The Goals of the Baptist Identity Movement (Part 3)

Who are you? Thanks for your clear and wise counsel. Blessings Bro.

Brother John,

You certainly have saved your best post last. Great insight into the world called Baptist Identity.

Blessings,
Tim

Ron,

Thanks for the support. God bless.

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.

bottom line:

narrow SBC parameters (‘identity’) = fewer cooperating churches

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.

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.

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

CB

Ban “us?”

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

[...] 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 [...]

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?

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,

FW

Did it take you awhile to think that up? Whatever the language may need to be, the argument remains.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

Wes: Could you provide a link to that comment?

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.

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.

Rick,

I am always up for coffee. Just ask my dog–Starbucks.

A GOLDEN COMMENT INDEED IS NUMBER 57.

Thank you, Wes.

cb

And by the way Wes,

Since I get to decide about my ecclesiology, I’ve decided it’s spot on.

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.

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.

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].

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.

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

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

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!

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

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

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

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.

R,

Not all assemblies of Believers are true churches.

Tomorrow I will be together with many Believers for a specific purpose. We will pray, fellowship, converse on a specific topic related to Christians and ministry of a joint nature. But, we will not be a NT church by any means.

Also please read Malcolm’s following sentence. It is important to understanding what he is saying in context.

cb

Wes,

Since I usually do not read SBCToday, I had not read your comment 42 until tonight.

I shall refrain from calling your comment a lie, or an intentional misrpresentation of what I have said , until you prove to your readers what you allege. My position has been, from day one, that a genuine believer in Jesus Christ, who understands the importance of baptism, may baptize his or her convert – and baptism is the sign that someone has identified himself with the kingdom of Christ.

To insinuate that I have ever alleged two six year olds “playing in the bathtub” is Christian baptism, is not only absurd, it speaks negatively to your character and Christian witness.

Wade

Debbie, correction, the discussion on children being baptized took place in the comments under Wade’s post of December 19, 2005. Sorry about that. My bad on the date.

Wade, shall we replay the whole conversation? My next comment on that thread follows:

“Wade, thanks for adding some details to the hypothetical situation. You did, however, leave out a couple of important details. We know that the eight-year-old boy’s parents are members of a large, traditional, Baptist church, but we don’t know their spiritual maturity level. We also don’t know the spiritual status of the seven-year-old boy’s parents. What if they are heavily indoctrinated Church of Christ members? What if they tell their son, “Yes, you say you have surrendered your life to Christ in repentance and faith, but one other requirement is missing—baptism. Physical immersion is a requirement for salvation.” What if the eight-year-old boy’s parents are unable to refute this statement? Yet, the immersion in the pond proceeds in the midst of this confusion. Was it a biblical immersion or not? Neither church authorized or designated the eight-year-old boy to administer the baptism. After the immersion, when your church examines the young convert’s faith and baptism, would it find them both to be Biblical?

Dr. Hammett gave some relevant comments:

“There is no theological reason why someone must be ordained to administer the ordinances, but it does seem prudent and orderly. At the same time, we view the ordinances as entrusted to the church, not to the church’s leaders. Therefore, the church can designate whomever it chooses to administer the ordinances, whether that person is ordained or not. . . . But the ordinances involve commitment to a body of believers (in baptism) and renewal of that commitment (in the Lord’s Supper) and thus cannot be properly observed in a context unrelated to a church. They are not appropriate for loosely related groups like those found, for example, on a youth retreat, or a small portion of the church, like a home Bible study.”

Hammett, 261-262.

No particular immersion mentioned in Scripture can be strictly separated from a local church.”

C.B.

I was saved through the ministry of Campus Crusade for Christ. My early years as an active Christian was within that campus ministry. Though I attended a local church, almost all my Christian relationships, Bible study, worship and evangelism was channeled through Campus Crusade. However, they did not baptize or practice the Lord’s supper. They did not claim to be a church. In #57 Wes Kenny said:

“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.”

Well, in Campus Crusade we didn’t submit to the authority of a local church. It would have been impractical to do so. However, a host of people were saved, some people who remain my friends to this day. Are you saying we did not do Kingdom work? Are you saying there is no room in the Kingdom for such ministry? Are you saying I was wrong?

Don’t get me wrong. I believe in the local Baptist. I believe in congregational ecclesiology. But I don’t want to spend my time dissecting how God has to work.

John,

Thank you for a clear, well-articulated article and the work you put into it. You have done well taking a broad scope of debate and concisely summarizing problems in view of strong biblical ecclesiology.

Tim,

I have attempted to articulate your point in comment #66 with thorough biblical reference here.

AND John,

lest I be entirely guilty of what I detest most about what so many do in distracting and hijacking comment threads…

I have thoroughly enjoyed your series on the movement to clearly regain a solid definition of Baptist Identity. Your words are yet another voice in the clarion call to Southern Baptists around our states, nation, and world to renew our convictions and advance the kingdom of God through the ministry of our churches.

I am amazed that those who wish to eschew the Identity so long cherished as Baptists would even bother to comment in a way that seems to imply they are now offended by being ‘left out’ of the clear definition of Baptist Identity. Wherever will they land next?

SG!

Scott,

I am honored and grateful for the opportunity to camp on your site for the past couple of weeks.

R,

To respond to you from your comment in #95.

I was saved reading a “stolen” Gideon Bible (parachurch group). I did not go to church. It was the first time I had ever read from a Bible and I was saved.

I was discipled by a Navigator (parachurch group).

I became a Baptist through reading that same Gideon Bible over and over.

I still support the Gideons and the Navigators.

I do not consider either of them NT churches.

R, Both Navigators and Campus Crusade did and still do good work. But both were weak on the doctrine of the church. There have been things published as proof of that, but it was years ago and I do not have the documents.

The Gideons have never sought to do the work of the churches. They seek the help of churches, admitting they are not local churches and do not seek to take its place.

R, I am not saying you were wrong to be part of Campus Crusade, but you know it is not a church and cannot do what a church does (or, rather what a church should be doing).

It was the failure of churches to fulfill the Great Commission which “birthed” many parachurch groups in the first place.

Of course, other parachurch organizations, such as the SBC, were organized due the desire of local churches to do a greater work by cooperating in Kingdom endeavors.

cb: So according to what you are saying, none of these from any of these groups you listed would be able to baptize?

C. B.

I just noticed your #104. I agree with your #103, but not your #104, for practical reasons.

CB,

Good comment on #104.

cb’s comment (good ones I might add) brought this to mind……

I have always wondered what Baptist theologians (us guys and gals) think about when one group of people in your church gets mad and starts another group of people down the street and calls it a Baptist church.

Several things are obvious about these mad people. They are not submitting to the authority of the original church. They will seemingly use the same criteria for a “well defined” Baptist ecclesiology and will certainly believe they have done it better than the previous group.

The SBC has no trouble whatsoever allowing this group to associate because they have met the minimal standards and have convinced some other church somewhere they are worthy to be SBC.

Is this group really a church?

If not, when do they become one, if ever?

Blessings,
Chris

Regarding #108

“But a healthy church will resemble a Baptist church.”

If it were true that healthy churches and Baptist churches were such close relatives, wouldn’t it follow that more Baptist churches should resemble healthy churches?

Adding to #112:

Also, it’s not clear to me there is not a personal aspect to the Great Commission in Matt. 28:17-20 as well as a corporate aspect, and it is not clear that every corporate aspect of it has to follow a NT church model.

Chris,

You bring up a good thing to think about. I also think you may have actually answered Dave’s question in #113.

Many churches were started on a sinful foundation. There is an inherent weakness in their “birthing.”

I believe the only way for them to become “healthy” is to first repent of sin. God is merciful and longsuffering. He forgives our sin and blesses repentant hearts, both individually and corporately.

I am seeking to lead the flock I serve as shepherd to repent of some things in their past. I believe that if they do they will become far more healthy and useful in the Kingdom.

We are not there yet. I may go down hard for my efforts, but I believe it is my calling to seek to lead a flock to repentance for corporate sin and live by a biblical faith as closely as possible.

I may not be successful but I must be faithful in the effort to lead a people to repent of an evident sin. The consequences of the effort are in God’s hands. I just must be faithful.

cb

One distinction needs to be made between how CB seems to be defining para-church and how I am. I would not necessarily define IMB as para-church in the strictest sense of the word. IMB is a connection point of a particular denomination. When I am referencing para-church organizations, I have Campus Crusade for Christ and the like in mind. I don’t see any need to fuss over our differing working definitions. I just wanted to prevent any confusion as one reads through the comments.

John,

Just one more thing; The SBC is not a “denomination.” It is an affiliation of local churches to better serve the Kingdom and fulfill the Great commission.

(Parachurch organization)

’till later,

cb

I find it difficult to find any biblical foundation for some of the specifications that are listed for a baptism to be “biblical”.

Are we to believe that God looks down and says “oh, he’s not being baptized by an ordained minister”, or “that person is too young to baptize”.

It is my belief that God doesn’t look at the person performing the baptism, but looks at the person being baptized. And He doesn’t look on the outside, if you know what I mean. He looks at the heart, “is this person truly identifying with My Son in His death, burial, and resurrection?”

I know that we are speaking about “Baptist Identity” in this entry, but it seems as if the discussion has moved away from this and into the realm of “what makes a baptism “official”"?

I agree with R. in post 115.

It’s not who is doing the baptism that is important, it is the heart condition of the candidate that matters.

Just my .02

Grace and Peace…

ABClay

Wanda,

Not to be to critical, but you either did not read or comprehend what has been written here or you intentionally are skewing what has been stated.

John has been quite humble in his articles and comments as has most others too. Please do not mistake Biblical conviction with pride. The two are not the same.

This thread is not about men having authority, it is about the authority given to Christ that he gave to the church. The proper administrator is one authorized by a local church, whether ordained or not.

Philip was 1) an apostle and 2) an officer of the church at Jerusalem.

No one has argued to make baptism a sacrament. What has been proposed is that we emphasize a return to our Biblical Baptist roots of believers baptism carried out with “a proper mode, method, candidate, administrator, formula, and church”

It is apparent that many, including pastors, have forsaken a clearly Biblical Baptist distinctive.

Ron P.

Brother cb,

The reason I bring up the scenario back in #111…is that church splits happens all to often and generally for the wrong reasons and sometimes it is for the right reasons.

The problem with that newly birthed “church” is that it is composed of those that left the former Baptist church without any so-called authority of their own bequeathed by the existing local church. The authority argument so many times becomes a lame duck.

So, if one is to say that this new group of people that have gone over a few blocks to start another church are legitimate,…then the authority argument falls flat. A church, called out ones, are those called out by God in Christ that worship, fellowship, disciple and obey the Lord’s ordinances submitting to one another in love.

Furthermore, the church (called out ones) are the only ones that are called to baptize. So, if you are saying that the called out ones are the ones to baptize, then you are biblically accurate. If you say that it is the collective body of Christ somehow grants the authority to baptize, then you are simply not biblical. Scripture is clear and “never” refers to baptism requiring a corporate authority. (whether you call it by the extra-biblical terms of universal or local)

Jesus made it clear….

Matthew 28:18-20 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. (19) “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, (20) teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

It is extremely clear that the disciples did not think corporately, while understanding they belonged to one another, concerning this command. They simply took Christ at His word and began to do the things he commanded. Christ did not say…that all authority has been given to the “local” church in heaven and in earth. He didn’t even say that all authority has been given to the “church”, whether local or universal or beyond. He did say, all authority has been given to “Me” in “heaven and on earth”…..and then to each of them to “go”. They did. We should.

Baptist Identity is just that …. We go. We should. We baptize. It is not a corporate authoritative bequeathing. It is a command made by Christ alone, and one that each believer is called to follow. Don’t let Baptist Identity we swept under with the currency of corporate identity. The believers identity is in Christ alone, gathered to worship, fellowship, disciple and obey the Lord’s commands.

Blessings,
Chris

Brother cb,

Of course you know that question has been treated like a big lump of “taffy” at the county fair…it starts out in a recognizable lump then gets pulled and tugged and manipulated and whatever (fascinating to watch from behind the glass)….then we eat it and smile all the way home.

I’ll try to answer it by way of Matthew…..

Matthew 16:15-20 He *said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” (16) Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (17) And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. (18) “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. (19) “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” (20) Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ.

Matthew 18:1-6 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and said, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” (2) And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, (3) and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. (4) “Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. (5) “And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; (6) but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

Matthew 18:14-20 “So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish. (15) “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. (16) “But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. (17) “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (18) “Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. (19) “Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. (20) “For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.”

Jesus speaks of the church as the ones that he calls out…..and warns that if anyone wants to contend with that definition, then they should be tied to a rock and sunk to the bottom of the ocean. (Matthew 18:5-6)

He then says its not the Fathers will that one of these (Elect) should perish…then moves into how to know your brothers and sisters. Jesus commands all believers to have love one for another as a taste of heaven in the midst of the earthly church. (Matthew 18:15-18) So where did the church begin,…when Christ began calling little ones out. The church are by their very calling local for a purpose, although not authoritatively. The local church is called out. The local church does not do the calling or set standands…simply because they already exist. The church, from Matthew’s short excurses took note and put laser focus on the importance of the gospel and its power to change the little ones into living ones called the church. The gospel brings members (little ones) to the body of Christ. As the church gathers, it determines who is gifted to teach and preach and evangelize and administrate and help, etc. That is how it is manifested through its gifting and working out that spiritual gifting in the midst of each other. Not by its authority and organization.

So, a church is seen in scripture as meeting locally (although not always local), each called one by one from all over the world. Your either in the church or not…. and that is not known by membership paperwork, letters of commendation or affiliation with denominations or non-denominations,… it is known by manifestation of the Holy Spirit’s gifting and maturing of those called to love one another. So, there is no distinction, the church is the church. You brought up an excellent point earlier about the churches in the book of the Revelation. They were all churches,…but whoa boy,..they certainly had varying depictions of the sin nature that grinds at the human flesh.

Blessings,
Chris

Rick,

Was Thomas Crosby a Landmarker? What about Joseph Ivimey? David Benedict?

My kudos to the five people, of whom I have never heard, who authored the Theopedia article. Did you notice the warning at the very top of the article: “There are no reviewed revisions of this page, so it may not have been checked for quality.”

Quite an understatement!

The sine qua non of Landmarkism is the idea that only Baptist churches are valid churches—this is the crux of Landmarkism—and it is entirely absent from the definition over at Theopedia. I went over there certain that you had selectively quoted, only to discover (incredulously) that you did give the entire essence of their definition. Amazing.

Do you still have a copy of McBeth lying around? That would serve you much better than Theopedia. If not, I could recommend some good works to catch you up.

Now, as to the question of Landmarkism, I do realize that, since the days of Tull, the established rule of leftward-leaning Southern Baptists has been to tie anything you dislike to Landmarkism and try to knock them both down together. But the day for such a thing has ended.

Yes, Landmark Baptists believed that Baptists had been around longer than just since 1641 or 1609. But so did the vast majority of non-Landmark Baptists prior to the twentieth century. Can you identify for me the non-successionist Baptist histories authored before 1899?

Was William Kiffin a Landmark Baptist?

If you will define Landmarkism this way, you will soon hoist us all on your own petard. For a century the Landmarkers have been claiming that Landmarkism is the historic theology of Baptists all the way back into the seventeenth century and beyond. Southern Baptist have (accurately) argued that the seventeenth and eighteenth century Baptists, although they did actually believe in a thing called ecclesiology, did not fall into the extremes of Landmarkism.

By defining Landmarkism as you have, you are about to prove the Landmarkers right. Because this attempt to be Baptist without having any ecclesiology at all is a novelty of only the past few decades, and if all else is Landmarkism, then Landmarkism truly is the historical Baptist ecclesiology.

As for me, I find that the vast majority of Baptist authors in the pre-Landmark period (before the Cotton Grove Resolutions) held to a strong ecclesiology (which is what John Mann is advocating here) without slipping off into Landmarkism.

Chris,

I certainly hope that you do not, by your comment, mean to suggest that the view of baptism as I have tried to articulate it is “man-centered,” for I would not have come to this view on my own.

I add my hearty “amen” to all those things you say baptism teaches. I simply believe that the church is proclaiming them together with the one being baptized, and if there is no church, there is no baptism.

Too often, as Russell Moore said in the audio segments that were among the first posts on this blog, we are guilty of emphasizing what baptism is not, rather than what it is, when we observe the ordinance.

When the church baptizes a new convert, it is proclaiming all those wonderful things you articulated so well, and doing so to the glory of God. We should be emphasizing those things when we come together to baptize.

Brother Wes,

I hope you know me well enough by now……please know that I am not in any way intimating that you are demeaning baptism in any sense. I think we both are at awe that Christ would allow us the opportunity to be baptized and to baptize. That is truly grace.

I actually don’t disagree with what you have said….

“I simply believe that the church is proclaiming them together with the one being baptized, and if there is no church, there is no baptism.”

The church when gathered certainly can join in the celebration or when not gathered can hear about it as Christ brings “little ones” into his fold…..and you are absolutely on target that the command to baptize by our Lord does not exist without the church,…that would be an impossibility.

Blessings my friend,
Chris

Ben Stratton,

And have you not read the most recent commentary on the errors of which adhere to your own detriment?

“The errors of Landmarkism are as dangerous to true Baptist ecclesiology and biblical theology in general as are the most vile testaments uttered from the lips of shameless libertines who fancy themselves liberators of the faithful followers of Christ with their unrestrained freethinking and their licentious and just plain all around rude behavior.”

…………cb, May 17,2008………..

Just curious. Could you guys who use the terminology “weak ecclesiology” and “strong ecclesiology” please tell me exactly what you mean by it? For example, on a spectrum of 1 to 10, 1 being weak, and 10 being strong, what is the “weakest ecclesiology” and what is the “strongest ecclesiology”?

David,

I’ll be glad to contrast the two phrases in my earlier comment: “strong ecclesiology” vs. “no ecclesiology at all.”

If you’ll examine the period following the Landmark epoch in Southern Baptist life, you’ll find very few monographs, very few sermons, very few conferences, and very little attention at all given to ecclesiology. Southern Baptists replaced Landmark ecclesiology with no ecclesiology at all. We entered a period where we neglected to speak, talk, write, or think much about our distinctive beliefs. And now we find a generation has arisen many of whom think that there’s not a whiff even of the concept of being a member of a church in the pages of the Bible. And why should they think otherwise, having been taught no ecclesiology at all?

With the work of Norman and Hammett and Dever and others, a renewed interest in ecclesiology is upon us. It seems to be disconcerting for those comfortable with the previous status quo. For the era of “no ecclesiology at all” involved at least a neglect, but in some cases a deliberate avoidance of ecclesiology.

I would submit Barna’s Revolution as perhaps one of the weakest ecclesiological perspectives around, but we’ll generally have to stick with “ecclesiological perspective” rather than “ecclesiology” because most people with weak ecclesiology don’t write ecclesiologies.

Moore and Sagers have written a journal article demonstrating that evangelicalism is a fountainhead of weak ecclesiology in the twentieth century. Ecclesiological questions divide evangelicals; therefore, being little more than a theological Wal-Mart, evangelicalism must minimize ecclesiology in favor of sales.

It comes down to this: One either believes
1) a true assembly of the Lord requires the new birth plus nothing, OR
2) a true assembly of the Lord requires the new birth plus believer’s baptism by immersion.

Those who hold to 1) can maintain that the Kingdom of God and the Church are the same. Those who hold to 2) must maintain the Kingdom and the Church (or at least the local church) are different, i.e. that the church is a subset of the Kingdom (or else the Kingdom of God, like the church, would be entered by baptism which Baptists reject).

Surely an esoteric question to secularists, but denominations have divided over lesser theological issues. Do we want this issue to divide us? Is this a nonnegotiable to the BI folks?

Still trying to understand…

Is Landmark ecclesiology “strong ecclesiology”? Why or why not?

Is Roman Catholic ecclesiology “strong ecclesiology”? Why or why not?

Are all “strong ecclesiologies” necessarily “Baptist ecclesiologies”? Why or why not?

CB,

What is it that makes my ecclesiology weaker than “Baptist ecclesiology”? Or was that just a dig?

R,

The church is a manifestation of the Kingdom or Reign of God. It is the form which that reign takes on earth in our time. It is the concrete manifestation of God’s sovereign reign in our hearts. Under the old covenant, the form of expression which the Kingdom took was Israel. The Kingdom can be found where God rules in human hearts. But, more than that, it is found wherever His will is done. Thus, the Kingdom was present in heaven even before the creation of humans, for the angels were subject to and obeyed God. They are included within His Kingdom now, and will be in the future, But they never have been and never will be part of the church. The church is only one manifestation of the Kingdom.

CB,

Thanks for the explanation.

In any case, I am still really trying to get a grip on this of “strong” vs. “weak” ecclesiologies.

Does the term “strong ecclesiology” simply mean an ecclesiology similar to the ecclesiology of the one using it? Or does it have a specific meaning beyond this?

David,

Was my response of any help at all?

R. Granneman,

And the believer who has genuinely received the new birth, but has been excluded from the congregation by action of church discipline? And let’s not make it for refusal to be baptized…let’s make it for trying to arrange a sexual liason online with a thirteen-year-old (just so we’ll be in a pretty close parallel with the guy in 1 Corinthians). Is that person in the Kingdom or not?

R,

My comment in #147 was a direct quote from Millard J. Erickson found on page 1042 in his book entitled CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

That book is a standard theological textbook for numerous conservative Bible colleges, seminaries and divinity schools.

David,

Your ecclesiology is much like Erickson’s (my personal opinion).

Therefore, according to R. Grannemann your ecclesiology is a category 1 by your own scale of weak being 1 and strong being 10.

cb

David,

My apologies. Somehow my eyes put the “C.B.” in the MIDDLE of that comment as though it were at the TOP of that comment. I did not realize that you were posing those questions to me.

An ecclesiology’s strength lies in its derivation from the Bible and its consequent contribution to the health (strength) of the church it organizes and empowers. Anyone who believes that the Bible says very little about how the churches ought to be organized and function is someone who has diluted the Bible’s voice on the subject, thereby weakening his ecclesiology.

Not all Baptist ecclesiologies are strong ecclesiologies. There are Baptist churches without “Baptist” on the sign, just as there are churches with “Baptist” on the sign that are no such thing. So, although I believe that any convictionally Baptist ecclesiology is stronger than any non-Baptist ecclesiology, I would not apply those terms woodenly based upon church names or affiliations.

Roman Catholics get credit for devout attention to ecclesiology, but are weakened greatly by the fact that they are so wrong on so many things.

Landmarkism was/is a strong ecclesiology, although perhaps a good bit too particular and strict toward those who were weaker and too quick to declare how God has exercised what is His own prerogative. As I have written before, one must take into account the grace of God before declaring what is and what is not a church.

R.,

On the strength of my scenario posed in comment #153 alone, I could gladly assert that it is possible to be outside the churches and yet inside the Kingdom.

And thereby I demonstrate conclusively that I am not a Landmarker, much to Rick Thompson’s consternation.

Bart,

In #53 you do have a point, however…

My answer is that the NT was written in a manner to get across the concept, not for someone to dissect it with excessive literality.

I believe Matt. 18, taken as a whole, indicate the kingdom and the church are the same thing.

1) In Matt. 18:1 Jesus talks about citizens of the Kingdom.
2) In 18:17 he is talking about reporting something to the church and exclusion from the church.
3) In 18:18 he talks the exclusion on earth being binding in heaven.
4) In 18: 19 he talks about his presence with any two or three people who are simply assembled in his name.

But you have to allow for some fluidity in NT language in the interpretation.

When one is excluded from the church (Matt. 18:17) he is also excluded in heaven (Matt. 18:18); that is, he is also excluded from the heavenly kingdom – i.e. exclusion from the church is exclusion from the kingdom (thus your #153 does not work). But there is some fluidity in the concept at this point. The point here is NOT that someone loses their salvation. The point is the seriousness of being out of fellowship with your brother, the heavenly consequences, the kingdom consequences, the loss of reward. The picture was drawn to make the immediate point, but harmonizing it back with kingdom entrance and eternal salvation was not in view.

I just read this, sorry so late.

To irreverand fox,

In 24, you said, “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.”

I am surprised that no one commented to this. We left an SBC church over this very thing. I’ll give you a link to the church if you want. They also do not have Baptist in their name, do not use Baptist literature or VBS literature, GA’s RA’s, they DO have elders, they DO speak in tongues and have “words of knowledge” from the pulpit, the Prayer of Jabez DID become the mantra for the prosperity of the members for quite a while.

Why should this church be called Baptist? That 3% to the CP so they can keep the land that the association gave them to start the church?

I know you don’t have to use Baptist curriculum, or any curriculum, that is not my point.

I’m sorry, if this is a “drive-by” as I am going to sleep and tomorrow is Sunday. I read every single post on here, and it was very interesting.

Bart,

I should have prefaced the previous comment by thanking you for the precision with which you attempted to answer my question. I am not saying that you are just “blowing off” my question. It is just that, at the bottom line, upon hearing the various answers here, I can’t help but coming to the conclusion I mention in the above comment.

Liz,

I suppose that I.F. never watched Dwight McKissic’s TBN appearance either.

Sola Gratia!

David Rogers,

Will you at least give the section of the book I mentioned in #158 a hearing?

cb

I should add, I realize this may not be true of all landmarkers, but JR Graves denied the Universal church, if I am reading his writings correctly.

David Rogers,

I believe that Wes spelled it out pretty clearly in comment # 166 about “weak ecclesiology” and “strong ecclesiology.” That’s about as clear as it gets.

David

Wes (ref. #166)

“For me it is as simple as this. A strong ecclesiology has a high view of the importance, and indeed the centrality, of the local church to the carrying out of the Great Commission.”

But isn’t this the way evangelism is presently working in the world? I mean, it is mostly churches that are doing evangelism in the world today, I woudl say. Yes, there are some para_church groups like Campus Crusade that are highly effective, but the BI people say they do not want to stamp these organizations out. The BI people just want to make the church so good they aren’t needed. Okay, let’s do that. But I can imagine a situation in which a para-church group may be able to get into a closed country when a denomination can not. So why get legalistic about it?

I think the real problem, at least for you, is that you think the non-BI people are too loosey-goosey about baptism. But in the end, is it not God who approves or disapproves baptism? And 99% of the time the non-BI people we be doing baptism in exactly the same way you are.

CB,

Aye-aye, Captain. I’ll get right to it!

(Actually, I do have Dr. Akins “A Theology for the Church” here with me now. I think I did skim through Dever’s section when I first got it, back a couple of months ago. But I will move it up on my “to read” list, due to your recommendation. In what I have read from Dever so far, he makes a lot of sense).

R. Granneman,

The church, the kingdom, and church discipline are more than a metaphor. They are realities. In principle, I agree that we must avoid putting more into any text than was actually there (contra. Augustine\’s \”exegesis\” of the parable of the Good Samaritan), but a good bit of Matthew 18 does not fit into the genre of a parable.

I\’ll gladly say that I don\’t 100% understand all of the implications of the \”binding\” and \”loosing\” statement. I think the general unavoidable implication is that the authority of Heaven stands behind a church whenever we carefully and rightly practice church discipline. As to the implications of that particular passage upon the kingdom—it doesn\’t really mention the kingdom at all within that specific pericope, does it (vv. 15-20)?

It seems to me a pretty easy refuge (and succeptible to a sort of [little-g] gnosticism) to claim that the passage is muddled at the points that challenge your perspective while claiming that you understand it at the points that seem to back up what you are saying.

Wes,

Dont you just love people like Dr. Lee who can put things so distinct and in a humorous way?

Halelujah! It’s time to worship and preach the Word. May all of you Pastors in here have power and wisdom in your preaching, and may it be seasoned with much love.

David

Brother cb,

I know you understand these things very well….but you got my meager brain to thinking more about this ecclesiological taffy.

A true ecclesiology is understood as bodily (Spiritual accrued and engaged), not corporate (organizational or liturgically structured) in nature. It is interesting that our sin nature, which remains obvious even as believers, still exists until we are glorified and it manifestly lures the children of God to into corporate ways and means. This is only natural, because the natural man is hindered by the flesh. And the flesh looks for the pragmatic religious methods a great deal of the time. On the contrary, as we look to Christ we see more of the bodily functioning’s of His adopted sons and daughters (members). The Apostle Paul puts it this way concerning spiritual gifts……

1 Corinthians 12:11-14 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills. (12) For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. (13) For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. (14) For the body is not one member, but many.

So the called out ones are immersed into one body, that is Christ,..and the Spirit of God has made us alive in Christ. That is the great immersion,…. His called out ones into the death and into the life of Christ. Those are Gods children on earth, who gather to worship, fellowship, disciple, baptize, partake of the Lord’s supper, etc. Those that are saved are never without the church. God never leaves us alone.

Paul seems to understand the biblical norm for sound ecclesiology as….

Ephesians 2:19-22 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, (20) having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, (21) in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, (22) in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.

Grudem (not an Apostle) in his updated version of Systematic Theology, page 858 has said it rightly during his commentary on the formation of local vs. universal church……

“We may conclude that the group of God’s people considered at any level from local to universal may rightly be called “a church”. We should not make the mistake of saying that only a church meeting in houses expresses the true nature of the church, or only the a church considered at a city-wide level can rightly be called a church, or only the church universal can rightly be called by the name “church”. Rather, the community of God’s people considered at any level can be rightly called a church.”

How does the bible say you will know the church? The body is known by fruit given by the Spirit and biblical fruit becomes obvious as they gather to worship, pray, teach, disciple, etc.

Romans 10:8-10 But what does it say? “THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART”–that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, (9) that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; (10) for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

1 Timothy 6:11-16 But flee from these things, you man of God, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, perseverance and gentleness. (12) Fight the good fight of faith; take hold of the eternal life to which you were called, and you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses. (13) I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who testified the good confession before Pontius Pilate, (14) that you keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, (15) which He will bring about at the proper time–He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, (16) who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.

Matthew 7:20-21 “So then, you will know them by their fruits. (21) “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.

Galatians 5:22-26 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, (23) gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. (24) Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. (25) If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. (26) Let us not become boastful, challenging one another, envying one another.

The “church” becomes obvious by these things….which are the norm of biblically understood ecclesiology. It is never corporate ritualized methodology.

Look at what was said to certain Jews….. There were a lot coming to be baptized to join the group…. Thankfully John cleared up the poor ecclesiology of the chosen people.

Matthew 3:7-11 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? (8) “Therefore bear fruit in keeping with repentance; (9) and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father’; for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham. (10) “The axe is already laid at the root of the trees; therefore every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. (11) “As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Israel fell into that trap a long time ago.

Blessings,
Chris

I think I’m asking the same question Rick Thompson is. Does everyone have to have this view of the local church in order to be truly Southern Baptist or to be in the SBC, either as messengers or leadership? Although I admittedly have not read your latest post that I see up which may answer that question, I’ll ask anyway.

Liz: I did get the link and am going to look at it. Thank you and you have my word that it will not be published and kept confidential.

My apologies Wes,

Your also invited to coffee…

Rick

Wanda,

First of all, no baptism is valid if the person being baptised is not even saved. Southern Baptists believe in Believers baptism.

Secondly, the Eunuch was a member of the Jerusalem Church, and he went down into Ethiopia as a missionary from the Jerusalem Church. Tradition tells us that a lot of good things happened after he went back to Ethiopia, too.

And, Wanda, again, it’s not arrogance to state what someone believes about the Scriptures. What’s arrogant about it? The fact that you dont believe it. Is that what troubles you the most? That some of us in here dont go along with what you obviously believe? And, is that not arrogant to get mad and call others arrogant and power hungry, just because they dont believe like you do?

David

“What if the ‘officer’ of my local SBC church who baptizes is a closet sexual pervert and it comes out later. Are the baptisms he performs still valid as long as he holds the correct title at the time?”

Well, David. You answered everything else with panache. Why not this one?

When I was growing up (in an independant, fundamentalist, Baptist church) I was told that the Southern Baptist Convention was filled with liberal pastors, seminaries, and churches.

I’m so glad that there has been a conservative resurgence; however, is there really a need for a Baptist Identity resurgence?

Growing up in the circles I did one might have thought that all others outside the Independant Baptist camp were not really in tune with God – not really true churches.

I was so glad to receive God’s gift of freedom from such nonsense.

But – don’t get me wrong – the SBC is not my savior – as a matter of fact…some of the demeanor of leadership in the SBC as well as some of the stances taken by leadership in the SBC more and more remind me of the errors I grew up with.

Why do I remain in ministry in a SBC church? Precisely due to God’s using more balanced voices along the way – voices like those of, for instance, Rick Thompson.

If it weren’t for those balanced voices I think I’d have to skeedadle.