in Baptist life in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. Those who were more Arminian, the General Baptists, for example, were neither very evangelistic nor missionary minded. The people who were were the Particular Baptists to whom you refer, and they are the ones persuaded others such as the General Baptists to become interested in evangelism and missions. Take, for example, Peter Peterson Van Horn and Benjamin Miller, ministers and representatives of the Philadelphia Assn. coming to North Caroline and persuading some General Baptist to change their views from general atonement to particular redemption. Following that for 46 years that group baptized 25-30 a year, and then in 1801 they experienced the Second Great Awakening and baptized about 872. As to the Confessions you deplore, especially the Philadelphia Confession of 1742 (which is the 2nd London Confession of 1689 with a few changes) and the Abstract of Principles which is the document of articles of faith to be signed by faculty members of Southern and Southeastern, a document prepared as you undoubtedly know by Basil Manly, Jr. And you must also know that the person who led in suggesting the founding of Southern and the actual efforts to establish that institution was Basil Manly, Sr., the esteemed father of the author of the Abstract. Please tell me what could possibly be wrong with a church adopting as a guide that Abstract? And, since most Baptist Histories and Records state that the main confession of many of our churches and associations in the South was the Philadelphia Confession, what could possibly be wrong about that? And why do you think the 2000 BFM should have a greater influence than the Philadelphia Confession and the Abstract (which reflects the influence of the Philadelphia and the Sandy Creek Confession of 1816, Basil Manly, Sr., being the link for both through pastoring FBC of Charleston and through his conversion, license to the ministry by Rock Spring Baptist Church (once an arm of Sandy Creek Church in the days of Shubal Stearns), and service to Sandy Creek Asn. as clerk and member of the Confession Committee in 1816? Since the Philadelphia Confession and the Abstract have been the source and spring and fountain of our great missionary and evangelistic effort, why should any one look with askance at such imminent documents. Sir, I call your attention to the reality that you represent those whom the Sovereign Grace believers of both the Regular Baptists and the Separate Baptists made room for in 1787 in the union of Separate and Regular Baptists. Fifty years after that date a church was founded in Missouri which took the name of Sardis United Baptist Church, and its confession was quite slearly Sovereign Grace. I had the privilege to pastor that church for a short period many years ago. Now you seem to be casting the very theology which made room for such as you in an unattractive light. That is what is raising questions about your whole approach and whether it is truly reflective of the history and theology of Southern Baptists.

sal

I find the distinction between the Baptist faith and Presbyterianism to be most helpful. We must realize that Calvinism is a system, that it is more than what pastors who dabble in or embrace “the doctrines of grace” often realize. Calvinism is really a belief about God’s sovereignty that reinterprets everything else. As a result of the broader view that is Calvinism, infants are baptized, presbyteriian polity is enforced, and a Christian civil order is sought with the hope that God’s rule on earth will be enjoyed by his saints before he returns; Rushdoony is a child of Calvin. Calvinists take grace very seriously. It is unfortunate that they take law just a bit more seriously. That really and ironically tips the balance in the wrong direction. Every time Calvinists have had their way historically, it turned ugly. The results have provided material for the horror genre.

Tamma

Hello Mr. Lemke,

Could you please tell me where to find this quote from R.J. Rushdoony, “Presbyterians such as R. J. Rushdoony have headed a movement known variously as Christian Reconstructionism, Theocratic Dominionism, or Theonomy, which would put the church in charge of civil government.”

I worked for his organization and have many of his books including the Institutes for Biblical Law and have never seen anything to say he would have the “church” in charge of civil government. He merely teaches that all Christians with a Biblical Worldview would do a much better job at instituting laws that support Biblical principles and creating true Christian liberty. I am not a great theologian but I believe him to be teaching individual Christians from all church backgrounds applying the truth’s of God’s Holy Word to all areas of life, not one church in charge of civil government.

Am I to understand that you think otherwise? Are you saying that Christian’s should not take dominion and occupy till our Lord returns? Or that the laws of our land should not be based upon the principles of God’s Holy Word?

Leave a Comment:

All fields with “*” are required

 characters available

Read Next

Distinctive Baptist Beliefs:
Nine Marks that Separate Baptists from Presbyterians
Distinctive Baptist Belief #2—
The Age (or State) of Accountability

By Dr. Lemke, Provost, Professor of Philosophy and Ethics, occupying the McFarland Chair of Theology, Director of the Baptist Center for Theology and Ministry, and Editor of the Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. Introduction All denominations that broadly share the Reformation heritage ...