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

And With That I’ am

In His Name

P S
My Anti-span word is KINDNESS, LIKE

MY LOVING KINDNESS IS BETTER THAN LIFE!!!!!

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

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

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 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

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

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

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

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

Here:
http://saythetruthorpaytheconsequences.blogspot.com/2007/09/what-is-baptism.html

In His Name