;)
Lessons from John Smyth on Doctrinal Humility, Baptist Distinctives, and Christian Unity
Posted by David Rogers in Baptist Life
In my investigation of all things Baptist, I recently stumbled upon a 10-page work entitled The Last Book of John Smyth, Called the Retraction of His Errors, and the Confirmation of the Truth. John Smyth (1570-1612), as any good Baptist History student knows, is regarded by many as “a founder of the modern Baptist denomination.”
In the discussion several days ago that took place on Dave Samples’s post here on sbcIMPACT! entitled “A Contract With Southern Baptists – Part 1,” there was some consternation expressed regarding the use of the term “doctrinal humility.” It was interesting for me, with this in mind, to read the following words from one of our most renowned Baptist forefathers (I have taken the liberty to modernize the spelling, to make it more readable):
I am not of the number of those men, which assume unto themselves such plenary knowledge and assurance of their ways, and of the perfection and sufficiency thereof, as that they peremptorily censure all men except those of their own understanding, and require that all men upon pain of damnation, become subject, and capitulate, in their Judgment and walking to their line and level. Of which sort are those of our English nation, who publish in print their proclamation against all churches, except those of their own society and fellowship…now this is the Quintessence of the separation, to assume unto themselves a prerogative to teach all men, and to be taught of no man. Now I have in all my writings hitherto, received instruction of others, and professed my readiness to be taught by others, and therefore have I so often times been accused of inconstancy. Well, let them think of me as they please, I profess I have changed, and shall be ready still to change, for the better. And if it be their glory to be peremptory and immutable, in their articles of Religion, they may enjoy that glory without my envy, though not without the grief of my heart for them.
If you study carefully the life and writings of Smyth, you will discover that he never truly retracted or renounced his basic convictions on what we would call today “Baptist distinctives.” However, it is also very clear, in what he writes in this his final confession, that he was sorry for the attitude and manner in which he defended them.
For the truth of the matter I doubt not, but it is on my side. But the manner of writing is that alone wherein I have failed. For I should have with the spirit of meekness instructed them, that are contrary minded, but my words have been stout, and mingled with gall.
It is also evident that, when all was said and done, Smyth regretted spending so much of his time and effort arguing over and defending “Baptist distinctives,” rather than concentrating on those essential matters that bound him together in Christian unity with all other genuine believers.
The Articles of Religion which are the ground of my salvation, are these, wherein I differ from no Good Christian: That Jesus Christ the son of God, and the son of Mary, is the Anointed king, Priest, and Prophet of the church, the only mediator of the new Testament, and that through true repentance and faith in him who alone is our savior, we receive remission of sins, and the holy ghost in this life, and therewith all the redemption of our bodies, and everlasting life in the resurrection of the body. And whosoever walketh according to this rule, I must needs acknowledge him my brother. Yea, although he differ from me in divers other particulars.
…and if a sin of ignorance make a man an Anti-Christian, then I demand where shall we find a Christian.
My desire is to end controversies among Christians, rather than to make and maintain them, especially in matters of the outward Church and ceremonies; and it is the grief of my heart that I have so long cumbered myself and spent my time therein, and I profess that difference in judgment for matter of circumstance, as are all things of the outward Church, shall not cause me to refuse the brotherhood of any penitent and faithful Christian whatsoever. And now from this day forward do I put an end to all controversies and questions about the outward Church and ceremonies with all men, and resolve to spend my time in the main matters wherein consisteth salvation. Without repentance, faith, remission of sin, and the new creature, there is no salvation, but there is salvation without the truth of all the outward ceremonies of the outward church.
Reading the words of John Smyth has made me more grateful than ever for my Baptist heritage. I think that we as Southern Baptists would do well to take heed to these parting thoughts from the pen of one of the leading voices that paved the way some 400 years ago for us to be where we are at today.
________________________________________________
Quotes taken from:
John Smyth, The Works of John Smyth, Vol. II (Cambridge University Press, 1915), pp. 751-60.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Wow
David,
Thank you for bringing brother John into our discussion. It might more fully empower our audience at the beginning of this conversation to note where Bro. Smyth’s approach took him: At the time when he penned the words written above, he had long ceased to be a Baptist. The very subtitle of Lee’s work makes this plain, as does the first week of any Baptist History course. Smyth wrote this work not as a Baptist, but from the environment of a Docetic “celestial flesh” Christology. I’d say that he had developed a spirit far too generous in matters of doctrine!
Geoff
I agree with your comment, but for different reasons. To allude that John Smythe was a Baptist when he made those comments is disingenuous at best. First, John Smyth was not a Baptist when he made his retractions, but a Mennonite. The author of the book, Jason Lee, that Rogers cites recognizes that Smyth transitioned from being a Baptist to being a Mennonite in the book itself and even in the subtitle: “Puritan, Separatist, Baptist, Mennonite.” Thomas Helwys was the carrier of the Baptist tradition, and he separated from Smyth.
Second, this piece was written by a man who is arguing for Southern Baptists to accept Mormon baptism. Is David wanting us to accept a heresy (Mormon baptism) in the name of ecumenism, now?
One final thing, “Doctrinal Humility,” properly understood, is not accepting every wind of doctrine, as it seems David is doing, but in humbly standing immovable for the faith once for all delivered to the saints, and that faith includes the commands of Christ for the churches (i.e. Baptist identity)!
David,
We sure have drifted off course from what The Founder of the Baptist Church stood for.
I find that some have become Babbling Fools in their understanding of the Bible. Many have an absence of the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit in their Heart.
http://baptistidentitybloggercom.blogspot.com/
Galatians 5: 13-26
Wayne Smith
David
Are you saying that Thomas Helwys did not have doctrinal humility?
David Rogers,
What is your goal in all of this? Certainly, you knew that some of us would call your hand on the errors of Smyth due to evidence available for anyone with an interest to read, did you not?
Would it not be better for you to make an effort to clear up this thing about accepting Mormon Baptism in a post rather than to use straw, such as are Smyth’s theological conclusions, to build a bridge between truth and fallacy?
That bridge cannot be built, David. The gulf is just too wide.
cb
Robin,
Who, exactly, is wanting Southern Baptists to accept Mormon baptism? I missed that connection.
Geoff,
If I remember correctly, David Rogers said that he would accept the Mormon baptism of someone if they were truly saved before the baptism…because, the Mormons immerse, and it doesnt matter who the administrator of the baptism is.
David Rogers, are you calling for the so called “Baptist Identity” guys and gals to repent of lack of humility in standing on correct doctrine? Do you think that we are wrong in our insistence on holding onto doctrines that Baptists have held dear for centuries?
David
David Rogers said this at Tim Rogers place:
“Because the great majority of people being baptized by the Mormons are doing so because they have accepted the false gospel the Mormons teach. If, however, someone sincerely is trusting Christ, and the gospel of grace through faith, for their salvation, and the person who baptizes them in response to this faith, happens to be a Mormon, I do not believe their baptism is necessarily invalidated anymore than in the case of someone who is baptized by a “Baptist” pastor, who later is revealed to be immoral or heretical in their views. It is not the administrator that makes a baptism valid, but rather the motive of the person being baptized, the mode of baptism, and their authentic profession of faith.”
Robin,
Okay. But you said, “… this piece was written by a man who is arguing for Southern Baptists to accept Mormon baptism.”
Your statement and the quote from David don’t quite match. I see him offering his particular viewpoint on an issue, not “arguing for Southern Baptists to” do anything.
I am not defending David’s view. But I would urge you not to add “2+2″ and come up with “5.”
Geoff,
Let us then give grace to David as I think you are saying here.
Yet, I do appeal to you that in fairness to those who do greatly question his statement as to its actual intent; Do you not agree that David should make an effort to clear this matter up?
Surely, you would not want David, if he ever were to be able to interview potential candidates as IMB missionaries, to allow anyone who had been baptized as a Mormon to become a missionary representing Southern Baptist and the true gospel of Christ on the field.
We all make mistakes of judgement and we all speak hastily, especially on blogs, but this is a serious thing for an IMB missionary to say and I hope David will clear the matter up.
This is actually far beyond the issue of Jerry Rankin and his confession of PPL during his interview as president of the FMB.
Personally, I do not want it to be true that David Rogers believes we should accept a Mormon Baptism under any circumstances. I think we should give him opportunity to clear this up. Geoff, you and I may not agree on some things, but surely we can agree that David needs to deal with this issue before it escalates into a real problem for him.
cb
Geoff
I hope we can conduct this debate without a, “quick drive by” via arithmetic. Not very humble.
David Rogers is a missionary for the Southern Baptist Convention. He claims that he would not have a problem accepting someone into a church he is with who has been baptized in a cult if they believed correctly at the time of their baptism. David is a missionary not only representing God, but the churches that support him (i.e. the SBC). If he accepts and teaches that it is okay to accept a mormon into membership, he is saying (as a Southern Baptist missionary) that SBC churches back home advocate this practice. IOWs he is forcing the SBC to accept his idea of what the requirements of church membership should be.
Geoff, you can nitpick my statement in order to take the heat off of David and his willingness to accept cultish baptism, incorrectly revise Baptist history, or define doctrinal humility as accepting all winds of doctrine, but these points remain.
Are you not concerned over these issues?
David / Volfan007,
Can you believe that the mode of Believers Baptism was Pouring of Water.
In 1609, Smyth, along with a group in Holland, came to believe in believer’s baptism (as opposed to infant baptism which was the norm at that time) and they came together to form the first “Baptist” church.
Third, with his newfound position on baptism, a whole new concern arose for these “Baptists”. Having been baptized as infants, they all realized that they would have to be re-baptized. Since there was no other minister to administer baptism, Smyth baptized himself and then proceeded to baptize his flock. An interesting note at this point that should be brought to bear is that the mode of baptism used was that of pouring, for immersion would not become the standard for another generation. Before his death, as seems characteristic of Smyth, he abandoned his Baptist views and began trying to bring his flock into the Mennonite church. Although he died before this happened, most of his congregation did join themselves with the Mennonite church after his death.
Wayne Smith
I would have to agree with Geoff. This is a debating rhetorical circle. Can one debate the finer points without applying them in actual practice? I don’t see David “applying” his debate in practice – I would deny a person who was baptized a Mormon in a flash, requiring them to be baptized as a believer in Christ. No problem. I believe David would DO the same because he does represent the SBC and the churches.
Question – can one express a view point that challenges a position without challenging the man or one’s employment? Do we want to encourage free and open discussion – or do we want everybody to remain silent, only opening up for the “settled” point of view?
Let me be clear – if David’s quote is accurate (and I have no doubt at this point that it is) I am in clear opposition to it. And yet I know as a Christian that I often struggle intensely oftentimes with my held points of view. Do I openly discuss them, placing my head on the point of ridicule and shame? Or do my brothers and sisters willingly discuss my points with me? If anything the latter is “humble” while the former is __________ (fill in the blank).
Let us allow David to answer the question.
Rob
Rob
Baptism, a finer point? Especially by a cult?
Wayne,
I guess you believe that Smyth is the authority on baptism? If he poured, then he was wrong. Also, Wayne, Smyth seemed to be wrong about several things. He became a Mennonite.
David
Robin,
With respect, did you read my entire post – or did you just ignore it? You may argue against my semantics and my wording, but does that change the direction of my request? Or the fact that I agree with you?
Rob
Yes Rob, I did read it. Therefore my comment.
Do you deny that baptism, especially one done in a cult, is a finer point?
Rob
Let me follow that up with this, I do not mean to disrespect you or David, but this is a serious matter that we are talking about. I am afraid that electronic words don’t show our hearts often and I, like you would like to hear from David on this.
David,
I thought this post was very well written and I thank you for it. I wonder, when do you think the people commenting will actually deal with your point rather than attack you or Smyth?
God’s Glory,
Lew
The Pursuit Online Store
David Rogers,
Thank you for the quotes from John Smythe. From what I’ve read from his earlier writings, this is quite a change in his attitude toward doctrine. He was known to be quite hot-headed when dealing with those who disagreed with him.
I appreciate that he stands firm on those beliefs which distinguish someone as a follower of Christ. And, like he says, if someone holds to these same beliefs (and lives according to them, I would add), that person is a brother or sister, and should be treated as a brother or sister.
I think this statement is very important: “My desire is to end controversies among Christians, rather than to make and maintain them.” That seems to have been Paul’s goal as well. Of course, Paul did not compromise on the Gospel, as Smyth says he does not. But when it came to other important doctrines (food sacrificed to idols, viewing one day as more important than others), Paul chose unity instead of division.
Again, thanks for this post.
-Alan
Everyone,
I’ve been busy all morning, and just now able to get to the comments. Let’s see what I can do, one by one, at least with those that are asking for an answer…
1. The quote is not from Jason Lee’s study, but rather from the book cited at the bottom of the post. I think the picture of Jason Lee’s book was just added by our moderator, since there do not appear to be any portraits of Smyth available on the internet.
2. I do not claim to be an expert on Baptist History. I did read the entire 10-page work by Smyth though, and some of his biographical information available on various other sources.
I am aware that he had this quirky thing that Bart alludes to regarding docetic “celestial flesh” Christology. In his retractions, he writes that this is a matter that the gospel writers didn’t bother to specify, and he didn’t see it as a major issue (or something to that effect; I already turned the book back in to the library).
I am not defending Smyth’s views here. I do think it is significant that he is regarded by many as “a founder” and by some as “the founder” of the Baptist denomination. I see him as a sincere believer, doing the best he knew how to understand and obey the Word of God. He didn’t have access to a lot of the theological information and studies we have access to today. But, I certainly expect to find him in heaven.
Regarding his controversy with Helwys, and his transfer over to the Mennonites, if I understand correctly what I have read, there is a very ironic twist to all this. The reason Smyth went over to the Mennonites was because he came to feel his own self-baptism (or Se-baptism, as it is often called) was deficient. At first, he thought it was the only possible way to be obedient to Scripture, already having written off all the existing churches he knew of as invalid administrators of biblical baptism. Later, he discovered the Mennonite group in Holland, and found out that they also practiced believers baptism. So, he argued, he should have held off and not baptized himself, opting to submit to a group that was already practicing believers baptism. H
Helwys, however, argued that wherever two or three are gathered in Christ’s name, there is sufficient authority to baptize.
In other words, in the recent discussion over the importance of the administrator of baptism, it seems that Smyth, in his later life, identified more with the view of the “Baptist Identity” group, and Helwys, more with the group that says that the actual administrator is not important, but rather the conversion, and intention of the one being baptized.
However, if I understand correctly, Smyth’s motive for adopting this stricter view was not just to be more narrow regarding baptism. He was concerned that when you allow anyone and everyone to baptize you open up the door for all sorts of new churches and sects to start.
I happen to think that if we could teleport Smyth to our world today, and the already fractured denominational system in operation, that he would probably be more open to Helwys’s view. But, then again, it is practically impossible for us to know that.
The important thing, as Geoff, Rob, Lew, and Alan seem to have captured correctly, though, and the point I was trying to make, is not about Smyth’s actual doctrinal views, but rather about his turnabout in attitude, and his regret for the manner in which he defended his convictions earlier in life. I think all of us, no matter what we believe about each of these particular doctrinal details, can learn an important lesson from Smyth’s transparency and willingness to admit that he may have been wrong.
Now, regarding “Mormon baptism”…
The quote from Robin is accurate, but only partially so, because it was lifted out of context.
I was responding to a rather pointed question that Tim Rogers had asked, when I was making the point that the Bible really does not say anything about the importance of the administrator of baptism: “Why then do we not accept a Mormon baptism?”
It was in response to this that I said:
“Because the great majority of people being baptized by the Mormons are doing so because they have accepted the false gospel the Mormons teach. If, however, someone sincerely is trusting Christ, and the gospel of grace through faith, for their salvation, and the person who baptizes them in response to this faith, happens to be a Mormon, I do not believe their baptism is necessarily invalidated anymore than in the case of someone who is baptized by a “Baptist” pastor, who later is revealed to be immoral or heretical in their views. It is not the administrator that makes a baptism valid, but rather the motive of the person being baptized, the mode of baptism, and their authentic profession of faith.”
After this, I added:
“I would want to really cross-examine the person and make sure they did not really believe the Mormon false gospel when they were baptized.”
Then, Tim asked me a further question:
“Let me get this straight. You are saying that if a person came to the fellowship of the church from a Mormon church and you spoke with them and they told you they understood that Jesus Christ was their Savior, you would accept their baptism in the Mormon church as a valid baptism?”
And I responded:
“Not just saying “they understood that Jesus Christ was their Savior.” I would need to be convinced they really, truly were trusting in the finished work of Jesus on the cross, and in that alone, as the basis of their salvation, and that they understood their baptism as nothing more than an act of obedience to Jesus and a testimonty to their faith in him and him alone. I see the chances that this would occur in the context of a Mormon church to be extremely slim, though.”
Now, on the basis of this, several of you are saying that I “accept Mormon baptism” and that it would be okay to accept a “Mormon into membership.”
Let me make it as clear as I can here. If someone submits to the Mormon version of the Gospel, they do not believe the biblical gospel, and are not saved. And, thus, are unqualified to me a member of a Baptist church, or of a Christian church of whatever persuasion for that matter. If, however, they truly believe the gospel, even though they may have somehow gotten mixed up about what the Mormons believe, they are not truly a Mormon. They are a Christian. If, when they were baptized, they did it with the motive of being obedient to Christ, and as a testimony to their faith in Christ, and they believed a true gospel (not the false Mormon version of the gospel), I believe they were validly baptized, even though the doctrine of the one actually holding their body, and dipping them under the water was defective. In such a case, it was not a “Mormon baptism,” but merely performed by someone who happened to be a Mormon.
However, all of this is so convoluted and hypothetical, that I don’t really see the point in it all. I strongly doubt that anyone who truly believes the gospel is going to go to a Mormon in order to get baptized. And I would never, ever, not in a million years, suggest that they do so.
If this view makes me heretical, so be it. But, just like Luther at the Diet of Worms, if anyone can show me FROM THE WORD OF GOD where this is wrong, I will retract it. But until then, I am sticking with my understanding of what the Bible teaches.
Besides… if Baptism is simply a symbol, or Sacred Oath as I believe it was Zwingley put it, between yourself in God, then the officiator of that baptism makes no difference. If baptism doesn’t accomplish anything apart from a demonstration of loyalty and church membership then what does it matter.
But it sounds like Smyth was searching for authority outside of himself. What did he believe Baptism accomplished?
Alan Knox,
Smyth became a promoter of theological error. Therefore he did not end controversy. He simply compromised biblical truth and nothing more.
cb
Brett,
Like I said above, I do not consider myself an expert in Baptist History. However, if I had to guess, I would guess that Smyth was, in many ways, a product of his time. And that, even though he was revolutionary in many of his other views, he still struggled to get past the idea that had been taught for more than a 1,000 years without hardly being challenged, that only certain institutions, and individuals duly ordained by those institutions, have the authority to administer the sacraments.
Perhaps some of our resident experts in Baptist History might be able to shed more light on your question, though.
CB,
Since you addressed your comment #24 to me, I’m assuming that you are replying to my comment #21. However, I don’t understand to which of my statements you are responding. Since it is easy to misunderstand one another in this context, would you mind pointing out which of my statements in comment #21 you were replying to in comment #24?
-Alan
David Rogers,
I don’t think Luther would have said this. Do you, David?
Sometimes a fellow can cut the onion so thin it becomes liquid and ruins the salad for everyone.
You say; “However, all of this is so convoluted and hypothetical that I don’t really see the point in it all.”
You are right in saying that. It is for that reason we questioned you.
There was no point in saying it, other than to try to defend your position when in debate with Tim.
Tim was simply bringing your position to its ultimate conclusion by asking that question.
It was not unfair of him to do so. Nor, is it unfair of us to question you now.
Yet, some will defend you, no matter what you say, it seems.
I do realize Geoff and especially Rob were just calling for fairness toward you and they are to be commended for that.
Yet, for me the question grows larger as I asked in the beginning of this thread; What is your goal in all of this?
Why do you keep pushing toward or leaning to these errant positions?
cb
Alan Knox,
My response was to you saying the quote from Smyth was important.
Another question, if I may?
Do you teach Greek at SEBTS?
If so, whose supervision are you under?
cb
Brother CB,
Why do you find it necessary to ask such questions as you have directed toward Alan Knox in comment #28? You asked this of another commenter on another thread, thereby, at least as far as I can tell, in an attempt to impugn integrity in some manner. What are your motives for asking such questions?
Robin,
The book David cited was not by Jason Lee. That was merely one of the few available on-line book covers around. David clearly cited the name of the book that he quoted from in his post. I apologize for the confusion, and I have removed the picture. If anyone knows of an on-line representation of Smyth, please let me know.
So, this entire discussion of “Mormon Baptism” is completely off subject. I am so sorry that my simple inclusion of a picture took this excellent post in such a sad direction.
And I’m sorry that you somehow thought I lacked humility in my comment. I assure you that I was trying to be friendly in my encounter. I was (and still am) having some difficulty in following your circular argument that David was promoting the acceptance of Mormon baptism by Southern Baptists. I think David stated his position quite clearly in his response to you.
cb,
I’m not calling for fairness toward David. I just would like people to stay on the stinkin’ subject and somehow avoid character assassinations.
Like Alan Knox said, “I think this statement is very important: ‘My desire is to end controversies among Christians, rather than to make and maintain them.”
I quite agree. Important. Very important. To end controversies and disunity among Christians, that is.
Stuff like threatening peoples’ jobs, for instance.
Tony,
What other commenter did I ask if he taught at SEBTS?
Geoff,
How was this an excellent post? David’s post lead at least one reader to believe Smyth was a credible source as to Baptist identity.
Smyth was instrumental in Baptist history. He cannot be considered a credible source for Baptist doctrine.
David left that part of the story out of the post entirely. What were his motives for doing so?
cb
CB,
I provided a link to the comment in question in comment #29. It is highlighted in blue. I didn’t say you asked another commenter if he worked at SEBTS and who that commenter’s supervisor is.
What I am saying is that your motives in asking people about their vocations is incredibly suspect.
CB,
Which reader did David lead to believe Smyth was a credible source for Baptist Identity?
A credible source for Baptist Identity is not even close to being the point of David’s post (as he clearly pointed out in comment #22).
Lew
Geoff,
I missed your comment #31
Controversy will never be ended as long as some continue to promote error. That includes you, me and David Rogers.
Frankly, there will always be controversy relating to the faith. I think David realizes that.
What do you expect? David posted the statements of a person who was controversial all of his life. Were we all just supposed to say; “That’s great” because David thought he had made a discovery that would bring us all in line?
It just does not work that way.
Maybe you did not ask for fairness. Fine, you should have. Maybe Rob did not either. But, it was certainly my desire to be fair to David relating to the Mormon statement. He should have never have made the statement in the first place and It is my belief he now knows that.
I said in an earlier comment; We all made mistakes in judgment and say things hastily, especially on blogs. I said that to give David grace in hope he could clear the matter up.
I did not threaten David’s job. But, I will say that if David, you, me or any other Southern Baptist leader were to condone Mormon Baptism as biblical, somebody should threaten our job if we did not retract the statement and correct the error.
Geoff, there are some things that should not go unchallenged even if it brings about controversy or if David Rogers, or Paige Patterson says it.
The source of error is not important. Or, maybe for you it does hold importance.
cb
CB,
Like Lew asked, who did David lead down this path toward a discussion on Baptist identity?
David merely recognized Smyth as an early figure in Baptist history, then went on to quote some of his more “humble” statements in a post on “humility.
Every single blog post is not designed or intended as a portal into a discussion on “Baptist Identity.”
I wasn’t referring to a threat on David’s job, I was referring to your veiled threat against Alan Knox.
Yes, there will always be controversy and disunity within the faith. Their existence does not make them admirable. Humility and unity … those were the focus of Smyth’s quotes, and, I believe, the purpose of David’s post.
As such, I agree with the need for both notions … humility in the face of conflict with a brother and unity in the Body of Christ.
Tony,
Then simply ask me what my motive was for asking. Yet, I do not believe I have asked another person if he was employed at SEBTS.
My motive for asking is that it is amazing to me that a person who teaches at SEBTS takes some of the positions he does.
If that is what you want to know you had only to ask.
I had been led to believe he did teach there. That is why I asked the question. I just wanted to make sure before I stated my amazement.
So, I will ask again, Does Alan Knox teach Greek at SEBTS or not? And, if he does whose supervision is he under?
I am not going to call for his job. That would be a great joke now would it not? I just would like to know who is his direct supervisor because, for me, it would answer my questions as to why he takes some of the positions he does. I can’t be any more open toward my motivations than that, Tony.
If he does not want to answer, that is fine. It was not an unfair question. He comments on an open blog (maybe) and I ask a question of him on an open blog just like people have asked me questions and I do my best to give an honest answer.
cb
Geoff,
I could well be wrong here, but I doubt I have made very many veiled threats in my entire human existence.
I don’t like them and I don’t make them.
I just stated my motivation for asking the question in my last comment. That is the truth.
Obviously, you do not know much of my personal history or you would not in any way think I was threatening to seek anybody’s removal from SEBTS. Such a request from me would probably insure their employment at any SBC entity for their lifetime.
I don’t mean to be silly at the moment, but that is really funny. There are many others who would think it funny also.
cb
CB,
Once again, I did not accuse you of asking another commenter if he taught at SEBTS. Specifically, the comment thread I pointed you to was where you asked Steve Sensenig if he was a music instructor at Appalachian State University. It had no bearing on the conversation there. So you have not done this once, but twice.
I find it highly suspect that you find it necessary to ask people about their vocations, and without qualification, it does look like a veiled threat, as Geoff has pointed out. If you have a reason for asking, then state it plainly, at the outset of your comment. It will clear a lot of innuendo and speculation up to begin with.
I agree it is not an unfair question of Alan but the way you frame the question leaves a lot of room for other people who read this blog to speculate as to your intentions.
Further, Alan nor Steve have attempted to hide who they are. At both of their blogs they state plainly who they are and what they do. You can discover that information on your own without looking like you are attempting to malign integrity.
Geoff,
I am not avoiding the question about identity from Alan Knox or from you. Blogs are fast sometimes, sorry.
If you will go back to comment #4 you will find Wayne Smith signed it. It would take all day and night to give you every detail, but my answer is Wayne Smith.
cb
My question to Steve was in response to something he asked of me about environments we live in. I guess you should read my comments before you tell me what you think my intent is or is not. I don’t do that to you. I simply ask.
I have always practiced that. That is why I asked David Rogers the questions I have and I will continue to ask anyone else I have a reason. Feel free to ask my motives any time. If you go back to the thread you mentioned you will find that I am not lying here.
I am not much into maligning the integrity of anyone. If I think there integrity is in question I will say so very plainly. Tony, I am not that much of a hypocrite, yet. And hopefully, I won’t be.
The way you are now describing me is the way of a coward, Tony. I can assure you I have rarely ever been one and you will be hard put to provide a truthful witness to the contrary.
cb
Wow. And with that I am done ever looking at SBC impact again.
Is Smyth’s doctrinal openness in later life connected with his doctrinal heresy in later life (it is a heretical viewpoint, is it not, to deny the full humanity of Christ)?
I answer that it is. Smyth developed such an open mind that his brains fell out.
Robin, (#18, 19)
Maybe you did not like the word “finer”. Okay, I retract it. Let me edit my remark for you:
“Can one discuss doctrine….” – Now does that clear it up for for you?
Why did you have to ask the question about “if I consider Baptist important.” I said:
“I would deny a person who was baptized a Mormon in a flash, requiring them to be baptized as a believer in Christ.” Get that?
“Let me be clear – if David’s quote is accurate (and I have no doubt at this point that it is) I am in clear opposition to it.”
I still am – even with his disqualifies even now in place. I am willing however to grant him grace even when he is wrong. How in the name of all that is holy are we called to correct a brother in error? What does the inerrant word say?
“And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.” 2 Timothy 2:24-26 ESV
A lot of junk here lately has lost in my mind has lost the passion for this command. Let’s regain it shall we?
In His Grace,
Rob
David
Allow me to to explain why I feel your explanation does not clear up your willingness to accept someone who does trust Jesus as their savior who was also at the time of their salvation baptized in a mormon assembly. At my last church, two dear friends of my wife and me wanted to join the church. One was Baptist and the other was mormon and baptized in the mormon assembly when she trusted Christ for her salvation. I asked her about it and trusted that she was saved at that time. She had heard the gospel before, received Christ for the forgiveness of her sins and since she lived in Idaho and some mormons from the assembly there helped them. She decided to be baptized in their fellowship. Even though we loved them and they us (and still do to this day), I could not allow her to be a member of our church because the baptism she participated in was done under the doctrine of a cultish assembly and therefore was not valid.
David, if I understand you correctly, with the real scenario given, you would have accepted her into your local fellowship.
David, with all due respect, this is unacceptable to Southern Baptists. We believe Baptism is an ordinance of the church, not a cult. I really pray that you rethink this one.
Geoff
My argument is not circular. David represents Southern Baptists and their beliefs. Southern Baptists according to our confession, would not accept someone for membership who was baptized in a mormon assembly. By the churches of the SBC supporting him, David should be sensitive to this and not promote this type of inerrant theology.
Second, David’s remarks on baptism has everything to do with this post. David said we should take heed to these words, “And now from this day forward do I put an end to all controversies and questions about the outward Church and ceremonies with all men, and resolve to spend my time in the main matters wherein consisteth salvation.” Isn’t baptism an “outward ceremony” symbolically celebrating the salvation of the believer uniting with Christ and the body?
If anyone says they are putting an end to standing up for the doctrines that demand obedience, then there are no parameters by which we can cooperate.
My question to Steve was in response to something he asked of me about environments we live in.
CB, If you’re going to talk about me, get your story straight. You, sir, are either exceptionally deceived, or you are exceptionally dishonest.
In the context of that thread, you brought my employment into focus because you said I was incapable of thinking in absolutes.
It was a cheap shot, completely inappropriate, totally out of line for someone who is a minister of the gospel, and furthermore it was completely untrue.
I called you on it in the thread that got shut down, and you didn’t have the integrity to acknowledge what was plainly obvious.
I find your comments on this blog extremely inappropriate, and I have called you on it publicly. All you have done is deny and mock.
You seem to think that you can say anything derogatory about someone and then just deny it when called on it.
Face the truth, CB. Quit with all this bravado and realize that humility is exactly what is lacking in your comments.
CB,
The way you are now describing me is the way of a coward, Tony. Only because you say it is. I am not going to be dragged into a bizarre game of one-upmanship as you have done to so many others on this blog.
The fact that you resort to this kind of commenting is cowardly in and of itself. This blog is a place where ALL Christians can discuss matters of importance without threat of being maligned, impugned, or verbally accosted as you have proven to do so many times as of late.
I uphold your right (and anyone else who so chooses) to disagree with others on this blog and to express opinions, but I exhort you as a father (1 Timothy 5:1) to strongly consider your method of commenting. One can disagree and still be Christlike and kind. It is beneath you to make veiled threats, and they are. You are a very intelligent man, CB. I know. And I also know that you are better than this.
CB,
Thanks for your response in comment #28. However, I’m still not sure why my saying that Smyth’s statement that he desired to end controversies among Christians is important is related to your statement that Smyth became “a promoter of theological error” or that “he did not end controversy” (your comment #24). People do not always live according to their desires, even when their desires are good. I still believe that Smyth’s desire was a good and godly desire. Whether or not he accomplished that desire is another question that only God can answer.
I teach Greek at the College at Southeastern, not at the seminary. My direct supervisor is Russell Woodbridge and his direct supervisor is Pete Schemm. Their contact information is available on the seminary faculty page.
Although you did not direct this statement to me, you did say concerning me (in comment #37), “[I]t would answer my questions as to why he takes some of the positions he does.” As far as I know, you and I have rarely interacted on these blogs, so it is difficult to figure out which of my “positions” you are refering to. Could you help me understand?
-Alan
Tony,
I made no veiled threat. The question was of the nature I said it was. You are free to think what you want.
There is no game of one-upsmanship. I simply answered the question you asked of me to the best of my ability. If it does not correspond with what you had predetermined of my intent I can say no more.
Steve,
I did not bring you up. Tony did. I simply answered his question. You can say what you please here. The comment thread of that post will provide the truth. Maybe you should go back and read it again.
Steve, it is you who is dishonest. It is you who is without truth in this matter. Maybe you don’t mean to be but you are.
Tony, just because you have read something into what I said does not mean it exists. I made no threat to Alan, veiled or otherwise.
David put up a post that most anyone familiar with the subject, the recent discussions among us and even general Baptist history would have known would be controversial.
I tried to answer your questions honestly.
Thus far Alan, nor David has answered mine (David did answer the Mormon question, but that one did not originate with me). And Steve just pulls things out of the sky. And I think you know that, because you actually are an intelligent man and I am sure a better one than me.
Yet, you say nothing to him; not in this post or in the last one. That is OK. This is your blog and you can do what you wish. But, I also think you know I don’t deny things if they are true.
What Steve says is simply not true and I cannot make it true. And that is no bravado. That is just fact.
cb
Alan,
I know Russell and I know Pete. I am glad to hear they are your supervisors. I was afraid it was someone else.
The reason for my statements about “positions” actually has more to do with your own posts than this one, especially the one on ecclesiology. When I saw you taught Greek I had an idea you had been influenced by someone I know to have some of the same ideas of ecclesiology as do you.
I really do not know much about Russell’s or Pete’s ecclesiological positions. I do know they are good guys.
I do need to clear something up with you now that you have addressed my question. Tony is wrong. I made no veiled threat toward you relating to your job at SEBTS. If it appeared to you that way I apologize to you. I do not owe Tony an apology for his view of my motives. All he had to do was ask. he finally did and he obviously does not believe the answer.
Alan, it really would give you almost absolute job security if I ever challenged your position at not only SEBTS, but at most any board, agency or institution in SBC life. I promise you my brother, that it was not my intent to threaten your job in any way. The thought was never part of my comment to you nor was it within the framing of my question. Maybe it was because I ask the question as if we were having a dialogue across the table from one another. maybe that is the reason Tony (or Geoff) thought I was threatening your employment.
Nonetheless, please know I would be the last person on earth to go after your job at SEBTS and that is a fact.
cb
Steve, it is you who is dishonest. It is you who is without truth in this matter.
CB, do you care to continue your accusations against me without specifics? Or will you continue to malign me without shame?
I have been very specific in pointing out my concerns about your comments. Yet you ignore my specific concerns and simply retort with more slander, more accusations, more ungodly comments.
And you continue to twist people’s words. To wit: You wrote: I did not bring you up. Tony did. However, I never said that you brought me up. I said, “If you are going to talk about me….” There’s a big difference there.
This is just another example of where you continue to dodge the seriousness of what you are being confronted with by evasion.
Behavior like yours is very serious, CB. Is there no one holding you accountable? Is there no one for whom you hold respect who has brought this to your attention?
You are right – the thread is there for all to see. And all can see that you accused me of being affected by the environment in which I work, and the fact that I explained to you that the School of Music where I work is not the environment that you assume it is. And all can see that I stated my absolute beliefs for you, yet you failed to acknowledge your false accusations. And all can see that I called you on your personal attacks and you simply blew off my comments.
The administrators of this blog can ban me if I am not being truthful in this matter, CB. Your accusations are baseless (which is probably why you don’t bother giving specifics), and they are outright lies.
For the umpteenth time, that is behavior that is unbecoming of a man who is a minister of the gospel. The passage that Rob Ayers quoted above is the same passage I reminded you of in the thread to which we are now referring. And it was that reminder that you blew off and refused to humble yourself to acknowledge.
CB,
If you have a real question for me, I will be happy to answer it. The only questions I can find from you that I have not already answered seem to me to be rhetorical questions. But, maybe you intended them otherwise. You will have to help me out again, if such is the case.
CB,
I’m assuming that you are talking about Dave Black. He is my PhD mentor, although he does not supervise me as a Greek instructor, which seemed to be your question. In many ways, our (Dave Black’s and my) views of the church are similar. In other ways, they are different. Somehow, in spite of those differences, we manage to have a great relationship with one another in Christ.
Yes, when you asked my supervisor’s name, it did appear that you were questioning my ability to do my job, and that you were attempting to threaten my job. While I did not consider it a threat, since my job security is in God’s hands and no one else’s, I do appreciate your apology and I accept. Knowing how your statement appeared to me, I would assume that it appeared as a threat to David Rogers and Steven Sensenig in comments on earlier posts. If you do not intend this kind of statement to be a threat, and since three people have now thought that it was intended as a thread, perhaps there is a better way to ask your question or to explain your intention as you are asking.
In case you were wondering, since you’ve asked this question of others, I did sign that I would teach according to the BFM2k, and I do just that. Greek is a great language… its because of my study of Greek that I hold many of my ecclesiological positions.
Thank you for clarifying your statements.
-Alan
John Smyth was quite a tragic figure. We give him some credit for founding a church in 1609 that had believer’s pouring (affusion) rather than sprinkling of babies, but pouring is not biblical baptism and is therefore deficient. Immersion came into practice among Particular Baptists in 1640-41 when Richard Blunt was immersed by some Dutch Anabaptists and then came back to England and began immersing other people. Helwys cautioned the Mennonites about Smyth. Smyth was never accepted by the Mennonites, and he died in 1612 without membership in any local church. Leon McBeth commented on the recovery of immersion among Baptists in England:
“The Baptists restored the ancient mode of baptism by immersion, which they believed was taught in the New Testament and required by their theology of baptism. The Particular Baptists led the way in this, adopting immersion in 1640-1641. We have no definite proof that General Baptists regularly immersed before 1660, though they probably did so by mid-century. We have shown earlier that while John Smyth recovered believer’s baptism in 1609 he never immersed. Most of the Anabaptist groups baptized by affusion or sprinkling, though by 1619 a group of Collegiant Mennonites, called Waterlanders, adopted immersion. However, there is evidence that General Baptists were aware of immersion, and some apparently advocated its practice. An observer in 1611 in Amsterdam identified Leonard Busher, a Dutchman, as ‘an Anabaptist of another sort,’ along with Smyth and Helwys. Busher wrote a remarkable treatise on religious liberty, entitled Religion’s Peace, published in London in 1614. In this treatise, Busher advocated baptism by immersion, almost thirty years before the Particular Baptists did so. . . . The fact that one person advocated immersion is no proof that he or others actually put the idea into practice or that they did so as a regular custom. Henry Jacob as early as 1610 spoke of ‘dipping’ as the biblical mode of baptism, but apparently made no effort to restore that practice in his church.”
McBeth, The Baptist Heritage (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1987), 44-45.
David, you said the following:
“It is also evident that, when all was said and done, Smyth regretted spending so much of his time and effort arguing over and defending ‘Baptist distinctives,’ rather than concentrating on those essential matters that bound him together in Christian unity with all other genuine believers.”
I don’t think that Baptist (i.e. biblical) distinctives can be neatly separated from “those essential matters” that bind all Christians together. Let me give you an example. On May 17th, I had the opportunity to preach the gospel to a crowd of 285 people at a block party in front of a junior high school. Many people of course have a faulty understanding of the plan of salvation. The leader of the block party ministry, who had a lot of experience in that ministry, warned me that many people at such block parties think they can be saved multiple times. Thus, such people often respond quite readily to an invitation to accept Christ in such a situation if the speaker does not carefully clarify the invitation. Using a somewhat modified EE presentation, I was very careful to explain that we are not saved by good deeds, that God’s standard is perfection, that Jesus as a perfect sacrifice paid for sins on the cross, and that we must make a once-for-all-time commitment to surrender our lives to Christ in repentance and faith. I defined repentance and faith. I could not neatly separate out our once-saved-always-saved Baptist doctrine from “those essential matters” that bind all Christians together. I did not emotionally manipulate the crowd or throw out a vague invitation to achieve big numbers; rather, I believe that my invitation had doctrinal integrity. This need for doctrinal integrity also applies to baptism. We Americans are very individualistic, and it is difficult for us to understand that baptism has a group aspect to it. The 2000 BF&M describes baptism as a “testimony.” It is not a private testimony to God by the baptismal candidate. It is a public testimony in which the candidate by being baptized professes his faith in Christ to a group of people. Thus, when a person is immersed by a Church of Christ group or a Mormon group, even if the person does not believe the doctrines of those groups, the baptism is invalid because the testimony to the public is wrong. By being baptized by representatives of those errant groups, the person is identifying himself with their errant doctrines. It is thus not a biblical immersion, and Southern Baptist churches should not accept such an immersion.
Alan, just to clarify a little nitpick:
Knowing how your statement appeared to me, I would assume that it appeared as a threat to David Rogers and Steven Sensenig in comments on earlier posts. If you do not intend this kind of statement to be a threat, and since three people have now thought that it was intended as a thread, perhaps there is a better way to ask your question or to explain your intention as you are asking.
Just to clarify, I didn’t think that my job was being threatened. My job, however, was completely off-topic and was only brought up to undermine my participation in the discussion that was taking place.
So, it was a disparaging comment, to say the least, but I did want to clarify that I did not technically feel that my job was being threatened — just that I was being falsely judged on the basis of my employment. I’m sure CB will be very quick to deny threatening my job on that basis, so I’ll just end his game before it starts.
Steve,
Thanks for clarifying. You are correct. CB did ask about your job, but in a different manner.
CB,
In my previous comment (#53) I forgot to ask you a question. In comment #48, I asked, “As far as I know, you and I have rarely interacted on these blogs, so it is difficult to figure out which of my ‘positions’ you are refering to. Could you help me understand?”
To this question, you replied (in comment #50), “The reason for my statements about ‘positions’ actually has more to do with your own posts than this one, especially the one on ecclesiology.”
By your response, I’m assuming that you are referring to a post on my own blog. But, about 95% of my posts are about ecclesiology. That is the topic of my PhD studies and the primary topic of my blog posts. Again, could you help me understand which of my “positions” was cause for your concern?
-Alan
Alan,
I never threatened Steve. That is just without merit. I made a statement about knowing the environment he was in. He responded . I then ask if he did in fact work at ASU. My reason for asking was that I actually do know that environment very well. Many who teach there are not much into absolutes. That was the reference, I think. (please know I am off the cuff here)
It is true that I did question David as an IMB missionary and I still do. I really would like for that to change, but he continues with the city-church idea and that will lead ultimately to an ecumenicism that will hurt foreign missions. I do not think David is bad or evil. I think he is very much like the Plymouth Brethern in his ecclesiology. The PB are good folks and I have great respect for them. I have worked along side them in Kingdom efforts, but they are not Baptists.
The fact is that David has on more than one occasion asked openly if someone thought he was not Baptist or a proper candidate for an IBM missionary due to his positions. Please do not ask me to produce the quote. I am not going to do that. David and others know he has made that challenge. I simply took up the question a couple weeks back.
I did not threaten him today. I simply asked him to answer a question and then asked other to give him time to do so.
I hope we are clear here. I did not threaten your job. I do greatly question your ecclesiology. I think you would, in turn, question mine. That is all there is to this.
If we had been able to talk across a table all of this would have come forth in a natural manner. As it was, Tony and Geoff came to your defense. I can’t fault them for that. I have come to the defense of others in a blog thread many times. I have defended Ben Cole many times and it has been costly. That is also fine. I would do it all again.
cb
Alan,
Thank you. I should have stated it was about you posts. I should not have used the word “one.” I have read several of your post on ecclesiology including the “chain posts” on the city-church.
cb
Alan, I’ve enjoyed Dr. Hammett’s book, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches. Have you taken one of his Ph.D. seminars?
I really wish people would stop saying things like “Baptist = Biblical”. Not all Baptists believe the same thing, someone has to be wrong, and if there is one person wrong, then it cannot be defined as Biblical. Period. Unless you can prove to me that all Baptist believe in the exact same way, stop saying it is equal to “Biblical”.
CB,
You may have missed my question (and Geoff’s). Who read David’s post and thought that Smyth would be a good resource to understand Baptist Identity?
Actually, as I was thinking about this, I decided Smyth would be a good resource to understand Baptist Identity. Like it or lump it, Smyth is part of the Baptist History and thus in a way helped form the Baptist History. Knowing the present is often done best by understanding the past… even if they turned out to be weirdo’s.
God’s Glory,
Lew
Lew, sorry about that. Let me be more specific. I think every belief expressed in the 2000 BF&M is biblical.
Lew,
I think I made a comment to the effect that Smyth was a part of Baptist history and that he was not so much related to our theology. That is not a perfect quote, but it is close. I can assure you I have read our past.
cb
Lew,
I am sorry if I missed your question. I think there is evidence here that it was by oversight and not by intent.
cb
cb,
This is totally off topic, so if Geoff wants to delte my comment I’ll totally understand. But I’m curious–in your concerns about David’s city-church idea–why the IMB’s adopted guidelines about levels of involvement with other GCCs aren’t sufficient? He’s offerend some commentary on them, sure, and probably wouldn’t have written them if he were a trustee. But he isn’t.
If IMB missionaries are working in compliance with those guidelines, where is the threat to Southern Baptists’ international missions enterprise.
I’m not trying to be argumentative, just curious. It seems the appropriate safeguard is already in place.
Baptist Theologue,
Thank you for your honesty.
There are a few things (clarifications and such) in the BFM2K that I would have to change before being comfortable enough to call it Biblical.
Luckily I don’t have to sign it
.
Lew
BT,
You will agree though, that the BF&M is not a perfect document, right?
cb
Gentlemen,
The tenor of this comment thread seems to be a bit overly tense and personal.
We’ve had to close commenting on too many posts recently due to this kind of thing, and it’s not something we want to do again.
So… one more friendly reminder of our commenting standards:
Please… before posting another word, consider whether your comment brings honor to God. Let’s right this sinking ship.
CB,
Thank you for pointing me to a particular post on my blog that contains a “position” that concerns you. The “City Church” chain blog, as you know, was a way to begin a discussion about that topic. Primarily, my post – as an introduction – asked questions without giving answers. In fact, I don’t know where I stand on this issue. This was the only conclusions that I drew from studying “city church” in Scripture: “In particular, I believe that as we learn more about how the authors of Scripture refer to the church in a particular city, we may learn more about how we should relate and interact with many (or perhaps all) believers in our area.”
This is the only “position” that I took in the blog post on “city church”. Is this the “position” that concerns you?
(By the way, I realize that this is off-topic for this thread. If the moderators desire, I will stop asking about my “position”. My desire continues to be to clarify which of my positions concern CB as he stated in comment #37. Thank you.)
-Alan
Baptist Theologue,
Yes, I took Dr. Hammett’s PhD seminar in ecclesiology. Given my interest in the subject, you may not be surprised to hear that it remains one of my favorite seminars. I’ve also read his book several times. As with Dr. Black (who I mentioned previously), I agree with much of Dr. Hammett’s ecclesiology. I disagree with some of his conclusions as well. I’ve learned much from him and appreciate him very much. (By the way, I respect him so much that Dr. Hammett was almost my PhD mentor.)
-Alan
CB,
You said, “I can assure you I have read our past.”
I wholeheartedly believe you have. Which is why I believe you know that Smyth was not the best example of Baptist History. But in this journey, sometimes the weaker brothers can be learned from.
God’s Glory,
Lew
C.B., you are correct in saying that I would not describe the 2000 BF&M as perfect. The only document I would describe as perfect is God’s word. Psalm 19:7 states,
“The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul; The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.”
The 2000 BF&M is biblically correct, but it is not perfect. Some things in the 2000 BF&M could be better (e.g., more clearly) phrased, and thus it is not perfect. The Bible is perfect, however, because it is “God-breathed” — “theopneustos” (2 Timothy 3:16).
Stuart,
My concerns about the city-church paradigm are most related to a long-range effect.
I must say “long-range” is inadequate to convey what I mean here in this space.
Recently, I did say to David; The subject of ecclesiology has almost gotten too complicated for a blog forum. I cannot remember if he agreed with that or not. Yet, it is my opinion. If I remember correctly I said I wish LifeWay and SEBTS would sponsor a conference on ecclesiology like the Building Bridges Conference. Ecclesiology has historically been a doctrine that has received the least attention. Some theology books do not even devote a chapter or section to it.
cb
Lew,
Then lead me your ear and learn.
cb
Lew,
That should have been “lend” me your ear.
I guess I can’t teach you spelling.
cb
C.B., I remember hearing that ecclesiology was taught separately from theology at Southern Seminary 100 or so years ago. I’ll try to research that further.
Mike (Baptist Theologue),
From a contemporary conservative Baptist point of view, I think we might state that Luther had some light on some important matters, Zwingli and Calvin had some light on even others, Grebel and the Anabaptists had light on more things, and Smyth and Helwys on more things yet. Finally, as you point out, it seems like the Particular Baptists in 1640-41 finally saw the light regarding immersion. Since that time, various groups of Baptists have fine tuned even more various aspects of their beliefs.
For me, what is the point that we can learn from all this? It seems we should always be open to the possibility there is more light (from the Word of God) we have still not discovered. That is actually on the main points of this post.
I am happy and rejoice with you regarding the clarity with which you were able to proclaim the gospel at the block party. I sure hope nothing I have written would ever suggest otherwise. I think we must be careful and vigilant regarding our doctrine, even in matters such as baptism. I also think we must be careful to discern what the Word of God teaches regarding the unity of the Body of Christ. For me, a key passage in all of this is Romans 14. There are areas where I admit I struggle to find the exact and appropriate balance in all of this. But, I am striving to do my best to be faithful to what I understand the Word of God to teach regarding unity. As I stated earlier, I am open to being shown from the Word of God, where I am mistaken. My motivation in all of this is nothing more than to be faithful to my Lord and to what I understand his Word to teach.
Your point about baptism as a testimony is an interesting point, and perhaps comes closer to answering my questions about the link to the local church than anyone else I have heard yet. I do see in 1 Peter 3:21 that baptism is “a pledge of a good conscience toward God.” In a way, this is similar to saying baptism is a testimony. It seems to me that the testimony is primarily directed to God, though.
I can’t remember any other Scripture that specifically says baptism is a testimony. Maybe my mind is going blank on me now. If you can show me where it teaches that, I will readily accept it.
In any case, I agree that baptism may function as a powerful testimony, both to other believers and to the lost. And, in many, many cases, it does just that. If I have the choice in recommending how someone is baptized, I would almost always recommend that they do it publicly in order to make good use of the great potential for testimony that baptism offers. I would want to make sure someone was not ashamed of confessing Christ openly in baptism either.
However, to link the validity of baptism to public testimony is taking this one step beyond what Scripture does, as I understand it. Actually, in the book of Acts, it is apparent that quite a good percentage of the baptisms that are narrated took place in private or semi-private settings. The public testimony aspect is never really brought out.
Still yet, I can see your point about the need to avoid giving a misleading testimony as to the legitimacy of a Mormon church (or any false religion). For this reason, I can think of 1,001 good reasons for urging someone not to be baptized by the Mormons.
However, if it is “fait accompli”, a “done deal,” I think we have warrant to ask if the person’s baptism really was valid, according to what the Lord expects, and not our human standards, before demanding that someone be baptized again. The original Anabaptists were accused of being “re-baptizers.” The answer, of course, is that the first so-called baptism of those supposedly “re-baptized” was no baptism at all. To me, the possibility that we might risk actually being legitimately accused of being “re-baptizers” should not be taken lightly. If one’s original baptism really was a true baptism, although carried out in less than ideal circumstances, we are really denigrating the sacredness of baptism when we ask someone to be baptized again, just to meet up to denominational expectations.
BT,
Thank you. There has been an argument or two that it was perfect. I really did not think you believed that.
cb
CB,
That’s OK, if you remember, I’m still learning the differences between ROLL and ROLE. And to think, we have the gall to proclaim what God’s word says… thank Him for His Spirit.
BTW, I know just about as much as I want to know about Baptist History… Smyth and all. I appreciate the offer though
.
God’s Glory,
Lew
I never threatened Steve. That is just without merit. I made a statement about knowing the environment he was in. He responded . I then ask if he did in fact work at ASU. My reason for asking was that I actually do know that environment very well. Many who teach there are not much into absolutes.
Which I addressed in that thread, and again here. And yet you continue to insist that you know my environment better than I. Why, CB? Why??
How “many who teach” in the School of Music do you know personally? I want names.
Why have you ignored my explanations about the particulars of my job which demonstrate very clearly that I am not in a position to be affected by those who teach there, even if you do know them?
Why do you persist in undermining my comments here with this misinformation? Why will you not respond to my request for specifics about your accusations?
webmaster, in case you haven’t noticed, several of us have already been crying out for these standards to be upheld. The fact that the perpetrators of this behavior are not being dealt with by the administrators of this blog means that it will continue, regardless of our pleas for Christian civility. You can close threads all day long, but if you notice closely, the same behavior pops up in the next thread.
My pleas for this behavior to be adequately addressed have been largely ignored here.
To Everyone – Sorry I’ve been gone … just got in from our local HS graduation.
Steve – I’m not quite sure what you would have us to do to “deal with” certain folk on our blog. In fact, I’m wide open for suggestions.
Your pleas have not been ignored. There has been off-line discussion and exchange regarding these recent issues. Ultimately, we have sought to err on the side of grace. We want to give everyone the “benefit of the doubt.” We trust that most all who gather here are brothers and sisters in Christ. We admonish all to treat one another with respect and Christ-like civility. Some seem to have a bit more difficulty than others in making that happen. That’s life … and that’s people. Discussions can get messy. Debates can get really messy.
So, we will continue to admonish often and rebuke when necessary. We hesitate to trigger any sort of “nuclear” response and ban anyone from commenting here. I feel that would be somewhat of an admission of defeat in the face of our published standards.
So, we will continue to do our best. We will continue to exercise grace. And we hope and pray that all who read and comment here will do the same.
This blog is a collaboration. The people who post here come from different perspectives, geographies, backgrounds, and worldviews … we do not agree on everything. And it’s not always easy.
Anyhow … I don’t know what else I can say, other than to ask everyone to bring their opinions to the forum, but check their “attitudes” at the door. Talk about the issues on the table, but leave the ad hominem attacks elsewhere. And, above all, try and remember that we who are indwelt by the same Holy Spirit are on the same side and adopted brothers and sisters in the family of God.
David, you mentioned 1 Peter 3:21, and it is indeed an interesting verse;
“Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” (NASB)
Peter here was clearly not speaking of baptism as a sacrament that “saves you.” He was not referring to the physical act of baptism: “removal of dirt from the flesh.” I think that the key to understanding the verse is the phrase “appeal to God for a good conscience.” It is similar to Hebrews 10:22: “Let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.” These verses refer to a spiritual event, the baptism of the Spirit, which occurs at salvation. Physical immersion is the physical representation of the spiritual event. The physical immersion is an act of obedience, but the physical testimony is to the group of humans. Of course, God also sees the physical baptism, but the spiritual baptism took place at the moment of conversion.
David, you said,
“I can’t remember any other Scripture that specifically says baptism is a testimony. Maybe my mind is going blank on me now. If you can show me where it teaches that, I will readily accept it.”
Let’s look at 1 Timothy 6:12:
“Fight the good fight of faith; take hold of the eternal life to which you were called, and you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses.”
The question many people have is this: Is this confession/testimony a reference to baptism? Chris Johnson and I debated this point a bit on the May 5th thread, “The Call of Baptist Identity, Part 2.” Here’s an excerpt of what I said that includes quotes and comments:
“The word ‘profession’ is homologeo, made up of logo, ‘to say,’ and homos, ‘the same,’ hence, ‘to say the same thing as another says,’ thus, ‘to agree with what someone else says.’ Here it is used of Timothy’s statement of his agreement with the doctrines of Christianity at the occasion of his baptism.”
Kenneth Wuest, The Pastoral Epistles in the Greek New Testament for the English Reader (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1952), 98.
“Probably the reference is to Timothy’s confession of faith in Christ at the time of his baptism, when ‘many witnesses’ were no doubt present.”
Ralph Earle, “1 Timothy,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 11, ed. Frank Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 386.
“Combined, as this confession is, with the calling into eternal life, it can signify only the confession made at the time of baptism and not what may have been confessed when Paul took Timothy as his assistant, or when he appointed him as his representative for the Asian churches.”
R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus and to Philemon (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1937), 717.
“The context of the good confession made by Timothy in the presence of many witnesses has been debated. Interpreting in light of v. 13, there are three possible alternatives: (1) confession made in persecution, (2) ordination (Meinertz, Jeremias, Barrett, or (3) baptism (Easton, Hanson, many others). The third suggestion has the strongest support. Persecution would not seem to have merited so formal a reference, and we have no record that Timothy experienced actual arrest and trial. Ordination seems unlikely because early ordination rites required no confession of faith. Barrett has sustained this view on the grounds that it makes the best sense of ‘obey your orders’ (v. 14), but, as we have seen, the military motif dominates the whole letter. The whole passage fits the early nuances of baptism perfectly. Baptism was an invitation to share in Christ’s self-offering to God. Jesus himself referred to his impending death as a ‘baptism’ (Mark 10:38).”
E. Glenn Hinson, “1-2 Timothy and Titus,” in The Broadman Bible Commentary, vol. 11, ed. Clifton J. Allen (Nashville: Broadman, 1971), 335-336.
I don’t think verse 13 detracts from the baptismal interpretation of verse 12. Baptism is a public confession that symbolizes the believer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour. When He stood before Pilate, Jesus was being a witness unto death at the time of His own death, burial, and resurrection. Jesus was giving a confession about His identity (John 18:37), and through baptism we give a confession about both His identity and our identity. Thus, the baptismal confession and Christ’s confession before Pilate fit together very well in verses 12 and 13.
Thomas Lea made an interesting comment about verse 13: “Concerning the Son, Paul spotlighted his ‘good confession’ made in the presence of Pilate, a testimony that was not merely verbal but that also included his suffering and death.”
Lea, “1, 2 Timothy,” in The New American Commentary, vol. 34, ed. David Dockery (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 173.
What Jesus did on the cross and in His resurrection is a powerful confession that became part of our confession (baptism). Again, there is a strong connection between the baptismal confession in verse 12 and Christ’s confession at the time of His death in verse 13.
Also of interest is the close proximity of “were called” and “confessed” in verse 12. Only one word (the conjunction kai) separates these two aorists: “εκληθης και ωμολογησας.” Lenski apparently noticed this when he said, “Combined, as this confession is, with the calling into eternal life, it can signify only the confession made at the time of baptism.”
You said, “We know that Jesus’ confession before Pilate was not ‘His baptism,’ although He is the one that His followers are baptized into and identified with…..Christ’s confession was His Kingship, His Kingdom and His being the faithful witness….the one that has loved us and freed us from our sins by His blood.”
Remember, however, that Jesus’ physical baptism by John the Baptist had nothing to do with His death, burial, and resurrection. In contrast, the baptism mentioned by Hinson (Mark 10:38) was a direct reference to His death. Jesus referred to this “baptism of death” again in Luke 12:50: “But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished!”
Robert Stein commented on Luke 12:50: “That this image is found in two different Gospels indicates that it was well-known and that the early church would have understood both Jesus’ baptism and drinking the cup as references to his death.”
Stein, “Luke,” in The New American Commentary, vol. 24, ed. David Dockery (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 365.
Conversely, we should not have any difficulty seeing the connection between Jesus confession at the time of His death with our confession at the time of our baptism (which symbolizes His death).
Steve,
I never said I know your environment better than you. I said I know that environment.
I never said I know people who teach in the music dept. You are pulling that out of the air.
I did not ignore your explanation. I don’t think I had much time to respond. If you remember the thread was closed by the administrators. That is their right. It was not my call and it should not be my call.
I did think it unusual for you to speak so authoritatively about the SBC when you are not of the SBC.
I will illustrate: On another blog, I think, I made the comment that baptist ecclesiology is biblical ecclesiology. You engaged me. You were adamant that it was not. If I remember correctly I ask you to show me. You did not or could not. That was, I think, our first encounter.
Frankly, Steve you have been a little hostile ever since that encounter, not just with me but with others. It really does not bother me much, because I see that as the nature of blogging. A guy will put up a post and other guys throw rocks at it to see if it will stand.
Not much different that playing Red Rover when we were kids.
Steve, go back and check these comment threads. If I am incorrect I will definitely apologize. If not, I won’t. It is just that simple.
cb
Clarification: In my last comment, the “you” in the following was a reference to Chris, not David:
You said, “We know that Jesus’ confession before Pilate was not ‘His baptism,’ although He is the one that His followers are baptized into and identified with…..Christ’s confession was His Kingship, His Kingdom and His being the faithful witness….the one that has loved us and freed us from our sins by His blood.”
So, we will continue to admonish often and rebuke when necessary. We hesitate to trigger any sort of “nuclear” response and ban anyone from commenting here. I feel that would be somewhat of an admission of defeat in the face of our published standards.
There is an awful lot that doesn’t get rebuked here, Geoff. And that seems to imply a lack of serious concern on the part of the administrators.
I’m sorry that I didn’t know about the offline conversations to which you refer, but I had no way of knowing. The fact that the same behavior is continuing and not being publicly addressed sends a very different message.
“somewhat an admission of defeat”? Then why bother having the standards that you have? Why not rewrite the standards to reflect the behavior that you’re willing to tolerate? Otherwise, appeals like mine, webmaster’s, Rob’s or yours mean nothing.
I have been slandared, impugned, lied about, and mocked by several on this blog. And not once can I recall that an administrator has stepped in and specifically addressed that. Maybe that’s because some of the behavior is by actual contributors to this blog. Maybe it’s because others are afraid of reprisal by the bullies that continue.
Who knows? But whatever it is, Geoff, your “standards” do not appear to be having any effect.
Clarification #2 — The May 5th thread I mentioned, “The Call of Baptist Identify, Part 2,” was in the SBC Today website.
May 15, 8:56 PM (blog time), I wrote:
Look, here are the facts about my employment, since it seems so relevant to you: I am an accompanist in the School of Music. I sit in a practice room and rehearse with students. And I go to their lessons and accompany them there. And I play for their recitals. I am not, as you alleged, in an environment that “is saturated with the rejection of absolutes.” I am in a School of Music! Music is full of absolutes!
That has nothing to do with our discussion. But even if you wish to pull my vocation into this in that way: What does that have to do with my ability to discuss theology?
May 15, 9:12 PM, you wrote:
Steve,
Thank you. It was worth the wait.
cb
Then you proceeded to write comments at 9:18 PM and 9:31 PM.
Geoff closed the thread on May 16, 5:11 AM.
Now, you write: I did not ignore your explanation. I don’t think I had much time to respond. If you remember the thread was closed by the administrators.
And this after again repeating the statement here that you know my environment.
My employment environment is the School of Music. I am not involved in any other area of our campus. I do not enter any other building, and I am in no classrooms during any instruction time. The School of Music is a completely separate building, separate parking lot, etc.
Hence my question as to who you know in my environment that you keep claiming to know.
I did think it unusual for you to speak so authoritatively about the SBC when you are not of the SBC.
SBC doctrine and ecclesiology is no secret. One need not be “of the SBC” to know the SBC. As a matter of fact, I have worked in an SBC church in the past and have good friends who are SBC pastors.
On another blog, I think, I made the comment that baptist ecclesiology is biblical ecclesiology. You engaged me. You were adamant that it was not. If I remember correctly I ask you to show me. You did not or could not.
On May 15, 5:34 PM, I had written: Several things have already been brought out in this thread that challenge the “baptist is biblical”, and I already mentioned that to you. If you wish to respond to those, then perhaps we can dialogue about others.
You ignored that and never responded to the points that had already been made.
Steve, go back and check these comment threads. If I am incorrect I will definitely apologize. If not, I won’t. It is just that simple.
I’ve demonstrated here that you are, indeed, incorrect. What say you?
You two need to take this outside. It’s a conversation that is tailor-made for e-mail and telephone.
Thanks for proving my point, Geoff.
I’m done with SBC Impact.
Mike (BT),
Okay, 1 Timothy 6:12. Fair enough. I had indeed forgotten about that, even though I had read your recent exchange with Chris.
I agree there is a good chance this is referring to Timothy’s baptism. It is not definite. But, there is a good chance.
If this is indeed the case, though, what it shows is that, at least, on some occasions, baptism was done publicly in front of many witnesses, and served as a testimony to them. I have no problem with assuming this to be the case.
The only problem I have is when you take this one step further, and say, therefore, all baptisms must be done publicly in front of many witnesses. Why, if this is the case, was the Ethiopian eunuch not baptized publicly? Why were the Philippian jailer and his family baptized in the middle of the night when no one else was watching? What about Saul/Paul? It seems that no audience was invited to witness his baptism either.
Steve,
You have been very selective here with these quotes and maybe some other than me will see that to be true, but I think I am the odd man out here and that is fine also.
But, here goes:
Steve where did I say I knew your environment better than you?
Where did I say I knew people in the church music department?
I have no idea what the explanation you reference could possible be in what you have presented here.
I said I knew the environment you are in, meaning ASU. That is all. And that is true.
I have answered many as to what I mean by baptist theology is biblical theology. If you did not accept my answer (you don’t have to agree with it) I can do no more than to give it.
Steve, I did not say the things that you said I said above. If I did and You had presented that to me I would apologize to you. I probably have apologized as much as anyone who is involved in these Baptist blogs. So, it is not that I won’t. It is that I can’t apologize for what I have not done.
I have not said what you presented me to say in your comment #79 and that is all there is to it.
But since you have appealed to the administrators of this blog twice now, I will take the burden of my presence off of their backs and get out of the way of your temper tantrums and excuse myself from this blog.
I will read it from time to time but I will leave it without comment.
Last thing, BT you have made your case well and biblically. I bow to your methods and your handy work and give you a well deserved hand.
cb
David, you said,
“The only problem I have is when you take this one step further, and say, therefore, all baptisms must be done publicly in front of many witnesses.”
I don’t think it has to be a big group, but I do think there is a group aspect to physical baptism.
Let’s take the biblical occasions you mentioned one at a time:
1. Ethiopian Eunoch – We know that he was a man of great authority under the queen and had charge of her treasure (Acts 8:27), so he probably had an entourage with him. He ordered the chariot to stop (Acts 8:38), so we know that he at least had a driver who witnessed the baptism. Thus, it had a group aspect.
2. Philippian Jailer – We know that he was baptized with a group of people (Acts 16:33), so this immersion had a group aspect.
3. Saul/Paul – We know that there was a group of disciples at Damascus (Acts 9:19), and we are told this in the verse that follows the mention of his baptism there (Acts 9:18). It’s likely that there was not a suitable place for baptism in the house in which Saul/Paul was staying when his sight was restored. Probably some of the other disciples in Damascus witnessed his baptism.
CB, thanks for the compliment.
Baptist Theologue: Question. Can a group of unbelievers only be considered witnesses?
Debbie,
That’s actually a really good question.
BT,
It is just as plausible that 1 Timothy 6:12 is referring to a confession of the mouth (Romans 6:9 – same word: ὁμολογέω). Here are some important facts regarding this verse. First, the point has nothing to do with baptism and Second, no where in this verse is Baptism mentioned directly.
My general rule of thumb: If a verse does not mention something directly or if the verse’s point is not my own point, don’t use it. As far as I can see, anything having to do with Baptism and this verse is purely conjecture. Conjecture, although a fun game to play, is essentially useless in proving points.
A good way to tell if someone is using conjecture is their use of “possibly” or “maybe” or “could be”
But I agree, it could be talking about baptism but it might be talking about a verbal confession – perhaps we should cast lots
.
I can see the Jailor as being seen as a group witnessing. The Eunuch seems possible, maybe even probable. Paul is a little more of a stretch for me.
Anyways, those are just some of my running thoughts.
God’s Glory,
Lew
Steve,
You said, “I’m sorry that I didn’t know about the offline conversations to which you refer, but I had no way of knowing. The fact that the same behavior is continuing and not being publicly addressed sends a very different message.”
I can attest to the fact that the sbcIMPACT moderators contact some people outside of this blog. I was recently contacted partly because of my use of a slur in one of my comments.
Just to let you know.
Lew
Mike (BT),
For me, this whole discussion has a sort of surreal aura to it. It was just a couple of years ago I remember going through this whole thing with a man in Spain who had professed to have accepted Christ after a long, on-going relationship with me. He was ready to be baptized, and we were all excited about it, and then he comes up with this idea that he wants to do it privately up in the mountains somewhere. I went back and forth with him about why I didn’t think this would be best. But he would come back to me about whether the Bible strictly demanded that it be public. In the end, he never was baptized, and seems to have gone back on his profession of faith (at least from a strictly “evangelical” point of view), though I would have to let him answer for himself on that.
Anyway, the point is, this is a matter I have wrestled with a good bit. And, I would never want someone to misconstrue what I am saying here, and reach the conclusion that I don’t think it is important for baptisms to have a public testimony aspect to them.
The point we are talking about is a point of fine interpretation and detail, but, since the new IMB guidelines came out, has affected some people in a very personal and tangible way. And, what it all boils down to, as far as I am able to ascertain, is whether or not we should take conjecture and “connect dots” that the Bible itself does not connect for us, and make hard and fast guidelines and policies that have a negative effect on the sending of missionaries and the eventual fulfilling of the Great Commission on the basis of this conjecture. I say, where the Bible speaks clearly, let us be clear in our response. But, where the Bible is not so clear, let’s show more liberty.
Brother CB Scott,
I apologize for anything harsh and unkind I have said to you on this blog.
sbc Impact readership,
I apologize as well for having an unChristlike demeanor in commenting and failing to model and uphold the stated standards of this blog.
I humbly and sincerely ask your forgiveness.
Sincerely,
Tony Sisk
Debbie, you asked,
“Can a group of unbelievers only be considered witnesses?”
In the case of the Ethiopian eunuch, probably the entire group was composed of non-Christians before Philip explained the gospel to them. Philip was taken away immediately after baptizing the eunuch (Acts 8:39), so we do not know how the non-Christian witnesses there were affected by the baptism. Your question probably relates to how this incident was connected to a local church if all the witnesses were non-Christians. I think there was a strong connection with a local church even though only one local church member was present. Philip was an officer of the church of Jerusalem. When he began his evangelistic ministry outside of Jerusalem, there is evidence that the Jerusalem church knew about and authorized his activities. Philip had been preaching and baptizing in Samaria (Acts 8:12-13), and the apostles sent Peter and John who prayed for the new converts (Acts 8:14-15). My position is not that baptism must take place inside a local church; rather, it is that baptism should be performed by someone authorized by a local church. The local church is the administrator of baptism. The 2000 BF&M states, “Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.” I don’t think “church” in this statement can be construed to mean “universal church.” Those people who emphasize the universal church do not require immersion for membership. The word “church” here refers to the local church. Thus, our confession of faith calls baptism a local church ordinance rather than an individual believer’s ordinance that can be administered by any believer without local church authorization.
Lew, in regard to 1 Timothy 6:12 you said,
“As far as I can see, anything having to do with Baptism and this verse is purely conjecture.”
It’s interesting, however, that even a Lutheran Greek scholar (Lenski, who believed in infant baptism) saw baptism in this verse:
“Combined, as this confession is, with the calling into eternal life, it can signify only the confession made at the time of baptism and not what may have been confessed when Paul took Timothy as his assistant, or when he appointed him as his representative for the Asian churches.”
R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus and to Philemon (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1937), 717.
Again, notice the close proximity of “were called” and “confessed” in verse 12. Only one word (the conjunction kai) separates these two aorists: “εκληθης και ωμολογησας.”
David, it’s been good to talk to you again. I enjoyed our last lunch together. Maybe we can do it again before you leave town.
Geoff, I want to apologize to you for taking my hurt out on you as the administrator. While I may disagree with how you are operating this blog, I respect that it is your blog to administer in the way you deem best.
I should have not let my hurt by another to influence how I responded to you.
I retract my last comment to you, and pray that our Father will give you wisdom in moderating this blog. I am sure that you are doing the best that you can with a setting such as this.
Please forgive me for any hurt or irritation I may have caused you.
BT,
I’m one of those guys who generally doesn’t care about status. Lenski maybe greater than God at interpreting Greek – but if he cannot give me a logical reason for seeing baptism in this verse, I’m likely to ignore what he says. So far his reason seems to be “cause I say so” – not good enough for me.
The quote you offered: “Combined, as this confession is, with the calling into eternal life, it can signify only the confession made at the time of baptism and not what may have been confessed when Paul took Timothy as his assistant, or when he appointed him as his representative for the Asian churches.”
There is another problem, I don’t believe Paul is talking about the confession made at baptism, the confession made to be his assistant, or the confession made to represent the Asian churches.
There are other alternatives… such as the confession that Christ is Lord (not necessary at baptism… and as far as I know, usually precludes baptism).
It seems to me that Lenski is trying to prove his tradition, rather than interpret scripture (in this particular case).
Just my opinion.
Lew
I’m not sure why I typed “precludes”… I meant “precedes”… sorry about that.
Lew, just a few comments and then I must go to visitation. Baptism symbolizes the death, burial, and resurrection of both Christ and the believer. As the 2000 BF&M says, “It is an act of obedience symbolizing . . . the believer’s death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life.” Thus, the lordship of Christ is implied in baptism. We surrender our lives to Him, and thus there is death and burial for the old life.
The point I was making about Lenski is that the verse does not prove his tradition of infant baptism. How can an infant willingly make a good testimony in baptism? Infants being baptized don’t know what’s happening; rather, they are completely passive while being sprinkled. Lenski was not biased toward our position on baptism, and yet he saw the connection between baptism and the good confession.
The good confession was made in front of many witnesses. That was possible at the time of conversion, but it was more likely at the time of physical baptism.
CB Scott,
I see you are using me as a Scape Goat in all this Foolishness and Accusations that you are involved in.
My comment # 4
Says: David,
We sure have drifted off course from what The Founder of the Baptist Church stood for.
I find that some have become Babbling Fools in their understanding of the Bible. Many have an absence of the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit in their Heart http://baptistidentitybloggercom.blogspot.com/ Galatians 5: 13-26 Wayne Smith
CB, your comment # 40:
Geoff, I am not avoiding the question about identity from Alan Knox or from you. Blogs are fast sometimes, sorry. If you will go back to comment #4 you will find Wayne Smith signed it. It would take all day and night to give you every detail, but my answer is Wayne Smith. cb
CB, I read David’s Post and was in agreement as to the calling for Humility and Unity, those were the focus of Smyth’s quotes, and I believe, the purpose of David’s post, Unity in the Body of Christ as David has Always Championed For. I had never read anything about John Smyth before and was unaware of all I found out after l read some comments and did read His Bio, s I shared with David/Volfan007 (Comment # 13).
CB, I don’t what has happened to you lately, But you sure have developed a Short Fuse in the past Month or So.
You know of my High regard for you and Your Ministry, in the Love of Jesus Christ and Him Alone.. We fail when we take Our Eyes Off Jesus and focus on Man.
Your Brother in Christ
Wayne Smith
All
Why, When, Where and How!!!
Why OH Why do Baptist make such a FUSS about Baptism and the Baptist Church that Jesus Christ did not Do!!! The Church that Jesus talked about was HIS CHURCH, Not Baptist, Not Presbyterian and Not Lutheran. So which Church Was Jesus Talking About??? Maybe this is why there is a Big Void in the Regenerate Members in the Churches.
Wayne Smith