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.

At the risk of ’speaking for’ David, I will put forth an answer to your question…

The issue of baptism and accountability in administration of this ordinance does not lie within the individual or officer. It is contained within the local body of believers, a.k.a. the church! The proper perspective here relates to accountability and biblical integrity. A similar need for integrity exists for the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper. It is the responsibility of the local church to carry out this ordinance so that not any gathered group can decide to throw popcorn and lemonade together and call them the elements and ‘partake’ of the Lord’s Supper.

Sola Gratia!

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

(1) It’s interesting that when you talk about the “proper baptism” you refer to history but not scripture (“The historical understanding of baptism has been defined as needing a proper mode, method, candidate, administrator, formula, and church), but when you talk about other topics, you invoke the authority of scripture. This was probably just an oversight, because I know you know that if you’re going to defend a “proper baptism,” it needs to be defined by the parameters of scripture–nothing more, nothing less.

(2) This is the first time I’ve seen charismatic practices associated with “neo-orthodoxy.” It’s interested, because if you define the two terms strictly (i.e., the words mean what they usually mean), they don’t correspond at all. I admire the theological innovation you’re offering here.

(3) I liked your comment about “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 think we need to go further, though. I think a woman who has an uncovered head in worship can only be defended on cultural grounds as opposed to revelatory grounds. Scripture is crystal clear about that matter, along with many other matters of women’s clothing that are all too often ignored in Southern Baptist churches. Do we stand with God’s Holy Word or not?

Best,
Clay

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

Sweetie, I would not expect you to ’see it’ or even to ‘own up’ to what is quite obvious in this thread.

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

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?

And the eunuch? This baptism brought him membership into the Jerusalem church or the universal church?

Your also invited to coffee…

Rick

Perhaps you meant, “Wow Bart,…”

Then again, perhaps not, as I didn’t really detect any anger in Bart’s reply.

Oh, well…

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.

After picking through your angry insults, insinuations and put-downs, I was actually able to find an answer that was helpful to me. I see that you propose a pre-landmarkist position!

Now there you go- that is something we can agree to. Perhaps I’ll even invite you to the coffee I am planning with John Mann and his dog Starbucks.

But when we have coffee- I’m still going to ask you if there is a place in your vision of the SBC for churches like ours.