;)
You Make the Call – Episode 6
Posted by Geoff Baggett in IMPACT Features
You make the call … on “valid” baptism and welcoming a new member …
A married couple (new to your community) has been attending your church for a number of months. They make the prayerful decision to unite with your church in membership. They follow the necessary steps as are customary in your church to make their intentions known.
In the “get to know you / examination” phase, you inquire about their testimony in Christ. Both share a beautiful, moving testimony and you are confident of their faith and salvation. Then you inquire about their previous church membership. Both have been members of a Southern Baptist church in another state for the last five years.
The discussion then moves to the subject of baptism. You simply ask each one about the timing and circumstances of their baptism by immersion. The husband reports that he was baptized in his family’s Southern Baptist church shortly after he was saved … around age fifteen. The wife reports that she was baptized shortly after she was saved, around the age of 21 … at the Assembly of God church in her hometown.
The Southern Baptist church where their current membership resides welcomed her by her testimony of believer’s baptism when she joined the SBC church five years ago.
Now … you make the call. How do you and your church respond to this couple’s situation and their desire to unite in membership with your church?
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Since biblical baptism is 1. By immersion, 2. Post conversion and 3. A testimony of the individual’s faith – I would, and have, accepted the baptism in the AoG church as sufficient.
Not a tough one, in my opinion.
I’m not a pastor but I’ve been all over the deacon body several times; and I TOTALLY agree with what Micah said.
Our church once had a man who’d been baptized by his grandfather, a minister in a denomination which believed baptism was salvific. But the guy got saved reading the bible, saw he ought to be baptized, and asked his granddad to baptize him. He didn’t even KNOW any other pastors. And, the guy had no idea of granddad’s theology or even what salvic meant.
Our church wouldn’t accept him as a member, so took him in under “watchcare”. That set up the expected level of tension; eventually he and his wife divorced and they both left the church.
well…since they’ve both been Biblically baptized (by immersion in the name of the Holy Trinity) I’d welcome them with open arms.
what’s the dilemma? what would a “call” need to be made?
in addition…neither church taught that water baptism was a work towards Salvation…so there is no reason to believe it was not Biblical…
Agreed. A no-brainer.
Brother Geoff,
It would be disobedient to Christ to “not” accept them into fellowship with what you have explained. A church that would not accept them would be in sin.
Unfortunately, some churches have “policies” that exist on the books, not based in doctrine, for denying fellowship with believers.
Blessings,
Chris
Wow … there seems to be an overall agreement thus far. I’m a bit befuddled..
So how is it that this woman would be rejected by (pretty much) every SBC church that I have ever been associated with (by membership or staff) in my 25+ years of SB life?
I would welcome them into our fellowship without hesitation.
The sad thing is that they could never become IMB missionaries with the current policies.
Brother Geoff,
I believe they are rejected out of ignorance and poor theology. Not every Baptist church would engage in such outlandish immature behavior, but some do and continue to make that their policy. It is an ignorance and arrogance issue. Ignorance because of a lack of biblical understanding and arrogance because of pride, which typical stems from a lack of understanding.
Blessings,
Chris
Geoff,
They would be very welcome in the church where I pastor.
Les
brother Geoff…I don’t personally know a single SBC church who would not receive such a believer.
and if I do and am unaware of it I am SURE it’s not more than one or two.
we’ve got bigger issues to deal with in pioneer areas I guess…
Hey it’s still early, let’s do a “You Make the Call 6.5!”
Geoff,
To not accept the couple is to infer either that:
1. The AoG is not a part of the Body of Christ, and its congregations are not legitimate Christian congregations; or
2. The NT was written only for Baptist churches; or
3. The churches of the NT were all united on 100% of doctrinal issues, and those who disagreed on any detail of doctrine were not accepted as authentic churches.
“So how is it that this woman would be rejected by (pretty much) every SBC church that I have ever been associated with (by membership or staff) in my 25+ years of SB life?”
It sounds to me like you’ve been up there in Landmark country for too long.
Oh yeah, or:
4. We are not baptized into Christ, but into the Baptist church.
Chris,
The statements that you have made here are both offensive and arrogant.
First of all, you said that any Church that would not accept this baptism would be in “sin?”
Secondly, you said that such a Church would be wrong in thier doctrine.
Thirdly, you said that that Church would be ignorant.
Fourthly, you said that that Church is immature.
Fifthly, you said that that Church would be arrogant.
Oh really? Brother, you have just called most, or more, of the Churches in the SBC ignorant, immature, unsound, and sinful. Wow!
I guess I will have to be the lone wolf on this comment stream at this point. I would certainly ask the wife to be baptised… to have a Scriptural baptism.
David Rogers, that doesnt mean that I dont count the AoG as Chrisitians. I just dont believe that thier baptism is a Scriptural baptism. Now, if that lady had come out of a non-denominational Church that believed in salvation by grace thru faith, eternal security of the Believer, the Trinity, and that baptism was a symbolic act of obedience; then I would have no trouble, personally, accepting thier baptism. Now, the Church I pastor right now accepts Southern Baptist baptisms only. I can live with that, but I dont agree with them.
So, Chris, I guess I’m just one of those ignorant, arrogant, immature, stupid, unsound, Southern Baptists that are out there. You know, the kind that hold to the BFM 2000 without any caveats.
David
volfan,
first my old friend (no pun intended) you are simply mistaken regarding what “most” SBC churches do…that’s really not up for debate when we taken into all SBC churches around the globe.
beyond that…I would be thrilled to learn what ‘Scriptural’ baptism entails if I or some of the others here have been mistaken.
everyone take your Bibles and turn with volfan to…
still love you brother…but come on now…
Fox,
I love you, too, Brother. I would say to turn to the NT everytime it talks about baptism.
Fox, would you accept a Mormon’s baptism? They immerse. Scripture and verse for not accepting a Mormon baptism.
Would you accept a Campbellite baptism(Church of Christ)? Scripture and verse for why not?
Would you accept a Methodist baptism…sprinkling? Why not? Scripture and verse.
Would you accept an infant baptism from a Presbyterian Church? Why not? Scripture and verse.
Would you accept a Oneness Pentecostal, or a Church of God of Jesus Christ baptism? They dont believe in the Trinity. Scripture and verse to explain why not.
Thanks,
David
David Worley,
Obviously, the NT doesn’t talk about denominational or sectarian baptism of any type, as that would be a total anachronism.
The Bible does talk about Christian baptism, which is done as an act of obedience to the command of Christ by each and every believer upon repenting of their sins and confessing their faith in Christ. Sprinkling is technically not baptism, as the word “baptizein” literally means immersion.
Of course, you know all this already. But, since you asked…
David,
So, you would tell a Methodist that his baptism was unScriptural?
David
David,
Yes, I would tell him that his “baptism” was, in actuality, no baptism at all.
That is, if his “baptism” was really a sprinkling.
Also, I believe with the BFM 2K that baptism is a Church ordinance…therefore, what the Church believes about baptism matters.
David
David,
So, you would tell someone that thier baptism was invalid, unscriptural, yet yall have trouble with me and others who would tell AoG that thier baptism is unscriptural?
David
Brother David,
What Christ commands concerning baptism is never preempted by what “a” church believes to be baptism. That is why there are so many varieties these days. Christ has commanded His followers to make disciples and baptize…..that is not a difficult thing to do.
The entire book of Acts reveals to us that those who confess with their mouth and believe in their heart that Jesus is Lord were baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. That is the command of our Lord and Savior.
Blessings,
Chris
David Worley,
In my humble opinion, I believe my point of view on this has scriptural justification, and yours does not.
I am open to discussing, from Scripture, though, where I may not be understanding Scripture correctly on this.
Baptists used to use the term “Alien Immersion.” If I remember right, this referred to Believer’s Baptism by Immersion in a non-Baptist church. 100 years ago probably most SBC churches rejected Alien Immersion. The impression I get is that today most SBC churches would accept Alien Immersion if the non-Baptist church agreed with us on the fundamental or basic doctrines of the Christian faith. Some old time Baptist preachers would be shocked by that.
David R. Brumbelow
David Worley,
Beyond the use of the phrase “church ordinance” in the BF&M, what Scriptural justification do you have for denying the legitimacy of a Christian baptism done in the context of an AoG congregation?
David,
Thier view on salvation is severely lacking. They believe that a person can lose it. Thus, I dont look upon them as a valid Church. I’m not saying that they are not Christians, but that they are in error on a very serious, important doctrine. Thus, a baptism done by an AoG Church would be an unscriptural baptism. I would ask them to have a scriptural baptism.
David
David,
Also, are you saying that the framers of the BFM 2K were wrong in thier view of the Lord’s Supper and Baptism being a Church ordinance? Are you saying that they missed it? That these two ordinances are personal ordinances rather than Church ordinances?
I think I know the answer to that, but I had to ask anyway.
David
David Worley,
So, basically, on account of arguments #1 and #3 on my comment #13?
I presume you don’t consider Freewill Baptists to be a valid church either?
David Worley,
I would consider baptism to be a “Church ordinance” in the sense that is was given to the Universal Church, and that, many times, for good reasons, it is administered in the context of local churches.
To go further than this, and press a Landmarkist interpretation on this phrase, lacks Scriptural justification, in my opinion.
Ahh … the definition of, “church.” Herein lies the crux of our quandary.
This may be a stupid question but I’ll ask anyway…
If baptism is purely symbolic, why is it so critical that it be done in exactly the right way? I don’t get how a symbol can be either valid or invalid.
Volfan,
So, to go a step farther than David Roger’s question (#30), which churches have members that YOU think you will see in heaven? That is, what churches do you consider to be valid NT churches?
I had an aunt in Garland, TX, who belonged to a Church of Christ. They thought it was their local church ONLY who would be going to heaven.
Geoff,
My church would accept her into our membership.
Patrick,
A symbol is invalid when it doesn’t accurately represent what it symbolizes. When someone is buried they are not sprinkled with dirt, they are covered by it.
Baptism is a symbol of our unification with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection.
An inaccurate baptism would be a flawed witness to what Christ has done and our unification with that.
Romans 6:3-5 describes our burial with Christ through baptism and the fact that Christians have died to their old lives and have been raised to walk in newness of life. Just as Christ died once-for-all-time, so Christians have died once-for-all-time. The once-for-all-time death, burial, and resurrection of both Christ and the believer is symbolized in immersion. The physical baptism symbolizes the spiritual realities that have already taken place. The 2000 Baptist Faith and Message clarifies the meaning of this ordinance: “It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer’s death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus.” Again, the burial of the old life is a once-for-all-time action, as is being raised to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. Thus, the eternal security of the believer is clearly pictured by baptism. When a Christian is baptized in a church or setting where the people are taught that salvation can be lost, then the symbolism is lost and such a baptism is invalid.
Robert Mounce commented on Romans 6:3-5:
“The believer has been baptized into Christ, and that means to have been baptized into Christ’s death as well. Christ’s death for sin becomes our death to sin. . . . Burial certifies the reality of death. Baptism is the ritual act that portrays this burial. He was using the ritual act of baptism as a symbol of the complete redemptive event that finds its effectual cause in the death of Christ and its completion in the faith of those who believe. . . . In God’s redemptive plan burial is followed by resurrection. . . . As he was raised victor over death, so also are we set free from the bondage of sin.”
Robert H. Mounce, “Romans,” vol. 27 in The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 149-150.
Charles Haddon Spurgeon also addressed this issue as he preached on Romans 6:3-4:
“Baptism sets forth the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, and our participation therein. . . . Baptism is an acknowledgment of our own death in Christ. . . . Baptism is thus an embodied creed. . . . Burial is, first of all, the seal of death; it is the certificate of decease. “Is such a man dead?” say you. Another answers, “Why, dear sir, he was buried a year ago.” There have been instances of persons being buried alive, and I am afraid that the thing happens with sad frequency in baptism, but it is unnatural, and by no means the rule. I fear that many have been buried alive in baptism, and have therefore risen and walked out of the grave just as they were. But if burial is true, it is a certificate of death. . . . There must, then, be in us death to the world, and some of the effects of death, or our baptism is void. As burial is the certificate of death, so is burial with Christ the seal of our mortification to the world. . . . And the grave is the place—I do not know where to get a word—of the settledness of death; for when a man is dead and buried you never expect to see him come home again: so far as this world is concerned, death and burial are irrevocable.”
Spurgeon, “Baptism—A Burial,” A Sermon (No. 1627) Delivered on Lord’s-Day Morning, October 30th, 1881, at the Metropolitan Tabernacle, Newington
Spurgeon also emphasized the group testimony given at the time of baptism:
“We think baptism is also to the believer a testimony of his faith; he does in baptism tell the world what he believes.”
Spurgeon, “Baptismal Regeneration,” A Sermon (No. 573) Delivered on Sunday Morning, June 5th, 1864, at the Metropolitan Tabernacle, Newington
You are correct brother Geoff. It appears to me,… from reading scripture that the church is the body of Christ and the body of Christ is the church. Can it be any other way? Even if that is unclear to some, the church without any ambiguity is commanded to make disciples and baptize.
Why is that so difficult?
Blessings,
Chris
Hey BT,
Good to see you chime in! I think we seem to go down this road every month or so….
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
You are absolutely correct. We are rehashing old ground here. I doubt there will be any big surprises in this debate.
A symbol is invalid when it doesn’t accurately represent what it symbolizes.
Thanks, but this still makes no sense to me. If I take a picture of my wife when she first wakes up in the morning, she will argue that the picture does not represent her normal appearance. And she’ll be correct. But the fact remains that she is the one in the picture.
Brother David,
I know this is not new to you since we can only preach Christ crucified…..
1 Corinthians 2:1-5 “And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. (2) For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. (3) I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, (4) and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, (5) so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.”
We are saved by Grace through Faith…..and placed into the body of Christ, not by man but by God alone.
1 Corinthians 12:18 “But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired.”
Romans 12:3-5 “For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith. (4) For just as we have many members in one body and all the members do not have the same function, (5) so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.”
Saving Faith,…delivered to us by God, informs us of the object of that peculiar Faith, Jesus Christ. We are not saved by our “belief”, we are saved by the gracious supply of Christ’s righteousness through the faith that only God supplies to those being saved and those placed into the body of Christ.
So if someone tells you that it is “your belief” or “your perfected” understanding of the many doctrines of scripture that qualify you for Christ’s church, then be careful to go back and read the promise that God gives us in Christ, and that will return you back to the biblical doctrine of salvation and how the church is formed.
Go make disciples and baptize…..Pastors are commanded to tend the flock of God. They are not commanded to “brand name” the flock of their own making.
Jeremiah 23:4 “I will also raise up shepherds over them and they will tend them; and they will not be afraid any longer, nor be terrified, nor will any be missing, declares the LORD.”
Blessings,
Chris
If I take a picture of my wife when she wakes up in the morning, CSI will be soon taking a picture of me!
Patrick,
I understand what you are saying.
Try thinking about it this way. What if you paid a great amount to commission an artist to paint a portrait of your wife. You gave him all the necessary photo’s, letter’s, and statements from friends and family that symbolize who and what your wife is about.
He has everything he needs to make a really great portrait that symbolizes everything she is to you and everyone who knows her. Your purpose for doing this is to memorialize for centuries to come how wonderful your wife is. When you have done all this the next day the artist calls and tells you he is finished. When you get there all he has done is paint a stick figure on a blank white canvas. Would you be happy with that symbol of your wife?
If I did what I just described I would want the symbol the artist created to accurately represent who my wife is. A stick figure wouldn’t do it.
This is similar to what God has done. He has given us the information we need in His word to accurately sybolize what He has done for us. All He asks us to do is paint an accurate protrait of what Christ has done with His life and ours.
In that sense I would think that how we baptize, when we baptize, why we baptize, and who baptizes is important.
John,
I hear ya!
Thank you, that helps clear it up. Have a nice day.
Patrick,
You too.
Do not take the picture!
any group that denies the faith is not a church and their baptism is worthless.
Why is this even an issue? “Church Membership” is not even biblical, its man’s tradition, so the premise of the argument is flawed. Salvation is the key and baptism does not save you. Does baptism make you a member in the body of Christ? No, salvation does.
Jon,
Just curious … are you a member of a local church? If not, do you attend a church that maintains a membership roll/list of some sort?
Just out of curiosity, when Jesus used the phrase “baptizing them” in what context or with what background and meaning would those disciples have understood that phrase? They obviously didn’t look at each other and say “what did Jesus mean by “baptize?” I may sound like I’m stupid, but wouldn’t that information (history and tradition) have some bearing on this baptism argument? Maybe more bearing than, shall we say, more current history and tradition?
I did a lengthy study on baptism, looking at every reference in the NT to baptism (its in the archives of my blog).
New Testament baptism was into the body of Christ and there is little evidence of local church oversight. Nowhere is local church approval sought or given prior to a baptism.
The Baptist Identity baptism being pushed today is, in my view, completely based on tradition and has no biblical support.
A church operating strictly by scripture would, in my opinion, accept both of these enthusiastically.
I wonder if Philip preached eternal security to the Ethiopian eunuch?
David Rogers – I’m with ya, bro.
I’d like to challenge some of you to do a little thinking “outside the box” using art as a medium, and then transfer that to the idea of symbols and what a symbol is.
I was raised with a typical, Deep South, lower middle class literal notion of what art is and isn’t. In other words, photographic representations were art, and modernist, cubist, etc., were not. By my upbringing, a landscape by an anonymous English painter of the 18th Century, or something by a Greek or Roman sculpter was valuable art, while one by Van Gough, Monet, Renoir, Picazzo, etc., were trash. Gradually though, I began to understand how these artists were representing reality. I even discovered that the movement is not really “modern,” but that the Celts (who were mine and many of your ancestor’s) were doing many of the same things in their art 2000 years ago and more.
In art, things do not need a one-to-one correspondance in order to be an “accurate” symbol of what it represents, and sometimes may be less accurate of the reality underneath the surface. Why then does baptism? And if baptism does. . . don’t the elements of the Lord’s Supper also have to be, viz., home-made matzoh crackers and diluted fruit wine, served in an upper room only once a year?
FYI: the church I serve would not accept sprinkling as valid baptism (although some wanted to do so when we re-wrote our By-Laws a couple of years ago, and I was the one who said no to that). But I have no problem with accepting as valid most of those that an earlier generation would have called “alien immersion.” Based on whaty I know at the moment, I would have no problem accepting the woman’s AoG baptism.
John Fariss
Mike Morris (Baptist Theologue),
Would Spurgeon have asked believers baptized in a General Baptist church to be baptized again before joining the Metropolitan Tabernacle church?
John F,
Baptism must have a “one-to-one” correlation between the symbol and the action because Paul specifically makes that correlation in Romans 6:1-14.
He gives a picture of death, burial, and resurrection, as it specifically relates that to Baptism.
Abstraction is OK only if that is what the artist intends to do.
Abstraction is never OK if it happens due to a lack of concern over reality.
According to my painting prof in my undergrad- you must first fully understand and do realism before you can abstract reality. Picasso did. Jackson Pollock did.
Any real successful abstract/nonrepresentational artist did.
My point is God gave us the symbol with a one to one correlation so that is how we must understand it and carry it out.
Go try and paint over a Picasso in the National Art Gallery and see where it gets you.
When we change our method of baptism we destroy something a whole lot more important than a Picasso.
I thought we were going to have a “no-brainer” thing here and now it’s turned out to be a “brainer.”
Seriously, I think this thread has revealed the Landmarkian leanings of one preacher in the holler. Does this mean that Baptist Identity = Landmarkism?
I don’t know, I’m just asking the question.
Les
P.S. I can’t believe Volfie said that AoG is not a valid church, but they are Christian. Huh? That makes no sense whatsoever. If they’re Christian and they’re gathered together that’s a church. Am I missing something here? Is this the type of Baptist we want to be identified with?
Brother Les,
I believe it can become very easy and sometimes traditionally convenient to misplace the relationship of baptism as a chief focus on Christ. The response of a believer to water baptism is first, foremost, primary and supremely connecting and identifying a believer with Jesus Christ by His command. That was the entire and only description given by John the Baptist pointing to the great baptizer and of the Apostles clearly following through as God placed His children in His church. Anything less than a clear and distinct view of Christ is simply that…less.
In baptism, believers look to Christ as their rock and stay, not to their brothers and sisters that are in Christ. Paul made that very clear as he chided the Corinthians in his first letter. Paul was clear that it wasn’t baptism that lacked importance in the life of the Corinthian church, but Paul was keenly aware of the pride of human sin becoming the reason that baptism was taking place. We do well to not dilute the command by worshipping it as a gateway to a reality in the body of Christ or as a denominator for fellowship. It never was in the early churches except for the reason Paul points out to the Corinthians. We do well to teach the supreme identification with the lover of our soul and simply baptize the believer.
If there is anything we should be fighting for concerning baptism, it should be the clarity of its identification with Jesus Christ for believers. All believers are commanded to be baptized….what a glorious and wonderful command of our Lord.
Blessings,
Chris
I think John Fariss asks a good question. If it is so critical to baptize exactly in the manner seen in the New Testament, why is it then ok to modify the Lord’s Supper?
For that matter, how many SBC pastors are in the habit of anointing the sick with oil? Yet James 5:14-15 is pretty specific about this.
Chris,
Good words. I agree completely.
Patrick W,
The lesson of James 5:14-15 is give the sick medicine and pray for them. Oil and wine were used as medicine in first century A.D. Anointing with oil was a medicinal application not a spiritual mojo.
Les
Les,
So, you would consider a Oneness Pentecostal Church a valid Church? One where the Word of God was being rightly divided?
You would consider an AoG Church to be a good, sound Church that was preaching the Bible?
If so, would you welcome a Pentecostal, or an AoG Pastor to come into your Church for a series of meetings?
And yes, it’s possible to believe that individual people who are involved in an AoG Church are saved, born again Believers, while at the same time, not regarding a Church that believes in tongue speaking and that a person can lose thier salvation as a valid Church.
And, Les, what did you mean when you made this statement about me and those like me….”Is this the type of Baptist we want to be identified with?” Do you want us to be kicked out of the SBC?
Rick Boyne,
I believe that there will be Pentecostals and AoG’s and Methodists and Presbyterians in Heaven, along with all of us Southern Baptist Believers. Of course, I dont believe that Southern Baptists will be the only people in Heaven. In fact, there will be some Southern Baptists in Hell.
I really dont understand your reasoning at all.
David
Volfie,
I’m not the one saying Christians aren’t real churches, you are. BTW, Oneness Pentecostals aren’t Christians. Denial of the Trinity equates to saying that Christ is not God. That’s quite a bit different than not believing in eternal security. Your arguments are weak and contradictory and your Landmarkism is showing. It’s not a pretty picture.
Les
Chris,
Do you think that it would be important to the Lord, if say, people were not sharing thier food at a Church fellowship meal. You know, the rich eating ribs and pecan pie, while the poor only had thin sliced baloney and no dessert. And, if they were drinking alcohol and getting drunk during the observance of the Lord’s Supper? Do you think that it would be important to the Lord how a Church was doing the Lord’s Supper and fellowship meals? Or, would that be unimportant, and the Lord could care less about how it was done, as long as it was done?
Well, read 1 Corinthians 11. It was very important to God. So important that some of the Believers at Corinth were dying prematurely due to the unworthy way they were observing the Lord’s Supper. I’d say that it was very important to God that it was done right.
The same thing with baptism.
David
Les,
I noticed that you didnt answer about AoG. Forget Oneness Pentecostal, even though that’s interesting. So, one group who claims to be Christian is dismissed by you as not Christian, and you would not accept thier baptism; but you dont like the BI guys claiming that other unsound Churches arent valid. Very interesting.
Also, Les, are you bitter about the SBC in Indy? You sound bitter. Maybe that’s where the “do we want people like the BI guys to be in the SBC” is coming from? What’s with that?
David
Volfie,
Why would I be bitter about Indy? That’s one of the most ignorant things you’ve said yet. I’m tired of the BI guys trying to kick everybody out of the SBC and trying to tell Southern Baptists to raise their baptism numbers by rebaptizing every Christian that joins their church.
I also noticed you didn’t deny being a Landmarker. Good. Now we know.
Les
Volfie,
You don’t play “comment twister” very good either. I see you’re trying to twist my words like your other pals. You really should stop twisting and spinning other’s comments. You’re not very good at it. Perhaps Bart can give you some lessons.
Les
Brother David,
I guess your comment was directed to me. I am not sure if you read my comment very closely. I am saying that baptism is amazingly important. In fact, during the same rebuke that Paul was engaging the Corinthian church concerning the Lord’s Supper, He did rebuke them concerning their pride as they baptised as well. (Chapter 1)
So I guess we are in agreement that God has been very clear that we are to baptize believers that He has placed in his body the church. My point is that there seems to be a dependence on tradition these days that have a tendency to trump the clear and unambiguous reason for baptism. Christ commanded that we disciple and subsequently baptize which is the unequivocal identification with Himself and His work.
Romans 6:3-7 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? (4) Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. (5) For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, (6) knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; (7) for he who has died is freed from sin.
What a glorious identification and sharing with Him alone! So yes, I agree with you. The Lord’s Supper and Baptism are tremendous encouragements to the church and is how we participate with Him according to the Apostle.
1 Corinthians 10:16-18 Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? (17) Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread. (18) Look at the nation Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar?
Christ’s church is charged with conducting and remembering these things until he returns. It is a great privilege.
Blessings,
Chris
David, you asked,
“Would Spurgeon have asked believers baptized in a General Baptist church to be baptized again before joining the Metropolitan Tabernacle church?”
I don’t know for sure, but I suspect that he would not have required General Baptists to be baptized when joining the Metropolitan Tabernacle church. I’m not sure how comfortable he was with that situation later in his life. Both General Baptists and Particular Baptists had become active in the Baptist Union, which was formed by Particular Baptists in 1813. In 1873, the Baptist Union softened its doctrinal base to encourage General Baptists to join. Spurgeon was concerned about doctrinal decay in the union as well as other issues, and the down grade controversy began in 1887. The following excerpt from an article by Robert Shindler entitled “The Down Grade” is from Spurgeon’s Sword and Trowel (March, 1887):
“The Arminianism of that day was a cold, dry, heartless thing, and many who took that name proved that they were already on ‘the down grade’ towards Socinianism. As is usual with people on an incline, some who got on ‘the down grade’ went further than they intended, showing that it is easier to get on than to get off, and that where there is no brake it is very difficult to stop. These who turned from Calvinism may not have dreamed of denying the proper deity of the Son of God, renouncing faith in his atoning death and justifying righteousness, and denouncing the doctrine of human depravity, the need of Divine renewal, and the necessity for the Holy Spirit’s gracious work, in order that men might become new creatures; but, dreaming or not dreaming, this result became a reality. . . . This down-grade course was, we have said, more rapid, more general, and more fatal among the Presbyterians than among the Independents and General Baptists. We say General Baptists, for the deadening doctrines of Socinianism had made little inroad upon the Particular Baptists. We could not point to a single case of perversion to Socinianism during more than two centuries, though other and less vital errors have dealt much mischief among the churches of that order.”
Notice what Spurgeon said about eternal security and Arminianism:
“That doctrine is so precious to me now, that I do think if anybody could possibly convince me that final perseverance is not a truth of the Bible, I should never preach again, for I feel I should have nothing worth preaching. If you could once make me believe that the regeneration of God might fail of its effect, and that the love of God might be separated from his own chosen people, you might keep that Bible to yourself; between its cover there is nothing that I love, nothing that I wish for, no gospel that is suitable for me. I count it to be a gospel beneath the dignity of God, and beneath the dignity of even fallen manhood, unless it be everlasting, ‘ordered in all things and sure.’”
Spurgeon, “The Security of the Church,” A Sermon (No. 161) Delivered on Sabbath Morning, November 1, 1857, at the Music Hall, Royal Surrey Gardens.
“What is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here. I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor. ‘If ever it should come to pass, that sheep of Christ might fall away, my fickle, feeble soul, alas would fall a thousand times a day.’ If one dear saint of God had perished, so might all; if one of the covenant ones be lost, so may all be; and then there is no gospel promise true, but the Bible is a lie, and there is nothing in it worth my acceptance. I will be an infidel at once when I can believe that a saint of God can ever fall finally.”
Spurgeon, “A Defense of Calvinism”
Spurgeon believed that those who deny eternal security are heretics. I’m not sure how he could accept the baptism of groups he considered to be heretical and/or infidel groups, but perhaps he did.
Baptist Theologue: Being an avid reader of Charles Spurgeon, I would say that he believed more in the perseverance of the believers , not necessarily in line with the doctrine of eternal security as preached today.
I am not sure I understand Debbie, when you say “eternal security as preached today”?
How do you hear and see it preached other than what the Bible says about it?
To All,
This comment stream is maybe the wildest of the summer. WOW!
Debbie – Thanks for mentioning that; would you not agree that eternal security means VERY different things to Charles Stanley and Charles Spurgeon. To equate “eternal security” as defined by the BFM to “perseverance” as defined by Spurgeon seems highly erroneous. Thus, to use Spurgeon’s definition of “heretic” to defend exclusion of AoG baptism seems, to me, highly erroneous.
Blecch. I wasn’t going to say anything else; it’s kinda rocky in here!
Paul didn’t think speaking in tongues made a church invalid.
Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes,
To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours:
Debbie,
In regard to perseverance and eternal security, the relevant point in this discussion is that salvation cannot be lost. General Baptists and Free Will Baptists believe that salvation can be lost. (I have close relatives who are Free Will Baptists and love them anyway.) Unlike Spurgeon, I am not a five-point Calvinist. Also, unlike Spurgeon, I don’t believe that General Baptists are heretics/infidels. I believe that they are in error in regard to whether salvation can be lost, but I would not classify them as heretics or infidels. Their error is serious, however, and it messes up the symbolism of immersion. Thus, I consider their baptisms to be invalid, and I would not accept their baptisms if they wanted to join my little church.
P.S.: The Assembly of God folks believe that salvation can be lost:
“God does not let anyone go easily. (See Romans 10:21 where Paul was speaking of Israel, but the principle applies.) But a believer can be lost if he disregards the continuing checks of the Holy Spirit and reaches the point where he rejects Jesus as his Saviour.
It is possible to believe for a while and in time of temptation to fall away (Luke 8:13). It is possible for the weak brother to perish for whom Christ died (1 Corinthians 8:11). It is possible for a name to be written in the Book of Life and then removed from the Book (Revelation 22:19).
It is not always possible to determine whether a person has already turned his back on Jesus as his Saviour. Therefore it is well to leave judgment of these matters in the hands of the omniscient God. Of this we can be certain, however; if God does not give up in His efforts to bring the prodigal back, neither should the church of Jesus Christ. Too often people write off an individual when God has not written him off at all.
The Bible does recognize the possibility of forfeiting salvation, but it never ceases to offer hope for anyone who wants to respond to the entreaty of the Holy Spirit. Jesus’ invitation is without qualification. He speaks to all when He says, ‘Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest’ (Matthew 11:28).
Again the Bible speaks to all when it says, ‘For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved’ (Romans 10:13).”
http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_4178_security.cfm
Les,
God bless you, Brother. I pray that the Lord will pour out His blessings on you in a great and generous fashion.
David
BT,
Thanks for jumping in here. You have made some major points in this discussion that everyone needs to think very hard about.
I hope that you are enjoying this new, TN weather this morning. It’s cool up here on this part of the state. Nice.
David
BTW, Les, I’m not a Landmarker. I dont believe that Southern Baptist are the only true Church.
David
David W.,
I’m enjoying the break from the heat. One of these days, we need to meet at Bozos for barbecue.
Not without me, you won’t …
I ate at Bozo’s every other Friday night when I was growing up. I sort of freaked out when I recognized the dining room on “Walk the Line.” I still turn the radio off and roll the windows down when I drive through Mason (rare occasions, these days). My other Fridays were at the Bluebank Motel at Reelfoot Lake.
Geoff, when you come down from Kentucky next time, let us know, and we’ll try to meet you there.
Yes, I am a member of a local SBC church. The “membership” is only to that church and its something that man came up with, not God. I’m trying to separate the spiritual and physical. The “church membership” is not anything related to being a part of the “body of Christ.” Two separate things. I think we put too much importance on the “church membership.” I find it almost offensive when a person comes to join the church and they have a vote. It’s all pomp and ritualistic.
My problem comes when we say “I believe that you are a Christian because you have been converted by God, and I know that you were baptized by immersion, but you can’t be a member of my church because you weren’t baptized by someone who believes in eternal security. In other words, I don’t believe that the person who baptized you was even a Christian, because if they were, I would have to accept your baptism.”
What if a “former” Free Will Baptist preacher is pastoring a Southern Baptist church and baptizes new believers? Who’s “doctrine” is the candidated subject to? Don’t act like it’s too insane – IT HAPPENS. Are churches supposed to backtrack every membership candidate in some kind of holy vetting process? For crying out loud, folks, it’s church membership, but we act like it’s admission to the kingdom of God. Just because “baptist” is on the church sign doesn’t tell us diddly about what the pastor or the deacons or the treasurer ACTUALLY believe, or even if they are saved. Thus we can rarely validate ANY baptism besides that of our own church, and that’s Landmarkist at the core.
I don’t even like the idea that a person MUST believe in eternal security to be a member of a Baptist church. It rarely happens that someone who does not accept “eternal security” applies for membership in a SB church, but I happen to know that it DOES happen, and I’m not sure we’ve got our focus in the right direction if we make that a pivotal issue. If we think that our church memberships are made up of people who 100% agree on all doctrinal issues, we’re a bunch of naive children.
Bernard: In answer to your question to me and this should also answer Tim Guthrie’s question, yes.
Bernard, you said,
“My problem comes when we say ‘I believe that you are a Christian because you have been converted by God, and I know that you were baptized by immersion, but you can’t be a member of my church because you weren’t baptized by someone who believes in eternal security. In other words, I don’t believe that the person who baptized you was even a Christian, because if they were, I would have to accept your baptism.’”
I don’t know of anyone who is thinking that way. You may have misunderstood what some of us believe. Let me try to summarize it:
1. We are not saying that those people who believe that a Christians can lose their salvation are not Christians. We believe that General Baptists, Free Will Baptists, and Assembly of God folks are Christians. We are under no obligation, however, to accept their flawed baptisms which mess up the biblical symbolism.
2. Baptism has a group aspect. That fact is difficult to grasp for most Americans because we are so individualistic. Baptism is a local church ordinance. It doesn’t have to occur inside the church building, but it should be connected with the local church. The local church is the administrator, not the person who performs the baptism. In most SBC churches, the pastor and other staff members are delegated the task of deciding whether a person’s previous baptism is valid or not. The church has ultimate authority, and it can overrule the pastor and other staff members. When a person is baptized by a person from a particular local church, that church’s theological position cannot be separated from the baptism. If the immersion is a Church of Christ immersion, for example, then the group testimony is flawed because of the belief that baptism is necessary for salvation and because of the belief that salvation can be lost. The “testimony” aspect of baptism is referred to in the Baptist Faith and Message.
3. A person who joins an SBC church should have a biblical baptism. If a person somehow sneaks into the church without a biblical baptism, then it is likely that such a person will eventually desire a biblical baptism. For instance, many SBC folks experienced baptism when they were in elementary school and later doubt whether they were Christians at that time. So, out of a desire to be obedient, they desire to have a biblical, believer’s baptism after they become Christians and reflect on their earlier flawed, non-biblical baptism. The same principle applies to Christians who have experienced flawed, non-biblical baptisms in churches that believe that salvation can be lost. If they understand what the Bible says about baptism, they should desire biblical baptism that symbolizes “the believer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer’s death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus” (Baptist Faith and Message). The “death to sin” and “burial of the old life” are, as Spurgeon says, irrevocable. Thus, baptism pictures the fact that we have been saved and cannot lose it.
Brother David (Volfan),
I do understand and appreciate your view of baptism and even though it may appear we are miles apart in our individual understanding of the act of water baptism, I don’t think we are really that far apart at all.
I too believe that water baptism is reserved for those that have trusted Christ as Savior and I am convinced that there are AoG people that have confessed with their mouth and believed in their heart that Jesus is Lord, and God has placed them into His church.
It appears that the distinction you want to make is that the local church member actually determines who God has placed into His body (being the church) as demonstrated by the fact that some churches use the act of baptism as part of their policy for causing membership. I have served and fellowshipped with SBC Baptist’s that rigidly adhere to this type of policy…. and I have served and fellowshipped with Baptist’s that have not applied the policy that baptism causes membership. The reason I use the term policy is to make sure and expose that there is no such doctrine in scripture, yet men have found it important to determine policy for identifying their members and then attempt to have baptism and Acts 2:41 read as if God is trying to tell us “more” than the number He has added to His church. I have had Pastors actually tell me they believe that it is the water baptism that has caused the number of 3000. If we are allowed to interpret scripture in that way for Acts 2:41, we would then be easily convinced to change a whole host of doctrines.
Being raised in the AoG until the age of nine, I certainly realize the problems that the leaders of the denomination face everyday when confronted with scripture. I also am aware that there are leaders in the AoG that believe in eternal security as you and I do. But again, that is not what places someone in God’s church,…God does the placing as He has so clearly stated in His Word. David, there are probably people that gather to worship as part of your fellowship today that struggle with eternal security. And you may never be able to convince them of that fact in Christ as you know it, but they are still members of your body (even without being convinced and fully understanding as you) because God has made it so, not because of you or I or anyone else. If you found out their confidence was different that yours on eternal security would you revoke their membership? Or would you continue to teach the truth in hopes of convincing them that God’s word can provide them with great assurance? Being part of the Baptist world since age nine and serving the church since my teens, I know without a doubt that these types of situations occur day in and day out.
To make disciples and baptize is the command for the church….not to establish it. The questions arise though as we determine how the church forms locally out of what God has already established and is putting into place every day that He adds more souls to His church.
Blessings,
Chris
Dear Impact,
I do not know if I’ve yet to fulfill the commitment I made last time I commented here that it would be quite a spell before I returned. I’ll assume quite a spell has been fulfilled.
There seems to be nothing really new in this thread, from my point of view. We simply have different views in the SBC on the question raised. Nonetheless, the baptism question is a good way to build a nice warm fire when things get a bit chilled. Do you not agree?
If I am honest, however, what I found most disturbing about this thread is the unchecked taunting coming from one of Impact’s regular contributors, Les Puryear, toward a guest here, David Worley.
Understand: David does possess a tendency to be a sparkplug at times as do I. And, the times my spark has allegedly escaped here, the fine crew at Impact has not been hesitant to publicly point out (Though I obviously possess my personal doubts it can be shown a legitimate charge in all cases, I’ll leave that for others to decide).
Confession aside, I am perplexed that Impact has not stepped in with a cold bucket of water and pitched it Puryear’s way. While David was obviously in provocative mode–which, by the way, is precisely what is expected when provocative questions are raised in the main post; recall, “you make the call”–he was no more wired in making his case than was his contenders. Yet your contributor, Les Puryear, clearly baits David when David had written nothing pertaining to Puryear:
“I think this thread has revealed the Landmarkian leanings of one preacher in the holler. Does this mean that Baptist Identity = Landmarkism?…I can’t believe Volfie said that AoG is not a valid church, but they are Christian. Huh? That makes no sense whatsoever. If they’re Christian and they’re gathered together that’s a church. Am I missing something here? Is this the type of Baptist we want to be identified with?”
Laying aside the flat out discrepancy between Impact, on the one hand, advertising itself as a “point of dialog for all Christians…provid[ing] information and Christian fellowship within a wholesome, God-honoring environment in the blogosphere” and on the other hand, one of its major contributors (Puryear) poking and prodding in what is easily discerned as a heated environment, does Puryear’s concern expressed by “Is this the type of Baptist we want to be identified with?” stand as the stamp with which SBCImpact at large would like to impress upon the public as their version of what”being Baptist” is? One has to wonder what “type of Baptist” is acceptable to your good contributor’s view.
Humorously, Puryear, who logged on in his query apparently appalled that David would allegedly refuse to include in his circle the Assemblies of God, cocks his own gun to blast Baptists of David’s stripe to kingdom come! So Worley refuses Assemblies’ fellowship within his congregation but Puryear questions’ Baptists’ in his. Personally, I think Worley’s view appears, at least on first glance, a bit easier to defend than Puryear’s.
Back to my point here: If SBCImpact would like to impress upon the public that their version of “being Baptist” excludes folk like David–or even the ‘BI Boys’ (whoever this phantom posse is)–then I think there IS new stuff here worth discussing. If SBCImpact does not agree with Puryear, why in tarnation has not a single contributor logged on and rebuked such willy-nilly nonsense?
I wish this were all. I am late now in my start on a pressing project. But I cannot fail to mention as well that the remarks Puryear made above was only the beginning. Once again note the taunting, poking, prodding of the words Puryear employed without one scintilla of specific evidence (my comments are in brackets]:
Puryear: “I’m not the one saying Christians aren’t real churches, you are” [This is sheer fabrication. Unless I missed it, not one time did David make such a statement or even close to it. David was careful to say things like: "that doesnt mean that I dont count the AoG as Christians. I just dont believe that thier baptism is a Scriptural baptism...the Church I pastor right now accepts Southern Baptist baptisms only. I can live with that, but I dont agree with them."]
Puryear: “Your arguments are weak and contradictory and your Landmarkism is showing. It’s not a pretty picture” [100% ad hominem; Is this SBCImpact's example of valid dialog from their major contributors?]
Puryear: “Why would I be bitter about Indy? That’s one of the most ignorant things you’ve said yet. I’m tired of the BI guys trying to kick everybody out of the SBC and trying to tell Southern Baptists to raise their baptism numbers by rebaptizing every Christian that joins their church.” [Puryear was responding to David's question--an inappropriate dig in my view (sorry David)--about the SBC in June. However, David's question pales in comparison to the SBCImpact's contributor's response--"one of the most ignorant things you've said yet"? That's supposed to constitute an example of a "wholesome, God-honoring environment in the blogosphere"? When one of your major contributors makes such an insulting remark, and that without one peep from the other contributors? Please.
Not only so, Puryear own unchecked statement qualifies for the blunder on this thread--"I’m tired of the BI guys trying to kick everybody out of the SBC and trying to tell Southern Baptists to raise their baptism numbers by rebaptizing every Christian that joins their church" First, Puryear needs more than rhetoric to demonstrate that "BI guys" are attempting to squeeze "everybody out of the SBC." Who these phantom "guys" are he never says which adds injury to insult. Second, if Puryear can point to a single post to demonstrate such, he is welcome to it. He's often pitched me in the pie he sees. I'd like to know if any of my posts attempts to "kick everybody out of the SBC." If he cannot, and I am one included in his clump of clay, I find that remark inflammatory and frankly, slanderous.
I personally have successfully worked in city-wide evangelistic crusades with dozens of different denominations. Even worse is Puryear's sly remark that the "BI guys", of whom he is obviously tired, "tell[s] Southern Baptists to raise their baptism numbers by rebaptizing every Christian that joins their church”. I am stunned. Where is the evidence for such a raw but serious assertion? Of any of the “BI guys” floating around in your contributor’s mind, where are the calls for SBs to “raise their baptism numbers by rebaptizing every Christian that joins their Church”? I’d like to know where so I could challenge their view.
If Puryear cannot produce the goods, one can only assume he has no goods but simply has written an inflammatory remark. Nonetheless, for me, it is more than inflammatory, it is a down-right slanderous lie. I would not think of doing such nor would any of whom I am acquainted that are so-called “BI guys” make such irresponsible calls to rebaptize every Christian who joins their church for their baptisms to increase. SBCImpact should either prove this or remove this and Puryear ought to publicly apologize for lying about brothers, which, according to Puryear himself, is an “abomination” to God (read his current post).]
Puryear: “I also noticed you didn’t deny being a Landmarker” [So, what's that's supposed to mean?]
Puryear: “You don’t play “comment twister” very good either. I see you’re trying to twist my words like your other pals. You really should stop twisting and spinning other’s comments. You’re not very good at it. Perhaps Bart can give you some lessons.
” [Again, Puryear is scratching and clawing in a provocative environment. And, I saw nothing once again to substantiate David was "twisting" Puryear's words. If he was, point it out.
Nor again is it necessary to write that David "twist[s] my words like your other pals.” What does Puryear mean? Can he point to where his words are twisted? The “other pals” are presumably the phantom “BI boys”. Why are they relevant here except to pour gasoline on a comment thread? Is this SBCImpact’s view of the way a major contributor should “dialog”? If not, where the heck are you guys at when one of your representatives goes bananas?
But unchecked Puryear remains full speed ahead: “You really should stop twisting and spinning other’s comments.” Again pure, 100% vintage ad hominen that can only be interpreted as citing to riot. Finally, Puryear presumably IDs one of perps he’s been insulting–Bart Barber. Why bring up Barber? Nor does the smiley face weaken the unacceptable rhetoric Puryear invokes.]
SBCImpact needs to deal with their own. It’s obvious to some of us at least one of your major contributors should think more seriously about his accusations before he employs his emotive keyboard. Your silence on this may be telling.
With that, I am…
Peter
Peter,
In the apartment in which my family and I are currently living, my internet connection is very “sketchy.” Yesterday, right after David Worley and Les posted their exchange of comments, I had already copied, and was getting ready to paste the following reminder from the IMPACT standards:
“Please exercise grace and humility when making comments. We understand that there will be opportunities for healthy debate from time to time. But please keep your comments focused upon the issues in question. Please do not attack, slander, or malign any individual. If you step outside the bounds of Christian honor and dignity, you will be warned. We sincerely hope that we will never have to suspend any commenting privileges.”
Right before I could paste what I had copied, though,I lost my connection, and have not been able to check in on this comment stream until now. In any case, my personal opinion, is that the discussion did get a bit out of line. Hopefully, we can get back to the “less strident” tone for which we have been known in other circles.
Peter,
wow.
Prov. 10:19
Baptist Theologue,
I hope this doesn’t come across as overly “strident,” but I find it odd that you quote someone with whom you do not agree, either on their view of sotieriolgy or of baptism (e.g. Spurgeon), to back up your view on the issue being discussed on this post. When all is done and told, it seems to me that Spurgeon’s position on this completely undermines yours. Even though he considered General Baptists to be in serious doctrinal error (more so, apparently, than you), he still admitted their baptisms as valid.
In any case, I am sure you will agree that the bottom line is not what Spurgeon or anyone else thought. It is what God has revealed to us in His Word.
Peter Lumpkins,
You and your Baptist Identity Group claim to be People of the Book. When confronted with Bible Verses that are in the Book (Bible) you don’t except them. Why is That????????????????
Dave Miller challenged your group and there were no takers. I am bared from all the Blogs in your Group because I use to many Bible Verses.
Wayne Smith
David (Rogers),
Thank you for your interest, not to mention insight that the concern I raised was not completely unilateral. Though I doubt it will happen, the real core of my comment was for SBCImpact to take responsibility for their contributor sowing seeds of discord by making unproven slanderous accusations. In other words, prove it or remove it. Nor am I insinuating you personally have control over that. Again, thank you.
Rick
Proverbs 12:6
With that, I am…
Peter
David R.,
I have not found any preacher with whom I completely agree on all theological issues, but I came pretty close with your Dad. When I quote them, it doesn’t mean that I agree with them on all points. You are correct in saying that I disagree with Spurgeon’s soteriology, but I do agree with his view of the symbolism in baptism and like the eloquent way he expressed it. If I remember correctly, your Dad admired Spurgeon and referred to him as “the prince of preachers,” but your Dad also did not agree with Spurgeon’s soteriology. For a long time (at the different campuses) there has been a painting of Spurgeon in his corpulent years in the library at Mid-America, and when I feel guilty of being overweight, I sometimes think of that painting and remember that God can use overweight people. Of course, not every faculty member at Mid-America agrees with Spurgeon’s soteriology, but they recognize his greatness. Again, I am only assuming that he accepted General Baptist baptisms, but I have no proof of that. He was a member of the Baptist Union in England which included both groups, but he left it during the down grade controversy. So, I’m not sure if his position changed toward the end of his life. If he did accept baptisms from those groups he considered to be heretics and infidels, then that practice seems inconsistent to me. By the way, his practice regarding the Lord’s Supper was more restrictive than some people seem to think:
“Spurgeon’s attitude towards these questions has very often been misunderstood. He did not absolutely agree with the practice of the American Baptists regarding the communion, but he did very nearly, and it is an abuse of terms to call him an ‘open communionist.’ He did not advocate or practise the promiscuous invitation of all Christians to the table of the Lord. The communion service was held on Sunday afternoon in the Tabernacle, and admission was by ticket only. Members of the church, of course, were furnished with tickets. Any person not a member, desiring to attend and partake of the Supper, must satisfy the pastor or deacons that he was a member in good standing of an evangelical church, when he would receive a ticket. At the end of three months he would be quietly told that he had had an opportunity to become acquainted with the church, and they would be glad to have him present himself as a candidate for membership; otherwise he would do well to go elsewhere, where he could conscientiously unite. This is a more restricted communion than is practised by most Baptist churches in America, for in large numbers of our churches Pedobaptists occasionally partake of the communion without any such careful safeguards. Spurgeon did not believe in mixed membership; he abhorred it. No one could be a member of the Metropolitan Tabernacle church unless he was a baptized believer—credibly a believer, and certainly baptized. From our point of view, it was very unfortunate that he gave the approval of his example to even occasional communion with those whom he believed unbaptized. His practice . . . was to this extent illogical and inconsistent, and somewhat weakened the general healthfulness of his influence. He frankly admitted this in private conversations, on many occasions, and explicitly said that were he a pastor in America he should conform to the practice of American Baptists. Compared, however, with the ‘open communion’ Baptists of England, he was strongly orthodox and rigidly conservative.”
Vedder, A SHORT HISTORY OF THE BAPTISTS, Chapter 17
David, speaking of being overweight, when you are back in Memphis, maybe we can get together with David W. and Geoff at Bozos for some barbecue.
Peter,
Interesting indeed.
All,
Dr Charles Stanley’s sermon this past Sunday gave credit to a AOG Woman Pastor for preaching the sermon that caused the Holy Spirit to convict His Heart to except Jesus Christ as His Lord and Savior.
Wayne Smith
Baptist Theologue,
Please don’t take my comment to infer that I consider it invalid for you, or anyone else, to positively quote Spurgeon, or others with whom you may disagree on other points. We all do this from time to time. My point was that, on this particular issue, it seemed to me that using Spurgeon to back up your position seems a bit inconsistent. To be honest, I am not totally sure myself of Spurgeon’s views on accepting the baptisms of General Baptists. Though, from what I have read of his views on related topics, I would be surprised if he did not admit the baptisms of General Baptists.
The quote you give from Vedder on Spurgeon’s practice and views concerning “open communion” is interesting. I have seen that somewhere before. The following article gives somewhat of a counterview:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NXG/is_3_34/ai_94161024
Actually, my own view on “open communion” is very compatible with what Vedder claims as Spurgeon’s practice at Metropolitan Tabernacle. From what I understand, that practice would also technically run counter to the BF&M, as would my own view. It would be interesting for me, however, to know it there is any additional confirmatory evidence to back up what Vedder states concerning Spurgeon’s private conversations.
If we could swing the BBQ at Bozo’s in the next 2 weeks, count me in. We are set to return to Spain on Aug. 25.
Blessings,
David
David R.,
The online article you cited is interesting. The following quote from page 8 deals with Spurgeon’s views on the Lord’s Supper:
“After the down-grade controversy, Baptists in America muted their criticisms of his open communion practices. In 1907, G. W. Gardner quoted John A. Broadus to enforce a claim that his open communion sentiment was an anomaly: ‘I heard Dr. Broadus remark once that the statement made by Spurgeon to the effect that he had never given the communion question serious consideration was unworthy of Spurgeon.’ Others argued that he hardly qualified as an open communionist. J. T. Christian, professor of church history at New Orleans Baptist Bible Institute (now New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary), made Spurgeon an honorary member of the close communion club in his 1892 book defending close communion. After he proved that Spurgeon was wrong to invite unbaptized persons to the Lord’s table, he proceeded to enlist him as a close communionist. He quoted William E. Hatcher who in 1892 visited Spurgeon. Spurgeon confessed to Hatcher that ‘if I were to come to America to live, I would join a close communion church and conform myself to its practices on the Communion question.’ He quoted Cleveland Baptist minister W. A. Perrins, a recent graduate of Spurgeon’s College who claimed that Spurgeon was ‘at heart a close communionist.’ Spurgeon confessed to Perrins that ‘if I had to begin my ministry again, I should certainly commence with a close-communion church. I am led to believe the American Baptists are right, but cannot alter the usages of my church, which have been of so long standing.’ (25) . . . .
(25.) G. W. Gardner, ‘The Lord’s Supper,’ Baptist Courier, 15 Aug. 1907, 5; John T. Christian, ‘Close Communion’: Or, Baptism As a Prerequisite to the Lord’s Supper (Louisville, Kentucky: Baptist Book Concern, 1892), 243-44.”
Yes, the Bozos thing is a good idea. We can open it up to anyone in the area, I guess. I’m not sure what the best date would be.
BT,
I knew I’d seen that somewhere before. Actually, it’s been awhile since I read the entire article. In any case, at present, I identify more with Spurgeon’s practice at MT than his later view, as confessed to Hatcher and Perrins. I also like very much Spurgeon’s overall ecclesiological position of a strong stance on a conservative, evangelical view on the gospel and biblical authority, with a corresponding open, generous view towards fellowship and cooperation with other conserative evangelicalas.
If ya’ll come up with a date for Bozo’s before Aug. 25, let me know. Maybe we can make this a big blogfest thing…
Peter,
I see your personal attacks on me continue. Your dislike of me and everything I write is obvious to all and your comments attempting to twist my words in your usual way fall upon deaf ears.
Your telephone call to Dwight McKissic encouraging him to not nominate me prior to the SBC annual meeting reveals how low you can go. Your active working to discredit me as a legitimate candidate prior to the convention is not only despicable but reveals a heart that is akin to the unregenerate.
Just as you tried to discredit me during the days before the annual meeting by cherrypicking 18 months worth of blogging, you continue to use that tactic here. It did not work then and it is not working now.
Is this me being bitter? No. This is me telling what kind of person you have revealed yourself to be. You are the one with bitterness in your heart toward me. I would caution you to repent before it eats you alive.
Les
David R.,
I couldn’t reach David W. on the phone. Maybe we can make it a blogfest (open to all bloggers and lurkers) sometime next week. I would suggest Thursday or Friday. I called Bozo’s, and they open at 10:30. We should probably meet at 11:00 or 11:30 to beat the noon crowd. It’s about a 45-minute drive from East Memphis, near the line between Tipton and Fayette Counties. The address is 342 Highway 70 W, Mason, TN 38049. The phone number is 901-294-3400. Yall come!
Dear SBCImpact
Unfortunately, the rhetoric of Puryear, one of your major contributors, neither stings nor sticks. I remain unmoved. Nor will I stand down. If my comment twists his words or “attacks him”, I am willing to engage them and be shown to possess the heart “akin to the unregenerate”. If he or SBCImpact cannot produce such, that’s fine too. At least, we will know.
I ask once again for the SBCImpact contributors to log on and either affirm their contributor’s approach on this thread or distance themselves from it.
With that, I am…
Peter
David, Geoff, John, and Rob,
I have sent you an email regading Mr. Lumpkins and his continuing personal vendetta against me. I urge you to read the email for background and context of his remarks and their true purpose.
Les
Dear SBCImpact,
I am glad brother Les Puryear has taken an interest in this, even if behind the scenes. However, “true purpose” and/or “personal vendetta” aside, nothing written on this open thread stands or falls on anything Puryear could or could not pen in a personal email about me. I care not a knat’s behind for chasing rumors, much less those I cannot possibly address. I do, however, care much for evidence.
I asserted there existed no evidence in Puryear’s accusations against known brothers and no one has thus far has acknowledged it–outside David Rogers–much less disputed it.
I wrote as clearly as I knew write, given the time I had. Outside of a couple of rewordings and perhaps two misspelled words, I would change absolutely nothing in the posts I’ve offered on this thread. Either the remarks I offered toward your contributor’s harassing, unsubstantiated accusations toward brothers possess teeth or they do not. For me, it is that simple.
Once again, SBCImpact contributors should either acknowledge their approval of one of their major contributor’s comments and tactics or distance themselves from them.
Our Lord somehow, I pray, get glory out of this mess.
With that, I am…
Peter
Peter,
Did you really call Dwight McKissic and ask him not to nominate Les? If so why?
Peter,
I’ve been away from home for most of these past two days, so I missed a lot of the activity.
I do appreciate your concern regarding this thread. I looked back over the comment thread. Perhaps Les was a bit short … even pushy … with David. I think that their exchange involved re-hashing of exchanges on other sites, perhaps. But from my perspective, David held his own just fine. Both Les and David are friends of mine, though I admit that I know David a bit better … having hosted he and his lovely wife in my church and shared a killer Mexican lunch with him afterwards. But I know that each can handle their discussions on their own, for the most part.
I wish I had been around yesterday to bring the tenor down a bit. But, it is what it is. It seemed to me that they had pretty much reached an “agree to disagree” point. They were dropping smiley faces and niceties upon one another. Possible flames had burned down to mere embers (if not out altogether) … which I think you have fueled into a renewed conflagration between yourself and Les. I invite both of you to take your problems with one another off-line.
As to the subject of the reputation of this blog (which you brought up) … I think we do a pretty doggone good job of trying to live up to our billing. Yes, tempers do occasionally flare up. And disagreements are bound to occur. All we can do is our best, which we will continue to do. Such is the nature of discussions. But your attempt to somehow indict our collaborative blog based upon a single thread, or even the comments of one of the regular contributors … well “that dog just don’t hunt.” Sometimes fellow contributors say things I don’t like, or take positions I don’t like. Sometimes we disagree (even argue?) with one another. We each have minds of our own. We seek to hold one another accountable as best we can. Heated exchanges sometimes occur in a thread. But what we do not do (and will not tolerate) are “hit job” posts that intentionally attack people. Certainly, you won’t find any of that here.
You challenged us to either affirm our distance ourselves from Les’ comments. I choose neither of those solutions. Instead, I will be in contact with Les by e-mail. I will affirm my brother and offer him counsel. Perhaps you could do the same.
Meanwhile, I invite you to join in our discussions anytime … even if you don’t have a problem with something that has been said.
Anyhow … I can’t believe this is still going on. Let’s try and shift the attention to Les’ “abomination” thread … how ’bout it?
Dear SBCImpact,
I only respond because a direct question was asked. I have absolutely no desire to rehash anything about the June SBC presidency. I thought I made that clear when I chastized our good Brother David Worley for bring up an inappropriate “dig” toward our brother Puryear.
Rick,
My brother, first, I absolutely will not bring personal conversations into blogdom, regardless of what others do. From my view, it is moral breach of confidentiality I learned long ago in the pastorate.
Secondly, Puryear first wrote of this on his blog, July 10th, claiming that our Brother Dwight “told him” I did so, but later softened it to “My conclusion was based on deduction, not direct comment from Dwight.”
Thirdly, I openly posted on the convention and issues pertaining to the presidency. Anyone can still pull those up and judge for themselves if I either “cherrypicked” or “twisted” our good brother’s words.
That’s all I really have to say about that and wouldn’t have even written that much if Puryear’s word I quoted above were not publicly posted on his blog.
Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
Peter,
So, did you or did not call Dwight McKissic and ask him to not nominate Les? You responded, all right, but didn’t seem to answer the direct question very directly.
If, perhaps, you answered me (and I just missed it) by saying you aren’t going to bring personal conversations into blogs, then that is a grand royal cop out.
I don’t care to rehash the June SBC either, but here is the opportunity for you to clear the air, so to speak and to say “no, I didn’t” or “yes, I did” very plainly. Instead of doing that, you chose to refer me to other blogs. A simple “yes, I did” or “no, I didn’t” will suffice.
Les seems to have made an accusation against you. If it is unfounded, then there needs to be an apology. If it is, indeed, a founded accusation, then, that is a whole other thing.
For me, I promise to drop this with your plain “yes, I did” or “no, I didn’t” answer. I won’t make another comment regarding this.
For me, it isn’t about the SBC presidency. It is about character.
Rick,
I stand by my remarks. There is a lot more to the story that include a lot of other people. Perhaps a book would be in order.
Les
Rick Boyne,
This is where the truth hits the Road. Peter Lumpkins is not a man of Truth and can’t stand the Truth.
Wayne Smith
BT,
I’m sorry that I wasnt able to take your call today. My wife and I were running errands and taking care of some business for most of the day. But, Geoff did get a hold of me a few minutes ago. Meeting at Bozo’s sounds great. How about Thursday at 11 am? I think that Geoff is gonna put more up about this in case there are others out there who would like to meet us there.
Peter,
Thanks for stepping up to the plate for me. I’m used to people attacking me and saying ugly things. It happens often. With God’s help, I try to have a tough hyde like a rhino’s, yet have a soft heart. It’s hard to do, but with God’s help I do it.
Peter, you are right. I shouldnt have brought up about Les being bitter about Indy, although it really looks like that may be the case. Either way, Les, I hope that we can stay friendly. I dont like mad, angry wars.
I hope that some of yall can meet us at Bozo’s on Thursday at 11 am.
I’ll be taking my barbeque white, chopped,
David
Wayne,
What you’re saying about Peter is not true, and you ought to be ashamed for such slander and lies. Shame on you for saying such things about such a Godly man as Peter. Shame, shame, shame.
David
Let’s stop the personal references, please. Discuss the issues, not one another.
Volfie,
I have no issue with you personally. We disagree often but we’re friendly if not friends.
However, Peter is a horse of a different color. He made it very personal a few months ago. I tried to resolve it with him but he refused. Yeah, it’s personal.
Les
David W.,
Thursday at 11:00 is good.
BT & DW,
I going to say a “definite maybe,” until I can consult with my boss (my wife) when she gets back in town tomorrow. I’ll even go so far as saying “probably yes.”
Mike, if my “probably yes” becomes a “yes,” can I ride with you?
Geoff,
Thank you, my brother, for attempting to respond, though I hope am not presumptuous in speaking for us both that I do not think either of us expected your response to satisfy my query. Brushing aside the extremely unbecoming allegations that one of SBCImpact’s major contributors slanderously made–accusations that I carefully rehearsed–with a “But, it is what it is.” summary cannot be taken seriously from my point of view. I realize you disagree and that’s perfectly acceptable to me.
Nor, Geoff, does your point have teeth about “tempers do occasionally flare…And disagreements are bound to occur…Sometimes fellow contributors say things I don’t like, or take positions I don’t like. Sometimes we disagree (even argue?) with one another.” To the contrary, Geoff, not one microscopic part of my concern took issue with any position presented. Indeed I fully recognized the differences in the SBC over your “you make the call” post.
Rather my concern was and still is about the flagrant, personal taunting-pattern that your contributor leveled not only against David Worley, but also the “BI guys”, accusing them of making outlandish calls like in order to raise baptisms, we should rebaptize every Christian that joins the church. That’s not expressing “different positions”, “heated exchange”, “disagreeable points”, my brother; it’s theologically outrageous. And, if Puryear claims it’s true of the ‘BI guys’, integrity demands he bring the groceries to the kitchen if he wants to cook that stew.
On the other hand, I would go so far as to say, if it is untrue, it’s pure, unmitigated slander, sowing seeds of discord and deceit toward a group of brothers in Christ.
Thus, it is definitively not about agreeing or arguing; it is about accountability for accusations your contributor is making. If you do not see the difference between the two, I do not know how to make my position clearer and simply will move on.
I have to say before closing, my brother Geoff, you gave to me a jewel of a response when you cautioned me for heating this thing up.
You write: “…I think you have fueled into a renewed conflagration between yourself and Les. I invite both of you to take your problems with one another off-line.” What a Georgia hoot! Sweet moma, a double Georgia hoot! One hardly knows how or what to say. I guess I just say I think you’re talking to the wrong farmboy. Les Puryear is the one milking that cow, my good fellow. Indeed he got another full bucket or two since your comment!
I trust your evening well.
With that, I am…
Peter
David R.,
I’ll pick you up at 10:15 on Thursday unless you tell me otherwise. I’m guessing you live at the same place as last time.
Rick,
Whether or not I have committed a “grand royal copout” as you apparently think is totally up to you and others to decide. Frankly, I don’t give a duck’s quack who thinks I’m “coping out” about anything.
Moreover, Rick, you appeared to miss my point in “refer[ing you] to other blogs.” It was not any blog. Rather it is a public record you could check with your own two eyes about what I said. If you do not appreciate evidential matters, I don’t know that I want to pursue that any further.
As for your “promise to drop this”, I have to say as clearly as I know how, my brother: I care little one way or another whether one decides to drop any rumor about me. I have precious few moments dedicated in my schedule for such juvenile nonsense. I do have more time for tangible pursuits like questioning words printed on a public thread before me–especially when those words are demonstrably false. Which is why, by the way, I took these allegations here to the woodpile to split a few blocks.
I care ever so much what my Lord thinks; what my wife thinks; what my three children and my little precious Sofie (only grandbaby) thinks; what my dear Church thinks; what my immediate circle of godly friends thinks. I have to confess, however, from outside that last concentric circle, what others think becomes a gray, unexcitable fog to me.
Well, I’ve used up my capital. I appreciate SBCImpact for allowing me space here and, as before, since I posted some lengthy comments, I commit not to return for quite some spell.
Grace, Rick. I trust your evening a delight. I’m off to spend the rest of the evening with the greatest, most patient gal on the face of the earth.
With that, I am…
Peter
Rick,
See what I mean. He thinks he’s used up his capital here when he had none to use in the first place and certainly has none remaining. The guy just doesn’t get it.
Les
At the risk of sounding aggressive, which I am being, Peter and david V, how can you two do and say what you do and say and live with it?
Meanwhile this poor woman is waiting to hear if she can join the church without being rebaptized. (lifting the gavel) All in favor signify by saying “aye”.
The ayes have it.
This personal smear-athon is a sad ending to what was an interesting and lively discussion.
Amen … amen to that …
Peter,
I did happen to have a nice evening last night with my wife. The first time since 2001 that we have spent the evening with another couple, sans children. I’ve spent the day with my in-laws, enjoying 75 degree weather with rain.
First, let me say, yes, you do have a lovely grandchild. That is true.
Second, you spoke volumes by not plainly answering what I asked. I didn’t think it was so tough a question. You called it a rumor, why did you not then put an end to it by plainly saying, “no, I didn’t”.
You said, “Moreover, Rick, you appeared to miss my point in “refer[ing you] to other blogs.” It was not any blog. Rather it is a public record you could check with your own two eyes about what I said. If you do not appreciate evidential matters, I don’t know that I want to pursue that any further.” ***I was simply looking for you to say “I did” or “I didn’t”.
In my estimation, you didn’t answer the question but you made it very clear that you aren’t about to.
Not wanting to jump to conclusions, but knowing what human nature is, that doesn’t point in your favor. But then again, you said you don’t care what people outside your sphere of influence think about you. That speaks volumes, too.
All I wanted you to do was answer a question. All I wanted was to clear up an accusation. I am terribly disappointed that you refused to do that.
It isn’t about the SBC; it is about personal character.
Debbie,
Who is David V.?
David