Sep
26
Reclaiming the Baptist Distinctive – Baptism by Immersion
Posted byDr. Jim Richards, Executive Director of the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention and 1st Vice-President of the Southern Baptist Convention, was invited to speak in chapel at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary on Tuesday. Dr. Richards spoke on the need for regaining the Baptist distinctive of baptism.
Dr. Richards spoke clearly about this distinctive. He attributed the waning of this distinctive to “evangelical ecumenism.” Dr. Richards clearly defined a New Testament church by pointing out four marks:
- Preach Grace alone by Faith alone through Christ alone. This type of preaching will incorporate the Security of the Believer.
- The Church is comprised of Baptized Believers.
- The Bible is the final rule of Faith and Practice.
- She is autonomous in her Theo-democracy.
Click below to listen to his message. Get your Bible and follow a true statesman as he proclaims the Truth.
Standard Podcast [33:35m]: 
65 Comments
September 26th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Is there any way to download this file from you website? If so, could you please explain how?
Thanks
September 26th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Tim,
Is baptism by immersion under attack in Southern Baptist life? Why the need to reclaim a distinctive that has never been lost?
You seem to believe that baptism by immersion needs to be saved and Wes Kenney thinks that our distinctive or principle of religious liberty has been misunderstood by Baptists who disagree with Ronnie Roger’s warped view of the 14th amendment as it pertains to the 1st.
What distinctive next week will SBC Today declare needs reclaiming or has been misunderstood by us confused layfolk?
September 27th, 2007 at 3:33 am
Brother Ben,
You will have to ask Brother Wes about that. He is our resident “high-tech redneck”. :>)
Brother BDW,
Baptism by immersion is a distinctive that is under attack. There are Baptist churches that have actually debated whether to admit into membership someone that has been baptized as an infant and believes that was their baptism. Also, there are churches that debate whether or not to admit someone into membership who was sprinkled and they believe that to be their baptism.
It was in the mid-70’s that I remember this debate entering the SB church that I was growing up in. We had a pastor at the time that was trying to grow the church by proselyting the Methodist and Presbyterians. He kept running into a roadblock with some of the members that insisted these people had to be Baptized by immersion. The same argument he used then is the same one being used in today’s climate for change. The argument went something like this; “These people are Christians and they love Jesus. However, they actually believe their sprinkling or infant baptism was meets Jesus’ standard of Baptism.” Some went so far as to debate whether or not Jesus was baptized by immersion.
You ask if this distinctive is under attack in the SBC? I would say that when a leading Baptist pastor (Dr. John Piper) that many people in the SBC listens to and is in agreement with much of what he says; openly states that he could allow a pedoabaptist to become a member of his church… We then have a leading SBC pastor and theologian respond to that statement and the pastor and theologian are accused of being arrogant by other SB pastors, we have a problem with the Baptist distinctive of baptism.
You ask about what we will declare needs reclaiming next? I do not know, it depends on which wind of doctrine that blows through the SB community and someone believes it will be cool to alter because that doctrine makes us look uncool.
Blessings,
Tim
September 27th, 2007 at 10:44 am
The audio file is under resources. I don’t think the capability exists to download it. That’s something we need to work on. We will have a manuscript shortly though.
September 27th, 2007 at 10:46 am
BDW:
I am familiar with three recent examples of high profile churches exploring the possibility and even probability of accepting baptisms that were from other distinctives.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
“There are Baptist churches that have actually debated whether to admit into membership someone that has been baptized as an infant and believes that was their baptism.”
That is indeed a true statement. This issue has been a great point of contention in my church over the past year. In fact, a “discernment team” on which my dad serves was established to sort this all out. My mom was raised in PC-USA church. She was sprinkled as an infant. In college, she joined my grandfathers Southern Baptist church in Richmond, VA and was baptized. As a Baptist, I have a little sympathy for sprinkled folks who want to join a Baptist church but refuse to be immersed….
All that said – in Southern Baptist life (not moderate life, just in the SBC) is baptism really under attack? Henderson Hills is just one church. Are there others?
I agree that Piper has influence. But what is Tom Ascol’s position on baptism? He seems to wield a good deal of influence over actual Southern Baptist Calvinists. I do believe though that as the number of Reformed Southern Baptists increases – baptism by immersion could come under attack.
But have you reached that point yet?
September 27th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Brother Joe,
Thanks for the update of the transcript. That would be a wonderful resource.
Brother BDW,
What an amazing statement coming from the moderate side of Baptist life. As far as other churches like Henderson Hills debating the issue, I do not know of others. That said, it does not mean there are not others debating this issue. My concern lies solely in the amount of debate against the arguments for baptism by immersion. As to Brother Tom Ascoll, I do not know where he stands on the issue. I have not seen him take an argument on this one way or another. If I do not see one before the end of November I will ask him at Ridgecrest. As to the Reformed element in the SBC according to the first formal research development from LifeWay’s Research Dept. there are only 10% reformed pastors in the SBC. Thus, I would not think there is any major concern. However, I do not think that I have implied that being reformed means you do not believe in baptism by immersion.
Blessings,
Tim
September 27th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
brother Tim,
I am reformed as you know and I believe in believer’s baptism. However, I do not demonize those who believe in paedobaptism as “unrepentant sinners.”
My position is not an attack against “believers baptism.” I hope it is not perceived to be so.
BTW, I think the baptist distinctive is typically known as “believers baptism.”
Les
September 27th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Brother Les,
Referring to someone as an “unrepentant sinner” is not demonizing anyone. You evidently do not believe a Christian live in “unrepentant sin”. However, that is not the point of this post. I will not go down that road because Brother Wes, will moderate me. :>)
I knowthat you are reformed and you were one that came to my mind as I answered Brother BDW. I know that you believe in baptism by immersion. You can call it believers baptism if you like and I will not argue over that. However, I believe that the Bible teaches that we are only to baptize believers. Thus, I more specifically refer to the mode of baptism as I speak about this issue.
Blessings,
Tim
September 28th, 2007 at 4:56 am
Tim, My Brother
Hope you are well. Les’ statement about not “demoniz[ing] those who believe in paedobaptism as “unrepentant sinners.”” may be an understatement, unfortunately.
According to Les, unless plain language cannot be believed, his own view stands as one toward whom this post may apply. BDW take notice!
On this post Les penned, remains these incredible words in the comment thread:
“Les Puryear said…
R. L….
You said, “Wouldn’t it be better for a few believers to meet in a home — New Testament style — than to compromise for something less than what we believe on any one of these issues?”
I am much in favor of meeting in homes, NT style, as you put it. This is something I am currently researching. However, I’m not sure that resolves the issue.
You see, personally, I am finding myself more and more amenable to Covenant Theology, including the practice of paedobaptism. I have taken the time to read several books about these beliefs and I find myself nodding my head in agreement with what I am reading.
Where does that place me theologically? Right now, I’m not quite sure. I feel like I’m somewhere in a demilitarized zone between baptist and presbyterian.
Les
July 11, 2007 12:22 PM
I myelf have dangling theological issues that just won’t seem to cooperate with my theology! But I am definitively not struggling with paedobaptism. The most curious thing of all is precisely why Les’ community allowed him to squeeze through that one unscathed.
Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
September 28th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Tim,
I listened to the message, and overall, I believe it is solid.
However, I’m still waiting for compelling exegetical evidence for tying baptismal validity to ecclesiastical belief in “eternal security.” In my view, this is not simply an issue of being too narrow, but is intstead a perversion of what the Scriptures teach about baptism.
I have written on this here: http://joelrainey.blogspot.com/2007/07/i-do-believe-in-alien-baptism.html
btw, congrats to all contributors here on what I believe is a well-run forum for discussion of all things Baptist.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Brother Joel,
Thanks for the encouraging word. Also, I have not had a chance view your article that you linked to, but I promise that I will.
As for Baptism by Immersion being tied to eternal security, I will elaborate on that in the future.
Blessings,
Tim
September 28th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Thanks Tim for the post,
I am under the impression that Baptist’s simply need to preach the gospel, make disciples and baptize believers. If you want to put forth the idea that any of those things comprise a Baptist distinctive I guess that is ok. Even though, I have been a Baptist for the balance of my life, and I have never thought of those things as distinctly Baptist. They appear to be distinctly biblical and are practiced by many other groups besides Baptists.
Piper is exclusively an immersionist and his church will not allow any believers that have not been baptized by immersion into their group. Sounds like nothing to re-claim there…..
Is this post calling for a baptism policy that is 100% supported by SBC members?
Piper is exclusively an immersionist and his church will not allow any believers that have not been baptized by immersion into their group. Sounds like nothing to re-claim there…..
Blessings,
Chris
September 28th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
oops…..sorry for the double-take
September 28th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Brother Chris,
You are right as to Dr. Piper’s church being an immersionist. However, Dr. Piper has stated that if someone like Carson, a pedaobpatist, desired to join the church he personally would have no problem allowing that to happen.
Move with me from Dr Piper. There has been debate from SBC pastors that have argued for allowing those that believe their baptism as an infant or their sprinkling in another denomination to become members of baptist churches without requiring baptism by immersion. Therein lies the area of reclaiming the Baptist distinctive of Baptism by immersion.
Blessings,
Tim
September 28th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Tim,
What pastors and what churches are debating this issue? I only recall one from last year, and as I recall they did not change their policy/practice.
I need to write down the date, because I find myself agreeing with Big Daddy! This sound like a call to reclaim something that is not even in danger in Baptist life, much less “lost” and in need of reclaiming.
September 29th, 2007 at 1:03 am
Peter Peter Peter,
6 posts after such a great comment and no person has bothered to respond.
Amenable to paedobaptism?
Yuck.
I think my thesis will prove true. In your Southern Baptist Convention, the ONLY folks that will advocate for an “open baptism” policy at their local church are Calvinists! Unless of course you Southern Baptists have a group of progressives that are pushing to be more ecumenical to get in good with liberal mainliners….
September 29th, 2007 at 6:06 am
Brother Geoff,
Henderson Hills is one church. The reason, I am told, that they did not go through with it, is a direct correlation to the open letter by the ExDir. of OGBC. That had a huge impact on their decision. However, the pastor has not changed his mind on the issue, it is just no wise for him to try and lead the church in that direction.
In all due respect, there are pastors that argued against the presentation of Dr.’s Yarnell, Barber, and Dever term “unrepentant sinners” when referencing pedaobaptism. The stern resistant for the term was understandable because it does represent a term that many have used for years to express lostness. However, the arguments that resulted did not so much express the term, but the belief of baptism just being understood one way by one group and another way by another. Your argument was one of the bright spots where you were genuinely arguing against the term. However, yours was the minority. As a whole, many were arguing that it would be okay for someone to continue believing that pedaobaptism was a biblical position. These were from SB pastors. I invite you to review the arguments. Even Brother David Rogers argument of “common loaf” concerns me. The reason? I am a Baptist because I believe the Bible teaches Baptism by immersion. Any deviation from that is unbiblical. Could I be mistaken? Not on this clear teaching from Scripture. To say that I am would be tantamount to saying the Bible is not clear about the virginity of Mary.
Blessings,
Tim
September 29th, 2007 at 7:44 am
Tim,
Thank you for your kind comment regarding my treatment of that issue. I’m glad that my heart on the matter came through in dealing with that particular term, and not the acceptance of paedobaptism overall.
But all that aside, even if some (many?) Southern Baptists (even pastors) remain open to working with people from other denominations with different baptisms, how does such willingness endanger the actual baptism practices of our churches?
I don’t think it does. So one church among the tense of thousands of SBC churches actually considered the welcoming of non-immersion baptisms. One church does not a “movement” make.
Again, why must we “reclaim” something that has never been lost?
September 29th, 2007 at 8:08 am
Brother Geoff,
Either I was on a different comment thread or we are not speaking about the same thing. We are not speaking about “remaining open to working with people from other denominations with different baptisms”. The debate I reference has pastors saying they can see Dr. Piper’s stance on allowing someone with pedaobaptist beliefs becoming part of a Baptist church without being baptized.
Blessings,
Tim
September 29th, 2007 at 8:16 am
The contention is how do you re-claim something you do not own and is not distinct to the Baptist (denomination)? Baptism is not a Baptist distinctive. It is a biblical distinctive. Baptism is not a membership concern unless it becomes the goal of your baptismal practice. Just like in the case where circumcision was not a Jewish distinctive (it existed long before), but was a command to circumcise, yet Israel was not all Israel. The command to baptize should not be constrained and diminished for the cause of denominational bantering or membership drives (disguised by obedience or a desire to determine the real believer).
Baptism is something that believers, the “ekklesia” are doing and I hope a lot of other commands are being followed as well. What will be the next claim to distinctiveness?
Tim, I am with you and believe it is important to demonstrate that paedobaptism is no baptism at all, but this should be done by educating the “ekklesia” with the truth.
Always a good subject,
Blessings,
Chris
September 29th, 2007 at 8:38 am
Brother Chris,
I agree.
To all,
Forgive me if I have come across as identifying Baptism as being above other items of distinction to the Christan life of sanctification. That was not my intent.
Baptism by immersion after salvation is the first step in obedience to service, which service is revealed in the process of sanctification. I do not desire to come across as arrogant that it is my way or the highway. However, I believe, as Baptist we should all agree that Baptism by immersion after salvation is clearly defined in Scripture. I see arguments to the contrary from pastors. The arguments go something like this; I believe this is what the Scripture teaches, but I could be wrong. That is the argument that concerns me. If I can be wrong on the clear teaching of Scripture concerning Baptism by immersion after salvation, then I could be wrong on the clear teaching of Scripture about Mary’s immaculate conception.
Blessings,
Tim
September 29th, 2007 at 8:52 am
Tim Rogers,
Are you 100% Sure Jesus was Baptized by Immersion?
Does the Bible Say this is the Only way to be Baptized?
If this is 100% TRUE, where in the Bible does it say this?
In H is Name
September 29th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Wayne,
It appears to me that the Apostles, especially Paul, used the baptism analogy very effectively to demonstrate what God has done.
For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
(Colossians 2:9-12)
The forensic evidence for wet baptism is not available for scrutiny, but the analogy is wonderful! The term baptizo, has a primary meaning of immerse, and secondary meanings of washing away, or being made fully wet. All together and in context the use of baptizo forms the definition of the analogy given by Paul and expresses his intent very well.
Baptism does not a church make,…although a church will baptize. The “ekklesia” is “called out” (initiated) before wet baptism can take place as evidenced in the above passage. If wet baptism causes or represents the true church, then there are several different groups that will claim ownership of the wet baptism as their distinctive for church membership.
Blessings,
Chris
September 29th, 2007 at 10:48 am
To clarify….it would be more accurate to say that… “Wet” baptism does not a church make,….although a church will baptize in water. Only Christ is able to create His church through baptism made without water.
-Chris
September 29th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Dear Wayne,
Did you, my brother, get off at the wrong bus stop? This is a Baptist station. Indeed I was thinking you were Baptist. Forgive me my silly assumption.
You ask: “Are you 100% Sure Jesus was Baptized by Immersion?” The question is a weird one given the linguistic evidence. Translated, it reduces to:
“Are you 100% Sure Jesus was immersed by Immersion?”
Yes my brother, Wayne. If language means anything, we are fairly confident Jesus was immersed by immersion.
Grace, Wayne. With that, I am…
Peter
September 29th, 2007 at 11:50 am
All,
There seems to be enough confusion over what constitutes Baptist “distinctive” to warrant a helpful resource (see below).
First, note, however, that those are correct who suggest that baptism for believers by immersion is not unique to Baptists. Other Christian bodies practice virtually identically to Baptists. However, historically, this was not the case. Indeed those who practiced ‘Baptist baptism’ were so singularly unique that it is accurate to say believer’s baptism by immersion definitively distinguished them from other Christian bodies.
Hence, when those of us who possess deep conviction pertaining to the so-called ‘Baptist Identity’, the historicity of ‘distinctive’ cannot be divorced from our perspective. That, I think, has not been adequately appreciated among our Brotherly critics.
Secondly, W. Morgan Patterson, then Professor of Church History, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary wrote a helpful essay for The Quarterly Review (SQ, 1964, V24, N2) entitled “The Baptists: Who Are We? An Interpretation.”
In that paper, he dealt with several aspects in identifying our history, not the least of which was his acknowledgement about the confusing term ‘distinctive’. Here is part of this helpful section:
“Strictly speaking, there are no Baptist distinctives, if by this is meant individual tenets and practices unique to Baptists. Those beliefs usually cited as Baptist distinctives may all be found among other denominations.
A definition of the term “distinctive” is called for. If the word means a characterizing mark of Baptists, then it is appropriate. But if it is supposed to mean something singularly peculiar to Baptists (as it seems to in most works treating Baptist doctrine), then it is wholly inaccurate.
What should be emphasized is that Baptist uniqueness is to be found in a core or combination of practises and beliefs. The distinctive position of Baptists is meaningful only in a complex of characteristics.”
Professor Patterson had some other good things to note, not the least of which was his affirmation of the way we do Church. He writes again:
“If one must isolate absolute peculiarity, then perhaps this is the point at which to begin. Baptists have indeed developed certain programs and methods in implementing New Testament imperatives which are markedly distinctive.”
Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
September 29th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Peter:
Your precise analogy was exactly what I was thinking. Baptist distinctives should be biblical distinctives or they should not be used at all. I am familiar with other churches that have struggled with this issue as well. I cannot recall the specific church but there was one recently in Texas as well. I’ll probably get pummeled but I’m not certain that the reason for some of these changes is more pragmatic than theological. Our attempt to be relevant and not offend often ‘trumps’ our desire to be biblical. This is usually framed in pastoral terms in order to diffuse controversy but the end result is a watering down of what baptism represents and symbolizes: a dead man alive.
There is also much confusion among ecclesiological and methodological realities. Methodology often allows me to cooperate with others that have a differing stance on baptism, the ecclesia, eternal security, and a wide variety of issues. Ecclesiology keeps me from planting churches that compromise this concern.
September 29th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Peter and Joe,
Good clarification. I personally think that Professor Patterson’s remark, as singularly printed, is overtly ambiguous. So, I am sure he expounds further….
On the other hand, I particularly like the line….
“What should be emphasized is that Baptist uniqueness is to be found in a core or combination of practises and beliefs. The distinctive position of Baptists is meaningful only in a complex of characteristics.”
This appears to be closer to a distinctive position.
Thanks men,
-Chris
September 29th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Joe,
I agree that ecclesiological parameters are what appears to be at stake today. Some of what I’m hearing from those who are contending for official liaisons with nonBaptist groups in fulfilling the Great Commission do not stop at Gospel preaching.
Were it about evangelism alone, hardly a SB would object. What I fear is that it is not only evangelism, it is also ecclesiology that is being courted with nonBaptist groups. Candidly, I think this assumption drives many of the doubts being asserted about the validity of ‘Baptist distinctives’.
Preach with grace tomorrow. With that, i am…
Peter
September 29th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Joe,
You bring up a great point!
Do “we” plant churches, or do we “tend” (feed) the church of which we are made a steward by the power of God?
Keep up the good fight of faith!,
I going to mow the yard….
-Chris
September 29th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Chris,
Thanks for the response. I am confused how clarifying the use of a term–in this case, the way ‘distinctive’–is used is vague. Could you please tease that out, Chris?
Also, I think you are correct about Dr. Patterson’s helpful notation about the relative complexity of the Baptist movement. I think that’s what SBCToday is attempting to assemble–a well documented repertoire of all it means to be Baptist. A pretty tall order, but doable. From my view, they are off to a grand start.
Faith Chris. I trust your preaching tomorrow to be with power from on high. With that, I am…
Peter
September 29th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
I couldn’t get the mower started….
Peter,
I was actually giving Patterson the benefit of the doubt. The final Patterson quote, which you had posted earlier, is ambiguous. I probably need to read his article to get the full context and meaning.
I think I agree that the baptist “distinctive” is best represented as a compilation of motive, not some singular act of exclusivity.
Blessings,
Chris
September 29th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Chris:
Again your particularity has caught me off guard. Yet with my belief in the preciseness of language I concede your point.
Blessings,
Joe
September 29th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Brothers,
Just returned from my chores. Had to paint the front porch and should not have began this conversation and then left. Sorry, but the wife was inspecting my work today. :>)
Brother Wayne,
What Brother Chris said. The language of the Apostle Paul in the Colossians passage, but also in Romans 6:4 refers to baptism specifically as immersion. I believe your question though was Jesus immersed? To be 100% sure, either I would have had to be present or the Bible would specifically have to say He was. Seeing the first part is not possible I would have to depend on the second. Yes, I am 100% sure.
Blessings,
Tim
September 29th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
Peter,
I didn’t know you were compiling a database of my comments.
I have no problem with you posting that comment here. It’s flattering to know you actually care what I think.
I was being very transparent with R. L. about some struggles I am dealing with theologically. As a matter of fact, I have written a private email in these regards to my good friend, Tim Rogers, about some of my struggles. Although I have yet to receive a reply from Brother Tim, I know he will be sensitive to my questions and have a great empathy for my search for answers.
I will gladly stand up and say, “I don’t have everything figured out.” Maybe you do, Peter, but I don’t. Somehow I think it would be refreshing if more pastors would admit they struggle with some theological principles.
If you wish to highlight my growth process in the Lord as somehow anti-baptist, or something to be concerned about, then go ahead and give it your best shot.
If you would to know more of my struggles, email me and ask me. I’ll be glad to share them with you.
Les
September 29th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
ALL,
I asked The following Question of Brother Tim Rogers and was given answers by Chris (Col 2:9-12) and Tim (Rom 6:4)
Brother Peter made a mockery of my question. The Scripture answers I was given, Both refer to the Baptism of the Holy Spirit (Regeneration).
AGAIN I ask this question,
Are you 100% Sure Jesus was Baptized by Immersion?
Does the Bible Say this is the Only way to be Baptized?
If this is 100% TRUE, where in the Bible does it say this?
In H is Name
September 30th, 2007 at 6:49 am
Brother Les,
I am soooooo sorry. I know that I sat down and thought through your private email. After going back to confirm my reply, I found that I did not reply. Please forgive me. I was waiting for your reply to my reply. Sorry, I will get that to you soon.
Brother Wayne,
It seems that the direction you are proceeding in is a direction that I cannot fulfill. I would say that your desire for this answer would be one of agnosticism. If one were to apply your reasoning to any doctrine of the faith then they all the doctrines of the faith would become suspect.
You see, whenever I enter into debate with one that calls themselves Christian there are certain areas of thought that are a given. It is the same when I enter into debate with one that says they are Baptist. You ask if I can be 100% certain. I am 100% certain because of the evidence provided by the Scripture. If Jesus were not immersed in the Jordan River, then Paul’s grave analogy would be of none effect. If John-the-Baptist took a crock-of-water and poured it over Jesus’ head then he would not be called John-the-BAPTIST and the scripture would not say; as He (Jesus) came up out of the water.
I take for granted certain things in theological debate as I take for granted certain things when driving down the road. As I drive down the road, I take for granted that others on the road are not drinking and driving. If I get behind someone that is swerving in their lane, then I suspect there is a strong possibility that the person driving in front of me would probably would have a blood/alcohol level that exceeds the legal limit.
Brother Wayne, your questions and persistence for one to answer those questions certainly reveals you may have a high level of theological fufu/theology are swerving in the Baptist lane. If one cannot say the Bible reveals this doctrine 100%, then why is one a Baptist?
Blessings,
Tim
September 30th, 2007 at 7:50 am
Les,
A few things come to mind. First, Les, this forum is definitively not about someone’s ‘growth process’ in the Lord–unless I’m misunderstanding something here: “If you wish to highlight my growth process in the Lord as somehow anti-baptist, or something to be concerned about, then go ahead and give it your best shot.”
Nor is it about you personally, my Brother. Your making my quote of you into a possible attack against you is simply unfair. If we cannot engage the ideas someone presents and or advocates apart from ‘taking our best shot’, what can I say? Please.
Second, to transform the comment I offered into a subtle affirmation that I personally possess an entirely neat and tidy theological system is interesting; but it is also incorrect–especially in light of this statement I made: “I myelf [sic] have dangling theological issues that just won’t seem to cooperate with my theology!” Would you like a list? I would be glad to forward it to you.
Hence, somehow making me out as one having it all together, Les, because I do not struggle with whether paedobaptism is biblical and/or something about which I am ‘amenable’ does not not jive.
As for the private emails, my Brother, I’m afraid we cannot engage the content of those.
Back to the issue after the little detour, Les, you now write “If you wish to highlight my growth process in the Lord as somehow anti-baptist, or something to be concerned about…”
First, Les, I would not frame the issue of Believer’s Baptism as an issue within a ‘growth process in the Lord’ Indeed, the very subject of our Brother Tim’s very timely post challenges Baptists to recapture our historic distinctive–Believer’s Baptism by Immersion. It’s not about ‘growing as a Believer’; rather it’s about ‘being Believers who are Baptist’.
Nor is it about being ‘Anti-baptist’ Just as you said:
“I do not demonize those who believe in paedobaptism as “unrepentant sinners…My position is not an attack against “believers baptism.” I hope it is not perceived to be so.”
Neither do I, Les. But if you think it is not incredibly concerning when a well-known Southern Baptist pastor says “I am finding myself more and more amenable to Covenant Theology, including the practice of paedobaptism.” I am at a loss what would constitute concern.
The reason I made mention of this quote is that Aaron rightly pressed for other signs and/or examples of the loss of conviction about Believers’ Baptism by Immersion among Baptists. Thus, I remembered your statement, Les (No, I do not possess a file. I have been known, however, despite my more recent senility with age, to possess a pretty fair memory.)
Finally, Les, allow me to reiterate with you my own theological growth. Through the years I’ve changed my mind on a number of things–from the timing of the rapture to deacons and divorce. Most all of us have.
The issue before us is not whether we grow as Believers or theologians in the Lord. The issue is whether or not we grow as Baptists. The apparent difference, at least in my view, between you and the majority of historic Southern Baptist pastors, Les, is while they have grown in Baptist conviction, you appear to be growing away from Baptist conviction. At least, that’s the impression one gets from your open concession.
That, my Brother, if for no other reason, constitutes a call to be concerned. Hence, the Baptist Identity focus appears vindicated.
Grace for us all, my Brother Les. With that, I am…
Peter
September 30th, 2007 at 10:46 am
My Wayne,
To take your question at face value is far from mockery. I’m wondering the only response to your questions you will accept are the following:
Are you 100% Sure Jesus was Baptized by Immersion? No, Wayne. We must admit you are correct. We are not 100% sure Jesus was immersed.
Does the Bible Say this is the Only way to be Baptized? Bingo, Wayne. We must again concede you are correct.
If this is 100% TRUE, where in the Bible does it say this? Wayne, I must admit about the only thing I have to go on is my Baptist tradition. I will dig deeper still into the Bible to check and see if baptism (immersion) is the only way to be baptized (immersed).
May the Lord grant us all grace still and may He continue to give us a sense of humor.
With that, I am…
Peter
September 30th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Wayne,
Even in Classical Greek literature the word baptize always means to be immersed.
In all know biblical and secular works of antiquity baptize meant to go under the water completely, be the subject matter ships or saints.
cb
September 30th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Brother Tim Rogers,
Now you are accusing me of being of agnosticism; which means (a view that God’s existence is unprovable: the belief that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists).
I don’t see how my questions listed Below have anything to do, with not believing in God.
I Trust and Obey in The SOVEREIGNTY of our God. (OUR GOD REIGNS)!!!
As A Christian who happens to be a member, attends a Baptist Church and Believes in God’s Holy Word,
I asked for Proof (Scripture Meaning Biblical). Neither You TIM nor Chris provided Biblical PROOF to answer my questions.
I My Mind TRADATION; DOES DIDLY SQUAT in Relationship to what God’s Word says
Are you 100% Sure Jesus was Baptized by Immersion?
Does the Bible Say this is the Only way to be Baptized?
If this is 100% TRUE, where in the Bible does it say this?
So Tim, do you have answer for all of this TRADIATION you LIVE BY AND PREACH BY, WITH NO SCRIPTUE PROOF???
In His Name
September 30th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Brother Peter,
I’m looking for answers to questions that You Peter. Tim Rogers and other have in your Relationship/Fellowship with fellow CHRISTIANS of other DENOMINATIONS and the Sharing of the LORD SUPPER.
The other Problem I have is this Belief that they are Sinners, because they were not Baptized the way we were.
Peter, You did answer my question to my way of SEEING and HEARING what God’s Word Says on this matter, SILENTS
REALLY what I’ am saying is WE (BAPTIST) think we are the only ones that have it right. PRIDE
Pro 30:6 Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.
Rev 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book,
In His Name
Brother Wayne,
Sorry that this comment went to moderation. I do not know how it did. I just found it.
Blessings,
Tim
September 30th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Brother Wayne,
No one on this blog has yelled at you. Please do not yell at others.
As to your charge of my saying that you did not believe in God, allow me to clarify. First, I believe you know what I mean with the argument, but you argue from the point that appears that you do not. Maybe I used the wrong term but in general and agnostic is one that says you have to prove without no doubt something is true. It was in light of that definition that I referred to your painting me into the position of Baptism.
Seeing you are insistent that I answer your questions, I will entertain you.
Question #1–Are you 100% Sure Jesus was Baptized by Immersion?
If you mean by 100% sure that I was at the event of Jesus’ Baptism, I would have to say; No. However, if you take that point of view then you are now calling into question the very existence of God. From that perspective you are asking a question that is clearly in line with the philosophical belief of David Hume. Thus if you mean this by the question of 100%, then agnosticism is not out of the question. Allow me to say that according to Scripture, Yes, I am 100% sure.
Question #2–Does the Bible Say this is the Only way to be Baptized? The only place I see baptism used is in the New Testament. In each use of the word it means to immerse. In answer to your question, I am not sure of any other place the Bible authorizes any other way to be Baptized other than immersion.
Question #3–If this is 100% TRUE, where in the Bible does it say this? You asked for it.
Matthew 3: 6,11,13,14,16,; 28:19
Mark 1: 4,5,8,9,
Luke 3: 7,12,16,21,29,30,
John 1: 26,28,31,33; 3:22,23,26; 4:1,2;
Acts 2:38; 8:12,13,16,38; 9:18; 10:48; 16:15,33; 18:8; 19:5; 22:16
Romans 6:3
1 Corinthians 1:17
Galatians 3:27
I believe that the Bible teaches 100% that Baptism is by immersion and these are the Scriptures that I stand on.
If you disagree then disagree. That is okay. But please do not yell at me again.
Blessings,
Tim
September 30th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
HEY TIM!
sorry, i yelled.
i think it’s humorous to think that Jesus would go into a river, and then someone(john the baptist)would pour water on top of His head. what would be the point of getting into the river?
david
September 30th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
g’day folks,
Sorry I am late to the party, “date_line” and all that.
“There are Baptist churches that have actually debated whether to admit into membership someone that has been baptized as an infant and believes that was their baptism. Also, there are churches that debate whether or not to admit someone into membership who was sprinkled and they believe that to be their baptism. ”
Over 65% of our Baptist churches in Australia admit to membership those who have been baptised by sprinking and by effusion as infants!
In fact one Baptist pastor recently rang up one of my dear lovely gracious ex-anglican adherents and told her to demand membership without believers baptism into our church. He says its illegal for us to forbid membership on the basis of believer’s baptism.
I guess the reality is that most of our Baptists churches have in reality become congregational churches.
sooo 200 out of 300 churches here have more or less dispensed with Believer’s baptism as a prerequisite for membership.
Mind you, some of our pastors are pushing the homosexual ordination barrel too!
Be glad of the CR.. it saved you from this.
Oh..Wayne.. what CB said… I asked an elderly Greek man what the word baptizo meant.. he said “Do the dishes!Stick the plate under the water.. don’t just splash some water on it.. dunk it properly!”
Scripture?
Acts 8:38 Then he ordered the chariot to stop, and both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. 39 When they came up out of the water,
Romans 6.. speaks of baptism as a burial… coulkd you imagine walking through a cemetry with 6′ holes in it, where they just sprinkled a little dirt..? the idea of it.. there’s a biblical word for it.. “stinketh!” John 11:39.
1Peter 3:20 God patiently waited in the days of Noah while an ark was being prepared; in it, a few—that is, eight people—were saved through water.
21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you
I think the reference to the flood includes the idea of lots of water… unless they drowned in just a few inches of it (as the liberals say Pharoah did at the Reed sea).
John 3:23 John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water there. People were coming and being baptized,
I guess they needed much water there because ..?
Now Wayne, take a panadol, and have a good rest.
Steve
September 30th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Brother David,
You have been moderated before. :>)
Blessings,
Tim
September 30th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Brother Steve,
I have enough to do with reading the rednecks in Tn comments, do not get me started with the down-under rednecks. :>)
Seriously, please do not bait Brother Wayne. The panadol statement was a little over the line.
Blessings,
Tim
September 30th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Tim,
you most benevolent of blog hosts, I accept your reproof and forebear to send you any more Steve Irwin’s!
I apologise for the panadol statement Wayne…
hot milk may be better…
Steve
September 30th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Of course we could send you a few of our Dame Edna Everage’s… some of our Baptist pastors are going for bright gowns these days..
http://virtually-edna.theartscentre.net.au/
Steve
September 30th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Dear Wayne,
If Tim’s response did not satisfy you as to his conviction about Believer’s Baptism by Immersion being definitively part and parcel of NT ecclesiology, what else could anyone offer?
Frankly, Brother Wayne, you’ve been around the block a few times. We all know this. Some of us have as well. Why you would think you could easily unload here on this site paedobaptist sympathies stands incredible.
Our Tim possesses my personal invitation to discipline this comment I now make if he feels it out of line:
Your view, my Brother Wayne, stands as Direct Evidence #2 on this thread, demonstrating quite nicely, from my view, that historic Baptist Identity woefully requires refocus. Our Brother Les’ views constituted #1.
The irony in this particular incidence is, while the Doctrines of Grace in Baptist history has possessed various degrees of adherence–whether Calvinist or NonCalvinist supporters–there remains one and only one view about Baptism adhered to in Baptist history–Believer’s Baptism by Immersion.
While neither you nor our Brother Les appear to “struggle in a growth process” pertaining to Calvinism’s Doctrines of Grace, you are not reluctant to publicly promote your theological sympathies and/or ‘amenable’ friendliness toward paedobaptism, a practice over which our Baptist forefathers literally died for objection.
Do you think you will get by with this without challenge in a community that adheres to, by deep conviction, that the NT teaches believer’s baptism by immersion? Not while I can still type, my Brother.
Thank God for SBCToday. I say, My Brothers: Who knows but that God has raised you up for such a time as this? Southern Baptists are in trouble. But not for the political mumbo-jumbo our Brother Wade advances. We have an ecclesiological crisis.
Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
September 30th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
To all,
This is a great debate on an essential doctrine. Please do not take my corrections as reprimands. I seriously desire to stay on topic as we debate and not get into personalities. No one enjoys jocular commenting any more than me. I just do not want the commenter to be offended by a joke that has nothing to do with the debate.
By all means, please continue.
Blessings,
Tim
September 30th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Steve,
What is panadol?
Been down and under when I was Baptized. My wife being British has a few relatives Down there. When they went down into the water that may have been due to the fact that you always have to go down into a pool of water. If the ground were level there would be no pool of water.
I’ am not saying this about Church Membership, my concern is fellowship and the Lord’s Supper. Brother Tim will not let a Born again Christian participate in Communion, if they have not been Baptized by Immersion.
Tim,
I asked this question of you on another Post somewhere and you never replied to this question.
The First Lord’s Supper, of which we celebrate, was given to non-baptized apostles.
Why would you deny a Born Again Christian such as Dr. James Kennedy To fellowship at the Lord’s Supper in your church?
In His Name
September 30th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Peter,
I am probably the only one but I find trying to talk with you like trying to catch the wind. If I say it’s day, I expect you to say it’s night.
I will to continue to try to be as transparent as possible, in spite of whether you understand it or accept it for what it is. As I continue to allow the Lord to teach me, I will communicate what I believe He is teaching me.
If that doesn’t line up with where you are spiritually, then so be it. However, I doubt I will ever publicly question why those who support you will allow you to get by unscathed. Where I come from, that’s just bad manners.
Les
September 30th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Wow, I come back to take a peak tonight at the blog string on this issue as our day of worship is winding down and shazam!!……
Wayne,
I just want to clarify my statement concerning your question. I specifically stated that it is impossible to produce forensic evidence concerning the baptism of Jesus by immersion. Yet, not having the forensic evidence at our fingertips, does not in any way diminish the significance of what the Colossian and Romans passages teach us. You are correct, those passages are “dry” baptisms, which teach us the reality of our life in Christ. That has always been my position on understanding the wonderful command of baptism.
When “wet baptism” is transformed into the most common denominator for the church, it becomes easy to see how the command is diminished and the definition is changed.
The command to be baptized is ultimately and essentially an expression of gratitude, an act of worship, extended from an obedient heart in connection to the great baptizer of His church, Jesus Christ. To offer up “wet baptism” as the most common denominator, pales in comparison to the true common denominator, faith. Without faith, it is impossible to please God. Oh how easily we jump right over faith, to elevate the experiences in our lives and then we proceed to make the experiences the very definition of how we exist.
“The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’ “Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”
(Acts 17:24-31)
The ignorance of man begins to elevate the experiences of the “ekklesia” as the meaning of the “called out” one’s existence. We should not boast as in “an image formed by the art and thought of man. But we should boast in the “one” that God “having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”
As Peter was getting at earlier in this string, the Baptist denomination is trying to recover a cumulative pattern of teaching that has been known as the Baptist distinctive. The “ekklesia” that I have the privilege to serve baptizes by immersion because we believe that to be wonderful way to demonstrate and worship the true baptizer, Christ. Because we believe so strongly that baptism is an act of obedient worship to our Lord and Savior, we do not use baptism as our most common denominator. We believe that would diminish the significance of what is actually demonstrated through baptism as an act of worship. Consequently, baptism is never an issue for our “ekklesia”.
With that said, there are others of the “ekklesia” that require baptism as a membership requirement. Intrinsically this is not an issue, unless “pride” or “arrogance” is the outcome of the practice. I have served in Baptist churches that have this policy and administer baptism wonderfully. I have experienced and seen how this issue can lead to arrogance in pastors and the congregation as well.
As for the invention of paedobaptism,… there is no doubt that “infant baptism” is found nowhere in scripture. One would have to endeavor in a gross amount of theological gymnastics to make this a cogent argument. Some certainly try, and others will continue to try….until the end of age. The arguments can be compelling, ….but at the end of the theological day,….the evidence just can’t back the claim.
Respectfully,
-Chris
September 30th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
All You Brothers,
I want to SHARE this Post with YouAll. Peter do please read with an OPEN MIND, if that is possible.
Here:
http://saythetruthorpaytheconsequences.blogspot.com/2007/09/what-is-baptism.html
In His Name
October 1st, 2007 at 2:40 am
Brother Wayne,
Your question concerning Baptized believers and the Lord’s table is another subject for another day.
As to your reference and your link. I would agree that the Didache is great material, but it is not Scripture. Also, if you were to take the Didache and follow all of its teachings concerning Baptism, then you would have to fall into the Baptist belief of baptism by immersion after salvation. Why? The Didache allows for pouring of water three times over the candidates head, only if there is no running water available. With today’s modern advances, we have running water in our baptismal pools. Thus there would be no need for this allowance.
Let’s face it Brother. We are not speaking about cooperation outside of denominational walls. We are speaking of folks within the confines of what we call Baptist desiring to admit others into Baptist churches without being Baptized by immersion after salvation. If we have a few now, then the next generation there will be more, then the next generation there will be a majority, and by the fourth generation from now, if the Lord tarries, you will be considered a Baptist if you just acknowledge that Baptism by immersion is a good idea.
Blessings,
Tim
October 1st, 2007 at 2:43 am
Brother Les,
If you feel Peter is showing you disrespect, let me know. I honestly believe he is merely using your statement as an example of what he is trying to say.
Brother Peter,
Do you mean any disrespect or sarcastic intent with your statements concerning Brother Les?
Blessings,
Tim
October 1st, 2007 at 7:25 am
Tim,
Back to the very beginning of the post….Dr. Jim Richards in point #2 makes an interesting point…”The Church is comprised of Baptized Believers.”
Several questions come from this statement.
1. Is Jim trying to establish, that baptism causes church membership? Or in another way of speaking,….is he trying to say that the “ekklesia” is born or somehow assembled by “wet” baptism?
2. I have seen many individuals that have been invited to participate in the “church” by membership through baptism, with a walk down the aisle and “wet baptism” being the only sign. It becomes clear after some time that they truly do not have eyes to see or ears to hear. Would they still be classified as a member?
3. Is “membership” different than the “church” (ekklesia) in what Jim has pointed out as a regenerate church model? If so, how does this practically work out in baptist life? Can I be a “card carrying member” and not be in Christ?
Thanks,
Chris
October 1st, 2007 at 8:10 am
Brother Chris,
Great questions, now let me see if I can answer them.
1.) As to what Dr. Richards is trying to establish, you will have to ask him. I will elaborate on what I think he means, and remember I am not speaking for him only what I hear him saying. Dr. Richards states, in his message, that Baptism is not procurative but is declarative. IOW, Baptism does not bring one salvation, it declares that one has been saved. Thus, if we believe that the visible church is made up of Baptized believers, then I would think that “wet” baptism is what makes up a local “ekklesia”.
2.) As to the classification of a member, that is held in the local church.
3.) I would like to clarify a point here. You seem to be separating local “ekklesia” from universal “ekklesia”. Universal “ekklesia” has not yet been brought together. However, on a local level the church is charged with the task of accountability. Can one be a card carrying member and not be in Christ? Certainly!
Please do not misunderstand me hearing what Dr. Richards is saying. I do not hear him say that only Baptist churches are NT churches. Neither do I hear him say only Baptist churches are regenerate churches. What I hear him saying is that we are certainly in a crisis in the SBC when we even have to discuss this matter. Dr. Richards points to an unscientific survey with state convention leaders in 1915. In that survey, every convention stated they had no church that received anyone that was not baptized through a “Baptist” baptism.
I do not know if this answers you questions or not, but let me know.
Blessings,
Tim
October 1st, 2007 at 8:41 am
Les,
Thanks for your comment. And whether or not conversing with me is similar to bagging the wind, other may decide. The very good thing about blogging in a venue like this is that all the comments each one makes are open and available for others to read.
Given such, it is amazing to me that rather than a discussion of the issue at hand–that is, whether being ‘amenable to paedobaptism’ constitutes evidence SBs should be concerned about refocusing on Baptist distinctives–you appear, at least to me, Les, to make this a personal issue with me:
“I’m” like trying to catch the wind in conversation.
“I will gladly stand up and say, “I don’t have everything figured out.” Maybe you do, Peter, but I don’t.”
I will to continue to try to be as transparent as possible, in spite of whether you understand it or accept it for what it is.
If that doesn’t line up with where you are spiritually, then so be it.
I doubt I will ever publicly question why those who support you will allow you to get by unscathed. Where I come from, that’s just bad manners.”
I could remind you, my brother Les, that making this dialog about me rather than the issue is, from where I come from, just bad manners, but I won’t. So let’s continue.
By the way, evidently, Les, you may be the only one who thinks this conversation unfruitful. Brother Tim surely does not. After I invited him to exercise his disciplinary right for comments that may be too strong, he wrote: “This is a great debate on an essential doctrine. Please do not take my corrections as reprimands…By all means, please continue.” Presumably, that included our exchange.
Thus, far, Les, you have said of your statement:
-I do not demonize those who believe in paedobaptism as “unrepentant sinners.”
-I was being very transparent with R. L. about some [theological] struggles
- “I don’t have everything figured out.”
-[it would be] refreshing if more pastors would admit they struggle with some theological principles
-[This is] my growth process in the Lord
-I will to continue to try to be as transparent as possible
-I continue to allow the Lord to teach me, I will communicate what I believe He is teaching me.
Les, out of three posts on this thread you logged, the above is what you’ve stated about the issue at hand.
My question is, in which of the above statements did you actually deal with your comment I posted in the beginning? From just to the south of you in Georgia, I don’t see any. But I could be mistaken and am willing to be corrected.
One final note, my Brother Les. What does come through on the above is a pattern evidently revealing Believer’s baptism by Immersion is a tenet of the Baptist faith that can be compromised. What else could one conclude from descriptors about Believer’s Baptism by Immersion like ‘theological struggle’ ‘question[able]‘ ‘growth process’ ‘continuing [to be taught] by the Lord’, etc?
Not a one of us could not give the hearty “amen” to those descriptors were those descriptors about doctrines that do not strike at the essence of what it means to be Baptist.
If my Pastor stood in the pulpit at the Baptist Church where I am a joyful member and said “I have a confession to make: I am finding myself ‘amenable to amillennialism’” I’d think ‘O.K. That’s not so bad. I’ve also had those struggles. He’s probably been reading Hershel Hobbs alot lately.’
If my Pastor stood and said: “I have a confession to make: “I am finding myself ‘amenable’ to men being considered for ordination as deacon who’ve experienced divorce” I’d think ‘O.K. That’s not so bad. I’ve also had those exegetical struggles with ‘husband of one wife’ Let’s see where this goes.”
But if my Baptist Pastor stood up in the Baptist pulpit where I am a member of a Baptist Church and said: “”I have a confession to make: I am finding myself ‘amenable to paedobaptism’” I’d think ‘OOO.KAAA. That’s pretty bad. I’ve also had those struggles but settled that way back yonder a heck of a long time ago. My Church is in crisis. My Pastor is open to sprinkling babies. I wonder if he has an invitation for lunch after service. We need to talk today.” For me, Les, that’s serious stuff.
Grace for us all. With that, I am…
Peter
October 1st, 2007 at 9:21 am
My Tim,
I am sorry I did not see your question to me before I typed a response to Les. The answer is no.
And, I hope the following is acceptable. It has little to do with the post; just the question posed to me in #58.
My style of writing is often mistaken in blogdom as sarcastic when in fact it is irony. The purpose of irony blends criticism and humor to expose a fault or problem. In essence, irony intends to keep things light that could explode quickly as well as attempt to offer a bit of humor in the process.
Unfortunately, when written exchange is seen as debate rather than dialog, inevitably irony gets lost and charges of sarcasm, condescension, arrogance, pride, etc. prevail.
It is no secret that my name is associated with all of the above. Nonetheless, learning with Paul the art of being content, I allow a blogger embrace who he thinks I am and be content God embraces who He knows I am.
That said, I would suggest that at least some of the difficulty in this present exchange with Les is his own practice on his blog. What many do not realize is the protected environment there. Les either deletes comments quickly or they never make the public’s notice. That is, they disappear in moderation.
Les’ standard answer for that is “Its my blog. I can do as I wish.” Or, “If you address the subject, you will be posted.” Of course, no one but Les and the commenter knows if he/she addressed the subject or not.
I know for a fact some of my comments disappeared when they in fact did address the issue and it’s hard to conclude that the only reason it did not make it through moderation is Les did not like the comment. I don’t know that, but it surely seems to fit why he would not post a non-ad hominen comment.
One of the regular commenters at SBCTomorrow, Richard Coords, apparently attempted to comment on the “Robot” post. Richard’s comment did not make it through moderation.
That said, I think what we may be seeing from Les is simple: here, Les cannot control the thread nor can he be protected from pressing questions. I am open to correction on this but it is how I presently see it. My comments on this thread have everything to do with Baptist distinctive and nothing to do with Les personally–unless, it is that his view itself constitutes vindication about refocusing on Baptist Identity.
Grace, my Brother Tim. And understand: whenever you sense anything I post is not a contribution, you owe it to your readers and to the success of SBCToday to address it. No hard feelings–just a dead squirrel in your Church’s mailbox :^).
With that, I am…
Peter
October 1st, 2007 at 9:55 am
Peter,
INHO I think you are over the line with you comments toward Brother Les. You even wrote a lengthily comment in this vain. (FESS UP)
In His Name
October 1st, 2007 at 11:09 am
Peter,
Les’s Mission on His Blog changed sometime ago, when the Lord laid something on His Heart. His Blog has since been used to Uplift the Lord Name and The Small Church. I myself have had a comment removed by Brother Les because it was not one to Uplift the Intent of the conversation. .
And With That I’ am
In His Name
P S
My Anti-span word is KINDNESS, LIKE
MY LOVING KINDNESS IS BETTER THAN LIFE!!!!!
October 1st, 2007 at 11:25 am
My Brothers,
We need to shut down this comment thread. My anti-spam word is KINDNESS. The last couple of responders have begun to deal more with personalities than with the issues.
Thank you for your dialog. I believe Brother Joe has posted a great article.
Blessings,
Tim