« Ooooooops! | Main | A Resolution on Doctrine »
The Goals of the Baptist Identity Movement (Part 3)
Posted by SBC Today | May 15, 2008
This is the third and final installment in a series of posts by guest author Rev. John Mann. These essays are the result of research he has done in the preparation of a resolution he has submitted to the SBC Resolutions Committee for their consideration in Indianapolis. We will publish that resolution here next week.
To teach our distinctive views is not only a duty to ourselves, to our fellow-Christians, and to the unbelieving world, but it is a duty we owe to Christ; it is a matter of simple loyalty to him. Under the most solemn circumstances he uttered the express injunction. He met the eleven disciples by appointment on a mountain in Galilee; probably the more than five hundred of whom Paul speaks were present also: “And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All authority is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and disciple all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” The things of which we have been speaking are not, we freely grant, the most important of religious truths and duties, but they are a part of the all things which Jesus commanded; what shall hinder us, what could excuse us, from observing them ourselves and teaching them to others? The Roman soldier who had taken the sacramentum did not then go to picking and choosing among the orders of his general: shall the baptized believer pick and choose which commands of Christ he will obey and which neglect and which alter? And, observe, I did not quote it all: Go, disciple, baptizing them, “teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” Shall we neglect to teach as he required, and then claim the promise of his presence and help and blessing? -John Broadus.
Evidence of a Creeping Ecumenism
The Ecumenical movement as a proper development had its official start in the early 20th Century on the heels of a social gospel movement that birthed such associations as the YMCA, YWCA, and the Evangelical Alliance. Ecumenism thought it had found a successful culmination beginning with the World Council of Churches and its Americanized version, the National Council of Churches of Christ. Though their stated focus was to unite around a common work in witness and missions, they have largely been nothing more than a social action group that is impotent in biblical evangelism.
Before one reads too far into what I will be arguing for, let it be known at the outset and remembered through the conclusion that in no way am I saying that we have people within our beloved convention advocating another World Council of Churches. My claim is not that the SBC is becoming the classic expression of ecumenism; rather my claim is that there are portions of the SBC that are being affected by ecumenism. By its very definition, an ecumenical movement is an attempt to find the lowest common doctrinal denominator for the purpose of unifying in order to do missions and evangelism. However, one need not look far to see that when we lower our expectations of doctrine, our expectations of evangelism go with it. Allow me to offer a few thoughts that evidence the invasion of an ecumenical attitude into some Southern Baptist circles.
First, preaching becomes a therapeutic exercise seeking only to better the society instead of a redemptive appeal to enter an eternal society. I will always remember my Systematic Theology professor walking into class and proclaiming, “Men, when our pulpits are more interested in improving your sex life than they are in improving your knowledge of the Doctrine of God, we are in trouble.” What a tragedy it is to see our pastors being more interested in being a therapist than in being a theologian. The common center around the ecumenical movement is to avoid being offensive. We must realize that the Gospel by its very nature is offensive. That is no excuse for a Christian to be obnoxious, but if we empty the cross of its natural offense we shall empty the cross of its power.
Second, the very practice from where we have gained our name has fallen on ill-repute. Who would have ever surmised that some would be offended that Baptists would expect their missionaries to have a proper baptism? Yet this is exactly what has occurred. The historical understanding of baptism has been defined as needing a proper mode, method, candidate, administrator, formula, and church. Yet the ecumenical movement has affected many Southern Baptists at this very core understanding of Baptist life. Several conversations and a few prominent churches have begun to question the validity of this central distinctive to Baptist life.
Third, the ecumenist encourages the development of a non-New Testament church model. The exaltation of a Universal Church over the local church was developed out of an effort to justify an extreme individualism void of accountability. I have recently heard of an associational meeting in a large city where the pastors were told they should not worry about pastoring their churches and begin to pursue a model of pastoring their city.
Fourth, I believe we see a growing openness to women in the pastorate. This, perhaps, is the defining issue of the day in regards to social acceptance. A healthy complementarian view has been relegated to a “new slavery” by many proponents of an egalitarian view. A woman serving in a pastoral role has been argued to only be defensible on cultural grounds as opposed to revelatory grounds. However, the Scripture is clear that God reserves the role of pastor for men. I fail to understand why our egalitarian brethren would desire to devalue a woman by demoting her to the same level as a man.
Fifth, a growing acceptance of charismatic practices. If we continue to embrace a creeping ecumenism we will find ourselves with a message that invites an individual to a fascination with the mystical that promises to satisfy selfish needs, but will be quite impotent in bringing satisfaction to our Savior and Judge. A neo-orthodox empiricism will reign in one’s life as opposed to the clear revelation of God in His word. Yes, we must maintain the work of the Spirit in a person’s life, but that spiritual work is never in opposition to the revealed word.
Doctrinal Famine and the Destruction of Worship
The question we must ask ourselves is, “is it appropriate to aim for a minimalist doctrine for the purpose of establishing a false unity?” The ecumenist gravitates towards a unity at the sacrifice of doctrine by believing that unity is more important than belief. But, as Scripture demonstrates for us in Romans 11:33-36, exuberant doxology is driven by proper theology. In other words, the greater our understanding of God, the deeper our worship to God.
That is not to say that we will ever arrive at the fullness of understanding the intricate details of the Triune God, but neither is it an excuse for Christian leaders to neglect the equipping and edifying of the saints, which alone is able to produce true unity. This equipping will enable the saints to resist the storms that toss believers to and fro by every wind of false doctrine that will be made manifest in ear-tickling ways as we move further through the last days.
Are there doctrines that have acceptable variances of interpretation? Absolutely. Does this justify a churches avoidance of learning to “rightly divide the word of truth?” Absolutely not. If we ignore valid doctrinal differences for the sake of a false unity that is based on superficial agreement in order to accomplish a malnourished mission, we will one day discover that we have only succeeded in sacrificing God-given truths upon the altar of cultural acceptance. To lose our Baptist distinctives is to run the risk of sacrificing our Christian identity.
Some have wanted to argue that the Baptist Identity advocates are more interested in what one thinks than what one does. So will the maintenance of a Baptist Identity be negligent of missions and evangelism? Quite to the contrary. Doctrine and missions are not mutually exclusive, but are mutually dependent. We evangelize because of what we believe and, in turn what we believe drives us to evangelize.
The danger we face is the adoption of a pragmatic approach to witnessing and evangelism. That is, we will “do whatever it takes” to get them here. This approach fails to take into account that disciples cannot be made apart from teaching everything Christ has commanded. In sum, the goal becomes reaching people without taking into consideration what (or Who) they are being reached for. Doctrinal distinctives exist primarily because we have pledged ourselves to a Lord who not only tells us to believe and be saved, but He also tells us to demonstrate that salvation through proper ecclesiastical evidence, including repentance, faith, discipline, the Supper, and baptism.
We must realize that the very reason we do missions and evangelism is because God has revealed not only His plan, but also His nature, His church, His requirements, and His commission. Scripture is replete with admonitions for the called leaders of God to teach their people doctrine. Titus is instructed to hold fast the faithful word “…so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.” [Titus 2:9]
God had spoken through Jeremiah that He had given Israel a writ of divorce because they had went up on every high hill and under every green tree, making themselves a harlot in the forsaking of God. What was God’s prescription? A promise that He would give you shepherds after My own heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding [Jeremiah 3:15]. God’s preventive medicine for spiritual adultery is the teaching of scriptural truths.
Most familiar, Paul instructed the church at Ephesus that God had given the church leaders for the purpose of equipping the saints. The result of having the saints equipped is that they will no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine [Ephesians 4:11-14]. Stability in the Christian’s life is found in a proper understanding of the things of God.
When we do missions, we do not invite them to come to a feeling. We do not invite them to experience an emotion. Rather, we invite them to come to a God who can be silent during suffering, stern during discipline, and abundant in blessing. In effect the ecumenical movement invites us to a God who reveals salvation and nothing else. He is uninterested in how we do church, how we baptize, how we witness, how we pray, and how we worship. However, one would be hard-pressed to prove scripturally that these things are simple by-lines in God’s overall plan for creation.
In sum, it would be a mistake to teach that so-called secondary and tertiary doctrines are matters of salvation. I know of no one who is advocating that understanding. However, it would be at least as grave of a mistake to say that secondary doctrines are therefore unimportant. The call of the people of God is not only to participate in the existence of the church, but also to participate in the health of the church.
Baptist Identity Moving Forward
Recently, those with whom I identify have been coined as being part of a Baptist Identity Movement. In this section I want begin to define what I see as being part of the so-called Baptist Identity Movement. Though I cannot speak for all who have been placed in this camp, I will seek to articulate some, though not all, of what I think a Baptist Identity needs to pursue.
First, Baptists need to continue to reclaim a view of the sufficiency of Scripture. A proper view of the sufficiency of Scripture will remind us that no further revelation from God is needed, and therefore, what remains is obedience to what has been revealed. The recent rash of litigations is embarrassing to our witness and revelatory of one’s own view of Scripture. Yet, the very ones who cry for more unity are the same ones who have advocated, encouraged, and perpetrated recent trials through the use of secular avenues in an attempt to divide the entities within the Convention. Their facade of seeking unity has been betrayed by their tactics of intentional division.
The so-called practice of speaking in tongues assumes that God desires to say something that is not revealed in Scripture. One of our most prominent preachers used to say, “True spirituality is not speaking in a new tongue, it is learning to control the tongue you already have.” Why do we need for God to reveal something new when we fail to practice what He has already revealed? Scripture is sufficient for knowing God’s will in all matters of a humble believer’s life.
Secondly, a Baptist Identity needs to reclaim our pulpits as being prophetic places of proclaiming the gospel instead of being a desk from where we are expected to perform mass therapy. When our pastors sound more like Dr. Phil than Dr. Luke we have sacrificed redemptive preaching for a pseudo-relevant psychology. We need to be reminded that before we can pray for our baptisteries to full of water we need to pray for our pulpits to be full of fire. We need to encourage our pastors to return to being the theologians to the church.
Third, we need to reclaim true historical Baptist principles, not because they are Baptist, but because they are biblical. Though baptism is not a act that brings salvation, it is a profession of salvation. Therefore, baptism matters. It is not acceptable to “do the deed” apart from defining that which it signifies; namely, the death, burial, and resurrection of our Savior coupled with our identification with His church. Perhaps Dr. Emir Caner said it better than I:
“We are Baptists by conviction not by tradition alone, believing the fundamental principles which constitute a Baptist church are the very ones which made up a New Testament church. Such essential tenets of a believer’s church, founded upon the sole authority and sufficiency of Scripture, include regenerate church membership, believer’s baptism by immersion, believer’s Lord Supper as a memorial, church discipline, local church autonomy, congregational polity, confessional fidelity, priesthood of the believers, separation of church and state, religious liberty, and an unwavering passion to carry out the Great Commission. We should never be prideful in being Baptist, but we should always be thankful in being Baptist.”
Fourth, our mission to the world must not be defined by the world, i.e., that which they find acceptable, but must be defined by our Savior. The study of the relational Christ must precede our study of the culture as we define and engage in the Commission. Our first question cannot be, “is the world receiving what we are saying,” rather it must be, “does Christ receive what we are saying?” We must seek the pleasure of our Lord before we seek the acceptance of our culture. When we are privileged to gain a hearing with someone in the world, we must ensure that the message we speak will be different than that which they hear everyday. In other words, the churches message SHOULD sound different than the world’s message.
Finally (and I would argue most importantly) a Baptist Identity must proclaim the Lordship of Christ in all matters. This Lord that we profess is the same Lord who instructed the disciples to die to themselves, to take up their cross, and to follow Him and Him alone. The Lordship of Christ denies the disciple the right to seek self-satisfaction, self-protection, self-advancement, and any other form of self-seeking. It is only in the confession and practice of Christ’s lordship that we can have true unity according to 1st Corinthians 1:10. For that to be fully realized is for one to be baptized with the baptism He commanded, to honor His word in all matters, to proclaim His message as He has given it, and to operate His churches as He has instructed.
At the Commission of our Lord we are told to “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things the I have commanded you.” Faithfulness to the Commission demands articulation of all things revealed. Therefore, it is irresponsible at best and unfaithful at the worst for the believer to decide which of the “all things” we will teach.
To communicate the Reader’s Digest version of the Great Commission is for us to decide which of the “all things” that Christ commanded will be worth our time. To forsake this clear teaching of Christ is to forget that Christ said, “All authority has been given to Me.” Baptists must communicate all of the truths of God’s word because to do so is to live out our confession that Jesus is Lord and He alone holds all authority. Our participation in the Great Commission will only be as effective as our obedience to our great Savior. Only in that common obedience will we find a true unity.
Next week SBC Today will publish a resolution that I have presented to the Resolutions Committee for their consideration.
Topics: Baptist Identity, Guest Author |
May 15th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Who are you? Thanks for your clear and wise counsel. Blessings Bro.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Now this is a document that I could put my signature to!
Ron P.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Brother John,
You certainly have saved your best post last. Great insight into the world called Baptist Identity.
Blessings,
Tim
May 15th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Joe,
Nobody special ;). Hope to see you soon.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Ron,
Thanks for the support. God bless.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Brother Tim,
Thank you.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
I love Wayne Grudems systematic theology for two reasons. First, he agrees with me alot. Second, in those areas where I disagree with him, he always represents failry my position.
The key to theological discussion and debate is understanding the point of the person you disagree with.
My constant sense is that a few in the “BI” movement either cannot or will not understand what others are saying.
Opposition to the IMB’s policies on PPL does not mean anyone wants to make the SBC another AG. Yet, that is constantly hinted at in this post and others.
We all agree that missionaries should have proper baptism. But good baptists disagree on what exactly that means. Immersion of believers? No question. But the role of the baptizer is a matter of debate among good baptists.
Expanding the tent to include people more people is not a foray into ecumenicalism. Its just not the same thing.
The proponents of the position the author takes here often (with a few barebones exceptions, Praisegod) seem to be more interested in attacking straw men of their own creation than dealing with the points that some are trying to make.
I don’t find myself disagreeing with much that Mr. Mann says, but I just wonder who in the Kingdom he is talking about.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Brother John,
You said it very well…..
“But, as Scripture demonstrates for us in Romans 11:33-36, exuberant doxology is driven by proper theology. In other words, the greater our understanding of God, the deeper our worship to God.”
May our worship truly please God and be governed by His marvelous grace.
Blessings,
Chris
May 15th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
bottom line:
narrow SBC parameters (’identity’) = fewer cooperating churches
May 15th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Fox,
Just who exactly is seeking to narrow parameters? All the ones in here that I am reading are simply trying to get Southern Baptists to stick with parameters we have historically held to.
David
May 15th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
John,
This is an excellent essay, and one that those who wish to be leaders in the SBC would do well to read and heed. You have identified the call for the church today, which has been the call of the church since the New Testament, and will continue to be the call of the church until His imminent return: to believe, confess, and live the Lordship of Jesus Christ, first in the local church and thence to the world.
Do not be dismayed, my friend, at any detractors. They may point to the inadequate ruminations of men, men that receive the accolades that you may not. Rest in the knowledge that you have pointed us to consider the all-sufficient revelation of the Word of God. I sit at your feet, my brother, and wonder at the wisdom he has shown you and the conviction with which you hold it.
Stay true to His Word, even when others would issue the siren call of unity on the basis of something other than the full inerrancy and sufficiency and, therefore, perfect authority of the Word of God. As you have shown, the authority of Scripture is not only for our lives individually, but for our lives corporately as churches. We are Baptists because we are biblicists, and we must not move one whit from that stand. Thank you for helping to call us back to the rock from which we were hewn.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Dr. Yarnell: Three years of discussion on these issues have evidently not done any good if your last comment is what you truly in your heart believe to be the truth of what anyone has said or proposed who is Southern Baptist. I can say till I’m blue(which I have many times) that the issues that are disagreed on are being misrepresented yet they will continue to be misrepresented. I’m sorry but that is right up there and maybe past those who inflate numbers on church rolls. There is no difference as both contain clear hype. The things mentioned both on this post and in your comment would fall in that category. It is leaving me frustrated. Not surprised, but frustrated.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Dr. Yarnell,
Words fail to express how humbled I am by your affirmation. As you well know, if I have any capacity whatsoever to be faithful and of service to our Lord it is only because of the work of His Spirit and the great cloud of witnesses with whom He has surrounded me.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Debbie
Statements such as the one you made that questions another person’s integrity by equating their words to mischievous actions of reporting inflated numbers will not be tolerated. You have been warned privately in the past and continued actions such as these will get you banned from commenting on this site.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
John Mann,
You need to cowboy up.
Where were you when I needed a “second” while dueling with the Philistines all day?
Seriously, you have done well here with this well presented and proper post.
cb
May 15th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Robin,
Don’t ban us yet, at least, until I ask Debbie one question.
Debbie,
What specifically did Malcolm say that would frustrate you to the point you would say it compares to inflated church memberships?
I am not frustrated at all with you. I am just genuinely interested in how you come to such a position from his statement here.
cb
May 15th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
CB
Ban “us?”
May 15th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
CB: Dr. Yarnell’s words frustrate me as it says to me that three years of discussing these issues were for nothing. We are still at square one. I could mention specifically what issues in this particular post are simply not true or not being argued, but we’ve been there in the same conversation for three years haven’t we? If it hasn’t stopped the false arguments by now, chances are it never will. Thus the frustration.
May 15th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Debbie,
Your assertion that there are “issues in this particular post [that] are simply not true” is unacceptable. If you would like to specify and discuss your disagreements, you are welcome to do so.
You are not welcome to make unsupported allegations of deliberate untruth.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:08 am
John,
Much of what you say here is good and I agree with you about it. I am a strict inerrantist and I hold tight to the Word of God in preaching and leadership. I just have a couple of questions, though.
Dr. Caner’s description of a convictional Baptist is not complete, I assume. I am sure that there is a part missing that was not printed. He said a lot of things that Baptists believe in without mentioning Jesus one time in this quote. You talked about Christ, but he did not. He said, “Such essential tenets of a believer’s church, founded upon the sole authority and sufficiency of Scripture include . . . .” I am not trying to pit Jesus and Scripture against one another because Scripture obviously points to Jesus, but the ease at which some are placing Scripture in positions that have been historically reserved for our Risen Lord should raise some questions. Scripture tells us that Jesus is the Head of the Church and the Chief Cornerstone. Doesn’t Dr. Caner’s description of Scripture being the sole authority and sufficiency for the church contradict Scripture when Scripture tells us that Jesus is our foundation? Are Jesus and Scripture one in the same? John 5:39-40 seem to contradict this view. Am I missing something here?
As far as the statement that God ONLY speaks through Scripture, I have always heard Baptist pastors say that God led them in one direction or another, especially when it comes to receiving a call to a church. Churches pray about what direction they are to take when they call a pastor and then they act, believing that God has led them. We pray for guidance all the time about issues not revealed in Scripture. Are we to assume that the Baptist Identity position is that God ONLY speaks through Scripture? How does this play out, actually? And, doesn’t Scripture itself tell us in many places about God speaking to people apart from Scripture? I would never believe that new revelation is given or that anything that contradicts Scripture is given, but it is difficult for me to imagine a situation where we would be able to say to our congregants that God ONLY speaks through Scripture. Can someone please enlighten me as to how this works and how it is the traditional Baptist position? Or, are you saying that it is okay if God speaks to us in English, but allowing us to pray in an unknown tongue is out of bounds?
May 16th, 2008 at 8:38 am
Alan,
Someone saying that they feel that the Lord is leading them to a Church is not the same as saying that God spoke to me directly…new revelation…to go to that Church. To find God’s will for our lives about things that are not clearly spelled out in Scripture means that we pray for wisdom, which God gives generously to those who ask; and, we trust the Lord to give us the desires of our heart, when we are seeking Him first and foremost. There are several verses about God giving us the desires of our heart. So, as we think on many things about a move, or to get married, or to buy a car, etc, then we ask God for wisdom and look at all the pros and cons and we truthfully consider what is the desire of our heart…that God has placed there. We must look at things honestly and truthfully, and then trust God to give us this wisdom.
But, for someone to say that God actually spoke to them is a whole-nother matter altogether. I see red flags going up everywhere when I hear someone say things like, “God spoke to me last nite, and told me that our Church needs to get rid of the hymnbooks”…..as if they have a direct line to God to receive new revelation.
The only revealed will of God is what we have in the Bible. If we want to know….for sure….what is God’s will for our lives, then we must go to the clear, black and white teachings of Scripture.
Do you agree?
David
May 16th, 2008 at 8:52 am
If your concept of our historical position is the landmarkist view that one is baptized into a church rather than into Christ, and if you see that our historical approach excludes all those who disagree with that position, then you have certainly excluded Council Road Baptist Church in Bethany Oklahoma, which for many years has accepted prospective members who have had an”alien immersion” as a sign and symbol of their profession of faith. A real shame considering our storied past and great history of CP support and missions sending and giving.
I do disagree with the perspective that we acquired the name “Baptist” because of a belief that one is baptized into a church. I think it is more correct that the name came about as a result of a disagreement with paedobaptism.
I had a conversation with my father about this the other day, who for over forty years pastored in the Capital association in Oklahoma City. He observed, “I remember that there were many guys who actually believed and taught the “Trail of Blood”, but we never paid them much attention and certainly never really let that get in the way of our mutual support and cooperation.
I think that cooperative spirit better represents our history than the one you have described here.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:15 am
Volfan,
I believe in the presence of the indwelling Lord. I believe that Christ lives within us through the Holy Spirit and that God speaks to His children. I believe that He speaks directly through Scripture as well as to our hearts in all kinds of ways. God is always at work and is active in our lives through His indwelling and empowering Spirit. Much of what you describe as wisdomis included in how I believe that God speaks. But even that approach opens the possibility for God to speak direction straight to our hearts. Call it whatever you want but don’t let semantics cloud the issue. God leads, guides, and directs His children through the written Word and other means as well, which is why we pray - to commune with Him.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:16 am
brother David,
we don’t have that problem in the SBC (in any significant way)…
(to all)…why can we not be fair with the opposing viewpoint and discuss things without the straw men?
I like Debbie get so frustrated that this issue can not get off of square one…it’s very immature (emotionally and spiritually)…I don’t know a single SBC pastor or missionary who is liberal nor do I know a single SBC pastor or missionary who wants his congregation to speak in tongues, delve into the prosperity gospel or hear special revelation from God.
The SBC does not have a significant problem with (in house) theologically liberal influences…we are shooting at boogie men!
The Southern Baptists pastors and missionaries I know are all Biblicists…but they don’t all agree with this new “Baptist Identity” movement. It is incredible frustrating to read insinuations that unless you support the new “Baptist Identity” movement you are obviously something other than a Biblicist.
(I hope expressing frustration is not out of bounds here…that’s how SBC Outpost operates…I hope that’s not how it is here)
May 16th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Pastor Thompson,
Your suggestion that the views we are attempting to preserve are Landmark views does not make them so, and I grow very weary of this red herring being thrown out any time someone articulates a strong view of ecclesiology, as John Mann has done here.
Similarly unhelpful is your appeal to the “storied past” of CRBC. While undeniable, it has precisely nothing to do with the topic at hand, and appeals to pragmatism, while powerful, do not serve us well.
The suggestion that we believe one is “baptized into a church rather than into Christ” is absolute nonsense, and another false argument I grow tired of trying to defend. How one separates the Head from the body is absolutely beyond me. I would never argue that one always goes under the water a non-church member and emerges as a member of a local church. Rather I would argue that any immersion of a believer that does not take place under the Christ-given authority of a local church is no baptism at all. That is substantively different from saying one is “baptized into a church,” but the distinction seems lost on many on the other side of these debates, apparently including yourself.
The simple fact is that you, like so many who have chosen, inexplicably, to oppose the promotion of Baptist identity, have a weak view of ecclesiology, which historically is not a very Baptist position from which to argue. And the continued misrepresentations of our position as articulated here by John Mann needs to stop.
Gary, in the previous comment, has decried “shooting at boogey men,” implying that we who advocate Baptist identity are somehow misrepresenting the arguments of others. When I read his comment, I couldn’t help but wonder if he had read yours.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Brother John,
Wow, dude – you rock! I really appreciate your posts in this area. You gave us a very clear understanding of your definition of the “ecumenical movement” within the SBC and its effects in our churches. You also clearly state that: “My claim is not that the SBC is becoming the classic expression of ecumenism; rather my claim is that there are portions of the SBC that are being affected by ecumenism.” Essentially you define this Southern Baptist ecumenicalism as the growing desire for minimal doctrinal unity.
Interestingly, I have been studying through “Restoring Integrity in Baptist Churches” edited by White, Duesing and Yarnell (yes Brother Chris, I know, I’m slow 8->). I have benefited greatly by its pages. Last night I was reading Gregory Wills’ presentation on Church Discipline. He highlights the decline of Church Discipline among Southern Baptist beginning just before the 20th century. As I read your post this morning I began to see that we as a convention are simply reaping today what was sown in those opening years of the previous century. Dr. Wills sees the loss of church discipline in what he calls “three tectonic shifts that reshaped Baptist identity … First, they lost confidence that Christ commanded a specific ecclesiology … Second, they adopted a new view of Baptist identity that led them to redefine ecclesiology and theology according to human experience … Third, they took guardianship of the social order, which secularized the churches and eroded their commitment to separation from the world,” (“Restoring Integrity,” pages 179-180). Essentially, we don’t want to offend so we don’t maintain discipline and thus we lose our historic and biblical identity.
Thanks again for the work you put into these posts.
Grace,
Wes
May 16th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Rick
Thanks for dropping by. First, let me say that I am not one who adheres to the trail of blood. I also believe that others here do not also like Wes.
A wise man once told me about the “Trail”:
“I think it’s nonsense. I think you could drop a Bible on an island and with a yielding to the Holy Spirit, come back and find a Baptist church. Once they figure out the necessity, someone goes first, and all the baptisms are either under the authority of or conducted with a view toward constituting a local church.”
While there are others who adhere to the trail theory, I don’t. That straw man won’t work.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Brother Wes Kenney
and/ or any other of the blog administrators …
Is there any way these three posts could be offered as a pdf.? I would really like to have a hard copy of these papers (oops, blogs).
Thanks,
Wes (the less)
May 16th, 2008 at 10:19 am
[...] I would encourage all of you to click over and read the series. Below is an excerpt from the third and final post in the series. It gives the reader an excellent synopsis of what those who believe in upholding a distinct [...]
May 16th, 2008 at 10:20 am
WesInTex,
We’re working on it. I’ll let you know.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:22 am
BTW, may I be the first to say, “John Mann for President of the SBC.”
Lumpkins, can you write the nomination speech and we will have Bart deliver it?
May 16th, 2008 at 11:19 am
I think that those above have articulated my objections well.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Robin,
I hope that Bible you drop on an island is in the language of the people of the island, otherwise you will return to the island just as you left it.
Blessings,
May 16th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Wes,
In #25 you say “The suggestion that we believe one is “baptized into a church rather than into Christ” is absolute nonsense.”
How then are we supposed to understand Malcolm Yarnell when he says (second to the last paragraph in the Rogers-Yarnell Dialogue http://loveeachstone.blogspot.com/2007/07/rogers-yarnell-dialogue-on-great_17.html)
“The visible local church is entered through baptism, manifested in the continuing practice of the Lord’s Supper, maintained through the redemptive application of church discipline.”
May 16th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
FW
Did it take you awhile to think that up? Whatever the language may need to be, the argument remains.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
R.,
Keep reading brother. In the very next sentence, I express my confusion about how one separates the Head from the body.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Wes,
Are you then saying one is baptized into the “universal church,” the kingdom of God - or exactly what is one baptized into? But Baptists believe one enters the Kingdom by the new birth, not by baptism. I’m afraid your belief one is baptized into the Head and the body is a bit confusing to me. Do we enter “the head and the body,” by baptism, or do we enter by the new birth?
On of your main concerns is that baptism is done with church “authority.” I don’t deny that baptism is done in some connection with the community of believers, the local church. I mean, who else would do it. But it is the making too much of “proper authority” that has the non-BI people concerned. It simply makes us feel baptism is being turned into something other that a symbolic act, into something like a sacrament with the significance the Catholic Church attaches to it, into something like un-baptistic idolatry.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
R.
Are you asking “who else would do it?” with a straight face?
Some have advocated any believer anywhere should “baptize” any convert any where they please, without any consideration for anyone else. That is the nonsense against which I am standing.
Yes, baptism is primarily identification with Christ. But Christ gave his authority to the local church to carry it out, and to say that it is legitimate for a six-year-old to baptize the friend he led to Christ in the family swimming pool is to take an inexcuseably low and un-Baptist view of the bride for which Christ gave Himself.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
John,
I believe there are many things to commend in this last post you have written. From at I am able to tell, it comes from a heart that is guided by a desire to be faithful to the teaching of the Word of God, and pleasing to the Lord. That much, I can heartily endorse.
I also appreciate the efforts you have given on this post to define for us a little more what you mean when you use the term “ecumenical movement.” I especially appreciate that you make clear that you are not saying there are those in the SBC who are “advocating another World Council of Churches.”
However, I believe that the definition you come up with falls short. You say that “an ecumenical movement is an attempt to find the lowest common doctrinal denominator for the purpose of unifying in order to do missions and evangelism.” I don’t know where you came up with this definition, and I don’t know who in the SBC would agree to it. To me, the phrase “lowest common doctrinal denominator” is almost meaningless. The “lowest common doctrinal denominator” for who? If we talked about the “lowest common doctrinal denominator” for all mankind, we would be talking about one thing. If we talked about the “lowest common doctrinal denominator” for all religious people, it would be something else. If we talked about the “lowest common doctrinal denominator” for all self-identified Christians, it would be something else. If we talked about the “lowest common doctrinal denominator” for all self-identified Evangelicals, it would be something else. If we talked about the “lowest common doctrinal denominator” for all self-identified Baptists, it would be something else. If we talked about the “lowest common doctrinal denominator” for all Southern Baptists, it would be something else. If we talked about the “lowest common doctrinal denominator” for all who agree with the “Baptist Identity Movement,” it would be something else. If we talked about the “lowest common doctrinal denominator” for all Landmarkers, it would be something else. And, if we talked about the “lowest common doctrinal denominator” for all Landmarker, Dispensational, KJV-only folk, it would be something else.
My point? We all have our “common denominators.” The problem is not that we try to cooperate on the basis of common denominators. The issue at stake is where do we draw those lines.
What you have set up here is a classic false dichotomy. You seem to brand everyone who is on one side of the “Baptist Identity Movement” divide of this spectrum as being part of an “ecumenical movement” (a.k.a. the “bad guys”). Then you proceed to broad-brush all of these people. They are all centered around avoiding being offensive. They all have no concern with proper baptism. Their model of church was developed out of an effort to justify an extreme individualism void of accountability. They all invite individuals to a fascination with the mystical that promises to satisfy selfish needs. They are all willing to sacrifice proper doctrine at the altar of unity. They are all open to women in the pastorate. They all have a pragmatic approach to witnessing and evangelism that bypasses the teaching of proper doctrine. When they do missions, they all invite people to come to a feeling and to experience an emotion. They all neglect the equipping and edifying of the saints. They all invite us to a God who reveals salvation and nothing else. They all say secondary doctrines are not important. They all engage in litigations and tactics of intentional division. They all embrace the so-called practice of speaking in tongues, assuming that God desires to say something that is not revealed in Scripture. They have all sacrificed redemptive preaching for a pseudo-relevant psychology.
Whereas, those on the other side of the divide, the “Baptist Identity Movement” folks (a.k.a. the “good guys) believe that baptism has been defined as needing a proper mode, method, candidate, administrator, formula, and church. They also believe that all six (including proper administrator and church) are a “central distinctive of Baptist life.” They do not believe in the practice of speaking in tongues.
The point? In your section on “moving forward,” there are many things I can enthusiastically embrace. However, it is not as simplistic as you make it out to be here. There are not two neatly distinguished sides. There are various shades of gray. And not everyone who is branded a “bad guy” is necessarily a bad guy. And not everyone who masquerades as a “good guy” is necessarily a good guy.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Wes: Again, that is not anyone is saying, least of all me. You say that I must provide proof of allegations, which I feel have been done sufficiently the last few years in my blog as well as others blogs. It has been laid out minutely. No one is saying anyone can baptize. Again for clarification I will say what I personally believe. But if someone who has Christ as their Lord and Savior, leads someone else to faith, say a mother, father, missionary, they, in my opinion, with the blessing of the local church, should be qualified to Baptize.
I think we make it harder on missionaries when we narrow the qualifications more than scripture does. We are all given the commandment of the Great Commission. Everyone who has put their faith and trust in Christ alone. I would not want a Jehovah Witness to baptize nor a Roman Catholic Priest. I just think you are adding to this where no one else has. Could you please point to one person who has said anything that you have pointed out in your last comment?
May 16th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
I also would not advocate a child baptizing. Again, I think that is going beyond what anyone has said Wes. At least of what I have read. I think you will find that there is more agreement than disagreement with the things John Mann has said. For example I am in full agreement with the inerrancy and infallibility of the scriptures. It is what everything should be tested by. God will never lead somone to do something that goes against the scriptures. Therefore I agree with what Alan Cross has said too.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Debbie,
The key to all of this is in the phrase “with the blessing of the local church.” I could not agree more with that sentence in your comment.
Unfortunately, that phrase is conspicuously absent from the examples I had in mind when writing my previous comment.
You asked for me to point to one person. The source of the “six-year-old” example is a man from your city. You may even know him; his name is Wade Burleson.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Wes,
The concept of the authority of the administrator of baptism is the sticking point with me. To claim that “authority” is needed and makes baptism “authentic” makes baptism more than what it was intended to be: a SYMBOL and SIGN of the new birth and one’s entrance into the Kingdom of God. If baptism is a symbol and sign of the new birth, then what does the administrator have to do with it? The administrator, the church, conveys its authority to the act? But the act is symbolic. The authority was God’s Word that faith in Christ saves. That’s the point of the symbol, not whether the person who administered it had “authority.” The Bible just doesn’t go into qualifications for the administrator, except that the one who does the baptizing was usually the one who brought the gospel message.
If your problem is that a six-year-old might baptize his sister in the swimming pool, then I would have no problem with a local church telling the sister to be baptized again. But there is a difference between a local church exercising its prerogative over its membership and requiring scriptural baptism (immersion of a believer) with some circumspection and that of claiming it has magisterial authority.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
R.,
Perhaps the phrase “authority of the administrator” is less than helpful, because in my view, the one actually doing the baptizing (administrator?) possesses no authority whatever; they are simply carrying out the will of the church.
It is to the church that Christ has given His authority to administer the ordinances. The church can authorize anyone it chooses to baptize under its authority. Even the six-year-old can be authorized by the church to baptize his sister in the family pool.
I’m not sure why you use the word “magisterial” to modify authority, other than that it sounds scary to those of us who cherish the free-church principle. It certainly has nothing to do with the argument I am making.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
It seems to me it would be just as unseemly for a church to authorize a 6-year-old to baptize as to recognize as legitimate a sincere believers baptism administered by an un-authorized 6-year-old.
Could that mean that maybe the whole 6-year-old baptizer hypothetical example is just a red herring too?
May 16th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
David,
I offered no comment on the propriety of a church authorizing a six-year-old, I was just saying that they would be within their rights to do so.
I am far less concerned with what is “seemly” than with what is biblical. And this example that you call a “red herring” is not original with me. It was Wade Burleson who stated that a six-year-old could baptize their friend in a swimming pool independent of the authority of any church. I was asked to provide a specific example of what we are arguing against, and I provided one.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Wes,
If I have misrepresented your position please forgive me. It is certainly true that there are many who would agree with the position expressed here in Mann’s essay who consider themselves landmarkist. I know this for certain because I have had many discussions with a few of them over the past two years in relation to the policy changes at the IMB. One man in particular who I greatly admire and have a good friendship with has told me he is “landmarkist and proud of it”.
Please understand, I come at my opinion honestly- it is not intended as a straw man- but as a humble position in the discussion you and others have asked for in blogging the post. You do want our input, do you not?
To your point about my ecclesiology being weak, I would simply observe that when Mann makes the argument that our “…historical understanding of baptism has been defined as needing a proper mode, method, candidate, administrator, formula, and church…”,
I would respond by pointing to the Philadelphia Confession,
“Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptised, a sign of his fellowship with Him in His death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into Him;1 of remission of sins;2 and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life” (Philadelphia Confession of Faith, 1742)
And then ask,
Who gets to decide our history?
And further,
Who gets to decide my theology is weak?
May 16th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
David,
I have not made any “false dichotomies.” I have simply pointed out the trends that I see that are causing me concern, and I believe, legitimately so. If you are unconcerned with any of the 5 points, or only 2 of the 5, then that is a decision you must make. But NOWHERE have I branded others as bad guys and good guys. I have addressed issues and not people. Some may judge others if they choose, I however will stick to the issues at hand.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Rick Thompson,
I believe CRBC should be commended for every honorable work that they have done in the name of the Lord Jesus. I would never take away from any work that has aided in rescuing one soul from hell. Indeed, the angels rejoice as do I. But that does not take away from the fact that that Christ places certain demands upon the ordinance of baptism.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Rick,
The Philadelphia Confession is wonderful. I prefer the BF&M 2000 as the basis of our cooperation, because it properly refers to the ordinances as being “of Christ” and of the church (Head/body). I’m less concerned with our history than with our present.
As to who gets to decide that your “theology is weak,” you have done that to yourself, at least concerning ecclesiology, to the extent that you have divorced the ordinances of the local church from the authority of the local church.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Wes,
I hate to work this to death, but it seems to be the core dividing point.
Okay, you say the local church has the authority to baptize or conveys its authority to someone. This is a fine point, but a very important one: there is a difference between 1) the church maintaining the ordinance of baptism circumspectly as a sign of the new birth and 2) the validating of baptism by church authority. By saying baptism must be validated by a local ecclesiastical entity you are giving away the right of “sanctify’ an act of obedience that only rightly belongs to God, and you make the church a sanctifier of the act, and in some small way dispenser of grace. This is just the way I see it.
Have to leave for the rest of the day, will check back tonight.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
R.,
Nonsense. There is no valid baptism unless it has been authorized by a local church.
It seems your #2 above contemplates a church validating a “baptism” that took place outside the parameters by which a baptism is anything more than a quick bath. God gave “all authority in heaven and earth” to His Son, the Head of the church. The church exercises the authority given it by Christ when it administers the ordinances. I can’t decide on my own to administer the ordinances of the church, because they are “of the church.”
May 16th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Wes: Could you provide a link to that comment?
May 16th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Wes,
My point is that the example of the 6-year-old baptizer has been held out as a proof case for the absurdity of by-passing the local church as the only legitimate authority for administering baptism. You were the one who brought it up in that very same manner here. However, when a local church could also authorize a 6-year-old to baptize, this totally undoes the force of that argument.
The problem with a 6-year-old baptizer has nothing to do with whether a local church has authorized them or not. It only has to do with the obvious unseemliness of a 6-year-old baptizing, authorized or not. Thus, we are back to where we started before you brought up the example of the 6-year-old baptizer.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
John,
Thank you for your kind words. I certainly admire your work on this and agree with almost all of it! Perhaps we can discuss those issues we disagree on over coffee some time.
Wes,
I think the problem articulated by John in this post concerning our modern pragmatism is the result of us being more concerned with our present than we have been faithful to our past. A deeper understanding of our historical theology would do all of us a lot of good- it seems to me.
Again, I apologize if I have offended you. I share your respect for BFM 2000, I just disagree over the meaning of the ordinance.
May 16th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Wes,
By your reasoning on comment 52 - (God gave “all authority in heaven and earth” to His Son, the Head of the church. The church exercises the authority given it by Christ when it administers the ordinances) - only the local church has the authority to make disicples or to teach people to obey Jesus’ commands.
May 16th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
David,
Bingo! That’s exactly right!
As a member of the local church, I am responsible to carry out all of the Great Commission, but I have authority to do these things only as I submit to the authority of the local church.
Otherwise, my baptizing, my teaching, and my disciple-making are subject to error, separated as they are from the “pillar and ground of the truth.”
All of the Great Commission is to be carried out by all of the members of the local church in a relationship of accountability to the local church.
May 16th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Wes: I am having a problem with your assertion that baptism done in a different mode than you believe is a “quick bath.” If a person has had the conversion that only belief in Christ can do, wanting to follow the next command of wanting to be baptized, the only mode is a trough or a bath tub. The baptism is done in compliance with the Bible, the one being baptized now wanting a quick bath but baptism, how can you say the comment you made?
May 16th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Rick,
I am always up for coffee. Just ask my dog–Starbucks.
May 16th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Wes, are you saying that anyone who is a born again Christian can baptize, that this is not a point of contention with you, as long as it is ok with the local church?
May 16th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
A GOLDEN COMMENT INDEED IS NUMBER 57.
Thank you, Wes.
cb
May 16th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Wes,
Are you saying the authority of Jesus is mediated to us, as individual believers, through the agency of the local church in the same way the Roman Catholic Church teaches that the grace of Jesus is mediated to us through the agency of the church?
May 16th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
And by the way Wes,
Since I get to decide about my ecclesiology, I’ve decided it’s spot on.
May 16th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
David,
You really are joking on this one, right?
You really don’t believe that is what Wes is saying do you?
Surely you would not be that foreign to what he is saying as to think he would be making such an absurd statement?
David, no Southern Baptist in his or her right mind would say this. I know Wes is not crazy. Have you ever met Wes?
He is not a theological dwarf. How could you even ask him such a question?
Since Wes is a baseball umpire I will do it like this.
“Say it ain’t so, David; Say it ain’t so.
cb
May 16th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
CB,
It seems to me Wes is saying that the authority of Jesus is mediated to us, as individual belivers, through the agency of the local church.
I see a parallel with this to the Roman Catholic teaching of grace mediated to us through the church.
I do not believe that Wes believes in mediated grace.
I do see what appears to be an inconsistency in his position that I would like for him to explain to me, though.
May 16th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Brother David,
I am now Wes and I do not want to just do a drive-by but I am only here long enough to make a statement then I need to get ready for a Relay-for-Life event.
I believe what Brother Wes is presenting to us is a complete understanding of responsibility. While we are told to make disciples, we do not just make disciples and leave them to fend for themselves in finding a place to worship. It would be the same as a mama have her baby in a hospital, then sit the baby in the parking lot and the mother leave and go home. When she gets home she would tell her family, I had a baby and if he/she makes it here then that means he/she is part of our family. If not then he/she will find the family he/she is supposed to be a part of. This scenario would be ludicrous.
It is the same with us as believers. When we lead someone to Christ we lead them to become part of our body. If they are in another city we place them in contact with a local church. Thus when we do mission trips we do it in partnership with another local church.
Brother Wes is not saying that no one can witness without the local churches blessings. What he seems to be saying is that Jesus gave the Great Commission to the church–universal as a commission and local in its application. It was expected of the individuals to perform the task spoken about, but the authority came from Jesus to the church–universal and carried out individually under the auspices of local church. The members operating in performance of those tasks do not operate on their own authority apart from the local church because as it would be malpractice for a pediatrician to deliver a baby and then leave him/her in the parking lot, it is a presentation of cheap grace for a believer to present the gospel, baptize in a mud hole and then leave the person to fend for themselves.
Blessings,
Tim
May 16th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Tim,
I ‘ve got to hand it to you for a creative escape clause from this dilemma. But, for me, it is not convincing.
I agree with you that whenever we win people to Christ, baptize, disciple, or teach, we should not leave them orphans. We should seek to assure they are in fellowship and accountability relationships with a local body of believers.
This, however, is not the same thing as saying, as Wes appears to be saying that, without the mediation of the local church, we have no authority from Jesus to make disciples, baptize, or teach.
Actually, in practice, from my point of view, there is very little difference in our perspectives. But, that is the whole point. People who believe like me, even though we are practically the same in practice and belief as people who believe like Wes, are being marginalized in the SBC.
May 16th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
David,
While I agree with what Tim has said, it doesn’t really speak to the concern you have raised.
There is no mediator between us as the church and our Mediator. We are priests together with one another in the local church, not free-agent priests, able to interpret, apply and carry out scriptural commands and ordinances as we see fit. Rather, we submit ourselves to one another and voluntarily make ourselves accountable to the local church, thereby receiving the proper authority of Christ to carry out His commands.
Your mention of Roman Catholocism is an unhelpful, though unfortunately common, distraction thrown up against the attempt to communicate a biblical understanding of the church.
May 16th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
David,
It seems where you go wrong is in the use of the word “mediate.” No one has said that the church mediates the authority. However, we are accountable to the local church for the ministry we perform. The authority I have received to witness, minister, and evangelize comes from Christ. But I am responsible to the local church for how I use that which He has commissioned me to. Mediation is an authority of ‘bestowal.’ Accountability is an authority of ‘oversight.’ The Apostle Paul put it this way… “so that the manifold wisdom of God might be made known THROUGH THE CHURCH.” [Ephesians 4:10].
May 16th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Brother David,
I just received a phone call from Brother CB Scott. He is attending a football game, thus unable to keep up with the comment thread. I had to read to him all of the comments that have been from where he last commented. I believe the boy has a jones. :>)
Well, after reading the comments to him he asked me to respond to you with a statement. He says; ‘the position that you are taking is the reason he has asked you before, if you have considered the Brethren.’
Personally, I do not know what he is talking about, but he does make a point as that universal church is more in line with Brethren ecclesiology, I think.
On another side note. Are you going to the convention this year? I took you to K&W, so that means you have to pay me back with the Outback.
Blessings,
Tim
May 16th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
A very good discussion guys- thanks for making it available to us. I think I am getting a clearer picture of your position Wes.
Correct me if I am wrong- your understanding of the authority of the church as you have stated here to David Rogers is that it manifests the authority of Christ to disciple, teach, baptize etc, and therefore an individual member of the church can only do these things while under that authority of and as they are subjected to the leadership and direction of that church?
Soo…
When a man like Danny Aiken teaches, he does so under the authority of his local church? The same would apply to Jeff Org or Page Patterson, who are not themselves pastors, but who are members in good standing of their local churches and therefore under that church (and that pastor’s) authority.
Or when Jerry Rankin or Tom Ellif teaches, he does so under the authority of his local church?
When Malcolm Yarnell or Ergun Caner comments on this blog, they do so under the authority and subjection of their local church and are therefore accountable to that body?
it is therefore the responsibility of those churches to keep these men accountable for their teaching?
Exactly how does that accountability work? Surely there are times when these men disagree with their pastor! Certainly they at times disagree with their church. In this case do these men ask the church to change their position or do they humble themselves and change their view? Do they change churches every time they have a disagreement?
I mean after all, these men are important teachers and influencers. How will they keep the integrity of their (supposed) subjection to the local church on the one hand, and maintain their independent views on the other?
To carry this further, when a father in your church teaches his child Biblical truth and doctrine under his own roof and by the authority God has given him to raise that child, he is ultimately under your authority as pastor for what he teaches in your view?
I am not trying to be facetious here, I am just trying to think through the sense of your argument.
May 16th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Wes,
In #52 you misunderstood my #51.
Let me say it another way.
You may know that the Roman church also looks at “valid” baptism in much that same way as you do, except for them baptism is also a means of grace. Let me explain. The Catholic Church also faced the issue of a valid administrator. For example, what it the priest had never been baptized, had a mortal sin, etc. etc. Catholic Church doctrine says baptism by a renegade priest is valid because he does it by church authority.
But why is this important to Catholics? Because Catholic baptism is a means of grace, and therefore rules must be made as to what true Catholic baptism is to determine who has it.
Why is “true” Baptist/Christian baptism import to you? If someone gets to heaven without your definition of “valid” baptism, does it matter? If you say “valid baptism does matter in heaven,” then the church is the sanctifier of the act, and in some small way dispenser of grace (just as for Catholics but to a lesser degree for you). Can you see that you have just elevated baptism to a means of sanctification by claiming a ecclesiastical authority for it? THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT POINT, (unless you are saying there is such a thing as valid baptism but it really doesn’t matter that much).
May 16th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Wow,
I was out of range for several hours and missed the fireworks. Same ole argument about the making of the “universal and local” church as if they are separate animals wondering around the street looking for crumbs from the Kings table. The bible reveals the church as one body in Christ that is called one at a time by Christ and He never loses any. That’s the church…. Christ never calls His church universal or local…He just calls them. I think He expects them to love one another and follow His commands, not argue over them.
Scripture reveals to us that the church gathers at times to worship, teach and fellowship and then are encouraged to make disciples. The church has spiritual gifted and qualified leaders and believers to teach and edify those that Christ has called to Himself.
It cracks me up to observe how terribly difficult men can make the commands of Christ. How difficult can it really be to make disciples and baptize?
Blessings,
Chris
May 16th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Rick,
As to the teaching of the teachers you have mentioned, if they were to begin teaching error, they would certainly be called to account by the trustees of their respective institutions due to their voluntary submission to that authority. But certainly their local church would be obligated to come alongside them and attempt to correct their errant teaching. One has the authority of employment, while the other has ultimate responsibility to Christ to see that its members teach in accordance with His revealed truth.
Disagreement with a pastor is not unheard of, but should always be handled gracefully and with a view to discovering truth within the context of the church, it’s pillar and ground. When we understand that we are members of one another, we will come to unity on essential matters, and clear agreement on what is and is not essential.
Your next-to-last paragraph communicates a misunderstanding of what I am saying here, however. I have no authority as pastor except that which is given me by my local church. The father’s teaching of his child is not under my authority, but is instead under the authority of the church to which he is submitted in a covenant relationship. If he is teaching error, whether to his child or on a street corner, it is up to that local church to, again, come alongside and seek lovingly to correct.
May 16th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Brother Rick,
I feel you are trying to press Brother Wes’ comments to absurdity. Certainly the authority of a parent in the home is not the same the authority of the church to make disciples.
Blessings,
Tim
May 16th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
R.,
You have stated something I have not, and then accused me of “elevat[ing] baptism to a means of sanctification.” That is total nonsense.
Of course this matters, but baptism is not a means of sanctification, but a result of the beginning of that process in the life of a new believer. Baptism is not a requirement for salvation (thief on the cross), but is certainly the result of obedience to Christ’s command.
Proper administration of the ordinance is also a matter of obedience.
May 16th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
To all,
I have enjoyed this exchange, but I must leave it for another time. I have a date with my family.
You all continue to hash it out. We’ll be wearing pajamas, sitting on the living room floor, eating chocolate ice cream, and watching The Wizard of Oz.
Goodnight!
May 16th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
rick thompson,
I do not mean to be condescending, for I have no right to be since I was fooled by Landmarkism for many, many years.
But your post #71 is a very good reason why you should not listen to the people whose religious rules caused you to ask the questions you asked. I listened to this church authority thing from SBC Landmarkers and ABA Landmarkers for over a decade. And while I can say there are definitely some good things about Baptist ecclesiology, all this church authority stuff gets one uselessly preoccupied by with the kinds of questions you just asked, and this ideas that caused you to ask them a just plain wrong.
May 16th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Brother Wes,
This statement is not completely biblical…….
“I have no authority as pastor except that which is given me by my local church.”
Authority is in Christ alone….both you or I are simply slaves or bondservants at best to the Head/Christ to preach and teach the gospel. We tend and feed sheep with the gifts of the Spirit, any authority we have exists because of Christ, not any other person or persons. We submit to one another. We pray and send, but the local church gives no authority to its slaves outside of Christ. Even in matters of church discipline, the authority is in Christ…the church simply moves, works in, and executes that authority…and that is the reason that church discipline has authority and is binding and is perfect. The problem is that most churches do not know how to follow Christ in church discipline. There are times when churches really believe they have some sort of authority….but that is errant thinking.
The only authority is Christ. All authority is given Him. His church simply follows His authority in all respects. That’s a hard lesson to learn for anyone.
We look to Christ, not to the sheep for authority.
Blessings,
Chris
May 16th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Wes,
In #76 I take you to be saying that it is very important for the church to determine which groups of Christians perform valid/true baptism and which do not, but that “true” baptism does not have any particularly lasting effect in the Christian’s life.
I think you have a serious theological error, but I can live with it.
I do hope, however, that the BI people can be more careful than to keep accusing the non-BI people of all the vague generalities that are in John Mann’s post.
May 16th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Brother R,
You seemingly are trying to draw out something that is not there. You call Brother John’s well researched and reasoned post as vague generalities. If what Brother John has presented are vague generalities, then there is no reason to debate the issues with you.
Blessings,
Tim
May 16th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Tim,
I am simply trying to get the BI people to see that true churches are assemblies of people who have entered the Kingdom of by virtue of the New Birth - PERIOD. I don’t think you see that or believe that. I think you believe a New Testament church must pass a doctrinal filter, have people who have received baptism in a certain way, believe in eternal security, etc. etc. ad infinitum. Of course, I think Baptist doctrine and baptism are important. But I don’t think that is the fundamental thing that makes a true church - the New Birth is. If the BI people truly understand that, then the BI people would see the world in an entirely new light. I’m trying to get that point across, and by the things you all post back I know that I haven’t.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
R,
Baptist identity does not have anything to do with every NT church on earth.
Baptist identity has to do with Baptists.
Any church which adheres to the fundamentals of the Christian faith is a NT church.
Jesus wrote letters to seven churches. All were NT churches. Some had more theological errors than others.
If I am not wrong the intent of the post is to identify Baptist churches by their distinctiveness as opposed to others.
John Mann, correct me if I am wrong relating to your intent.
cb
May 16th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Proper administration of the ordinance is also a matter of obedience.
The only proper administration that I see in scripture is immersion. Period.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Debbie (comment #53), you wanted to know where to find Wade’s comments about children baptizing children. It was in the comments of the post on December 30, 2005.