It’s Nothing Personal
Posted byThere is a phrase that I am considering striking forever from my vocabulary. That phrase is “individual Christian.” There is nothing inherently wrong with either term, but when they come together, the result is, more often than not, absolute silliness masquerading as theology.
The most recent example shows itself in the currently raging debate in the wake of the John 3:16 Conference at the First Baptist Church in Woodstock, Georgia. The debate began over soteriological issues, but it quickly devolved to the point that the real source of this division became clear. It is an issue of ecclesiology, and that’s where this “individual Christian” nonsense begins to wreak havoc.
The flashpoint in this developing controversy is Dr. Malcolm Yarnell’s unanswered question posed to Dr. Tom Ascol about whether Dr. Ascol’s church would welcome in communion at the Lord’s Supper one whose only “baptism” was a sprinkling they received as an infant. Dr. Ascol’s silence left the impression that this, in fact, is the practice of Grace Baptist Church in Cape Coral, Florida. And while a free and autonomous church is certainly within its rights to make such an allowance, Dr. Yarnell was by no means out of line in pointing out that this would place that particular (!) congregation “outside the mainstream of confessional Southern Baptist identity.”
But then Geoff Baggett at sbcIMPACT! took up the cause, wondering out loud, in the title of a post, whether the Baptist Faith & Message (BF&M) really supported Dr. Yarnell’s statement, leading many to wonder whether our friend in Kentucky has ever had occasion to read the entire document. In the comments on Bro. Baggett’s post, the debate showed itself for what it is.
Dr. Bart Barber has ably demonstrated that the statements in the BF&M regarding the ordinances are exegetically sound, so I’ll not attempt here to re-plow that ground. But IMB missionary David Rogers, participating in the debate with Dr. Barber, refers to those “who are sincerely convinced from their study of Scripture that their infant baptism was valid,” and this gets to the heart of the problem and the point of this post.
So many of our discussions in recent years have focused on those “sincerely convinced” individuals and how we must treat them, and this is where the theological nonsense begins in earnest. “Individual Christians” are welcome to have opinions about what scripture teaches, but that is all they are: opinions. This deference to individual interpretation is tricky business, something that the state of our convention pre-1979 thoroughly demonstrated.
It was under the cover of an interpretation of the “priesthood of the believer” that all manner of theological liberalism was not only promulgated, but protected by those who insisted that we must not tamper with this important doctrine. The only problem is, such a doctrine is not biblical at all, at least not as expressed in the singular.
Nowhere in scripture can I find reference to any individual believer being given reason to believe that they hold any kind of priesthood whatever. What I do find are references to the gathered community of believers being called a holy and a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2). But that foundational passage is entirely bereft of reference to any individual; the references to believers are all in the plural. We are priests together. We do not have the ability, individually, to declare with authority what the Bible teaches.
The only individual who in the New Testament is granted priesthood is our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, who is the Head of the church. He certainly has the authority (Matthew 28:18) to declare what the Bible teaches, and he does so through His church (Matthew 18:18-20). It is the New Testament church, the local congregation of baptized believers, speaking with the authority of Christ, that is able to declare with His authority what the Bible teaches. There is no “priesthood of the believer,” because there are no “individual Christians.” One only has to look around at once-mighty mainline Protestant denominations, or to look at where our beloved Southern Baptist Convention was headed, to see the devastating results of this kind of thinking.
Dr. Yarnell was right to sound the alarm of concern. It’s nothing personal.
135 Comments
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:21 am
Well stated.
Nonetheless, I have to go along with our pastor when he says that the Bible says each one must examine himself, and that it’s the Lord’s table and not ours.
And it does seem logical that, to go beyond that would require the body to do a lot of screening on a lot of issues beyond being a “member in good standing”.
Which might be a great idea anyway for church membership, but doesn’t seem to be in the cards.
But I’m pretty sure I’m outside the mainstream, anyhoo.
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:49 am
Hi Wes (the Great)
Glad to see you back on the boards. Hope that your school work and family are all well.
I have been watching closely the discussions between Drs. Ascol and Yarnell – and I empathize with both. I really appreciated Dr. Barber’s post on the subject at his blog (sorry, I’m not savvy enough to link that post). I personally believe in a closed communion (only those members of the church in good standing) but in the 25+ years of pastoral ministry, I have never served a church that held to that position. Generally we have been able to come to a compromise – those scripturally baptized in a church of like faith and order. But even then, at the table, as Brother Cleveland stated, each person is to examine themselves. In other words our deacons, who serve the meal, don’t go around with a membership roll to determine who is eligible and who is not.
However, I do find it odd that a post responding to the J316C has now boiled down to a discussion over communion. Is this perhaps where the whole discussion of Calvinism is headed in the SBC? Some really believe it is – and that is why they are so defensive. As I’ve shared before, I’m a 5-pointer who strongly supports our Baptist heritage and Southern Baptist identity in particular. That kind of leaves me somewhere in the middle. Oh well, I have been called “strange” too.
Grace Abundantly,
Wes (the less)
BTW, I also agree with you concerning the issue of priesthood. It is the “body” which forms the priesthood – not the individual. Thanks again.
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:58 am
Bob,
I agree with the self-examination, and that is why, as Wes said, we should not be examining anyone for eligibility to participate. What we should be doing is what many have described, which is carefully laying out the biblical convictions of the church regarding who is to participate, and allowing individuals to determine for themselves whether to partake.
Wes,
It boiled down in this case to communion, but as I have believed for a long time now, it really is all about ecclesiology. Communion is the focus here, but all of our recent controversies can be traced back to one’s view of the church. If it is simply a collection of “individual Christians,” then of course a six-year-old can baptize his friend in the family swimming pool, and who are we to say it is not valid? Of course someone sprinkled as an infant can partake of the Supper, if they’re convinced in their hearts that their baptism was legitimate; who are we to question it?
But if the church is something more than just a collection of autonomous individuals, these questions become something more than just a consideration of individual rights and privileges, and we who wish to assert a robust ecclesiology and a strong Baptist identity are not just individuals trying to force everyone to agree with us.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Brother Wes (The good Wes
)
Good article….
One thing to consider from Revelation 1 is that the Priesthood does indicate that priests are present and make up the kingdom. So at least something else to consider. The language used by John seems to indicate a close kin to the Exodus passage that there truly are priests, of which we are. No doubt though that the reason is for the common confession of the gospel of God bringing glory to God and His dominion.
Revelation 1:4-6 “John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne, (5) and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood– (6) and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father–to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.”
Blessings,
Chris
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Wes
You have been sorely missed my friend, but this post has been worth the wait. As Drs. Allen and Yarnell have articulated, they have been concerned over a “Dortian Calvinism.” that can lead our churches away from our Baptist roots.
Keep up the good work.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Thanks for this post. I agree that “individual Christian” is a scary notion. However, should the concept of community not extend beyond our Baptist walls? I am not suggesting that we stop being Baptists but we are often individualistic as a denomination as well. I am a creedo-baptist but many Christians, and in fact most Christians throughout history, were not. Again, I am not suggesting that we stop being Baptists, but refusing a brother or sister in Christ from the table because they were baptized as infants seems to go against the very attitude you are advocating for.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Robin,
I’m curious. What do you think is the difference between a “Dortian Calvinist” and a five-point Calvinist?
Les
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:00 pm
J. Wright,
I must confess to a bit of confusion about your last sentence. The communion issue is only a part of my larger point about how a sensitivity to individualism has corrupted ecclesiology. As I said, Dr. Barber did an excellent job over at sbcIMPACT of demonstrating the soundness of the relevant portions of the BF&M, which clearly exclude anyone who has not been baptized from partaking of the Lord’s Supper. The person you describe as being “baptized” as an infant has not, according to the BF&M, been baptized at all.
As to your earlier point, rather than extending this “concept of community,” I think that I actually would not extend it as far as you apparently think I would. I believe it extends only to the local church.
Many have accused those of us who advocate a strong Baptist identity of taking a top-down approach, when the opposite is true: this is very much a bottom-up approach. As churches determine what the Bible teaches, they then seek to cooperate with other like-minded churches for the advancement of the Kingdom, and it is this like-mindedness which is the basis for cooperation. To suggest that the enforcement of doctrinal accountability somehow equates to Romanism is silly, since the accountability is not to some archbishop in Nashville, but rather it is to the foundational doctrines which have their basis in the teachings of scripture as understood by the local church.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Wes,
Thanks for an illuminating post. I want to make sure I understand exactly what you are saying.
You say that the issue has devolved into one of communion and therefore it is not a debate about theology, i.e., Calvinism, but one of ecclesiology. Am I hearing your correctly?
Does not the debate around the Lord’s Supper actually revolve around the proper mode of baptism? I believe Dr. Yarnell was saying that those churches who are part of the mainstream in confessional Southern Baptist identity will only accept at the Lord’s Supper table those who have been correctly baptized (I am paraphrasing here of course). Does that not make the issue one of baptism and not of Communion?
If this is truly an issue of baptism and not Communion, then how is not a Landmark position?
Thanks for any clarification you can provide.
Les
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Les,
It is about neither baptism nor communion. It is about who has the ability to authoritatively declare what the Bible teaches. Christ certainly has that ability, and he exercises it through His body, the church.
Baptism and communion are merely the issues which, in this case, illustrate the issue most clearly, as I said to Wes in comment 3 above.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Wes,
Okay, thanks for the clarification. It’s not about baptism nor communion but it is about the church being the only authorized agency on earth to declare what the Bible teaches. Am I following you now?
So if the church is the only authorized agency on earth to declare what the Bible teaches, then I am assuming indivudal interpretation of scripture would be rendered invalid in your view. Correct?
And who is the “church”? Is it Southern Baptist only? Is a Southern Baptist church the only authorized interpreter of the Bible? Is that what you are saying?
Thanks again.
Les
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Les
If I am not able to get to you quickly, it is because I am in the middle of a workshop. To answer your question in a short manner, a five point Calvinist holds to all five points (TULIP), but does not use Dort as a measure of Christian orthodoxy.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Wes K writes: “It boiled down in this case to communion, but as I have believed for a long time now, it really is all about ecclesiology. Communion is the focus here, but all of our recent controversies can be traced back to one’s view of the church.”
I think I can assent to this statement, Wes, considering that Southern Baptists have always had Calvinists within their ranks and as others have pointed out, Southern Baptists churches have been more or less calvinistic in their theology through the years. So lets deal with the issue of ecclesiology and agree to the two streams which have flowed together to form the Southern Baptist river.
Brother Les,
I don’t know you other than what I have read on the blogs over the past year or so (and admittedly that is not the best way to “know” someone), so I hope and pray that you don’t take offense when I ask you – “Why are you a Southern Baptist if you disagree so strongly with our confessional statement?” We have a confessional statement that defines baptism as “the immersion of the believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s faith in a crucified, buried and risen Saviour (sic), the believer’s death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper,” (BFM 2000, Article VII, paragraph 1). The issue of believer’s baptism has been central to the Baptist faith from the very beginning. It is not a “Landmarkist” issue. This is one of the foundational issues that brought those English Separatists together with those Continental Anabaptists in the 17th century. Those who have been sprinkled, whither as infants or adults, have not been scripturally baptized and are thus, by our confession of faith, not to partake with our covenanted fellowship of the Lord’s Table. You may not like that statement, Brother Les, but it is the confessional statement of our Convention. Of course you are free to change our confessional statement any time you have enough votes.
BTW Brother Les, the BFM 2000 statement is in line with both the NHCF and the Second London Confession of Faith (1689). Both of these statements note immersion as the only true baptism and the NHCF also agrees that baptism is a prerequisite to the Lord’s Supper. Brother, I can worship and fellowship with my friends and brothers at the t4g meetings every two years – but I can’t, convictionally, gather around the Lord’s Table with them. But then that is also an increasingly true statement of some of our so-called “Baptist” brethren.
Grace Abundantly,
WesInTex (just for clarity)
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Robin,
Bingo on comment #12! I think that is where WestheRedRaider (did I get that right, WIT?) and I would find ourselves.
Sola Gratia!
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Robin,
Thanks for your response. If you will be so kind as to help me out again it is much appreciated.
When you say “does not use Dort as a measure of Christian orthodoxy” are you saying that the non-Dortian Calvinist does not hold to the Decision of the Synod of Dort that Arminianism is heretical? In your view, is a non-Dortian Calvinist one who agrees with TULIP and the Remonstrance? Am I understanding you correctly?
Thanks again.
Les
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Brother WesInTex,
You asked, “Why are you a Southern Baptist if you disagree so strongly with our confessional statement?”
Where have I said that I disagree with BFM2K? If you will take the time to read my blog archives on BFM2K, you will find that I unreservedly support BFM2K.
Is the asking of questions for the purposes of understanding another person’s view not agreeing with BFM2K?
I don’t think so.
Les
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Les,
Do you believe in regeneration before faith?
Do you believe that infant baptism is a legitimate form of baptism?
Do you believe in Churches being ruled by a group of elders?
David
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:29 pm
David (volfie)
Thanks for posing the questions. Here are my answers.
1. Yes.
2. No.
3. Not my choice, but I’m not against other churches doing it.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Brother Les,
My sincere apologies, my brother, if I misunderstood your charging Dr. Yarnell (and presumably others who agree with his position) of holding to landmarkism because he correctly identified proper baptism (i.e., meaning and mode) as a prerequisite to the Lord’s Supper (see your post #9) as your being opposed to the BFM2K position on baptism. Perhaps you could take a minute and explain to me why the expressed position (proper baptism before communion – as expressed in the BFM2K) is a “landmark position” and not a “Baptist” position? Or perhaps I’m just too dumb to understand what you’re writing. I am, after all, just a Red Raider fan.
Scott,
Yes, my friend you are correct in the Red Raider identification. I sure wanted to send you a card following your … er, “loss” last month!
Chris,
So now it comes out! I’m the “bad” Wes just because we de-horned those boys from Austin. How sad, very – very sad. BTW, how are you feeling? The last couple of emails I sent you were returned saying you wouldn’t be in the office till the new year. Hope you and your family are all well.
Grace Abundantly,
(Guns UPPPPP!)
WesInTex
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Les,
Are you saying that you believe that all Arminians are heretics?
Sola Gratia!
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:03 pm
David,
I know I’m not Les, but our names are close
so I thought I would give your little question and answer thing a try.
1. Absolutely – don’t you believe the scriptures? (LOL, that’s a joke, its ok, we’re still friends)
2. Not at all – no way, no how.
3. I don’t believe anyone should “rule” the church except Jesus Christ. I do believe that Elders are a more biblical pattern of church leadership. A pattern commonly followed by our Baptist and Southern Baptist forefathers. Also, an Eldership would not necessarily prohibit a congregational vote on certain issues brought to them by the Elders.
Thanks for letting me share my 2 cents.
Grace Abundantly,
WesInTex
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Brother WesInTex,
Maybe you can help me here brother. Of all the things to stumble upon a couple of years back was this theological mumbo jumbo of closed, close, open, almost, sometimes, near, ….forms of communion.
It seems to me Paul gives a simple warning and recipe. Obviously the Corinthians were eating it as their supper and in an unworthy manner (drunk, etc.). Paul then corrects and instructs them to partake as commanded by the Lord and in a manner proclaiming Christ alone as their salvation.
I can’t imagine that Paul would abstain from the Lord’s table (longing for the day to get back to his home church to partake of the Lord’s Table) since it was he that brought the tradition to so many churches throughout the region and it was he that implored it to continue. Is it really plausible to believe that he would instruct others to only serve those in their immediate local congregations as is now fumbled about as closed, close, near, open, etc? It seems to be a foreign idea to scripture and it is clear that Paul or Christ never spoke of communion in that manner,… nor is there any hint that these theological fumblings are part of the mix. Why, do you think, Baptists are intent on making sure that closed, close, or some other mode of operation is the norm. It does not seem to be that complicated.
Blessings,
Chris
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Brother WesInTex,
You’re my favorite you know! Yes, those horns did get a bit of 2-step by those Oklahoma folks. I guess if you beat-em both, they will still send out that little pony wagon with those big headed horses. But, none-the-less, when you get beat by a raider – there’s not much to complain about.
I have had my first cardio-rehab yesterday and I am feeling very good actually. It has been 30 days since the quintuple bypass and I am looking forward to having communion with the Saints this coming Lords Day! God has been gracious and merciful to me,…the chief of sinners.
Believe me, it is “much less expensive and painful” to have regular checkups and take your cholesterol medicine.
Blessings my friend,
Chris
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Les,
Thanks for answering. So, you’re not a Presbyterian at heart.
I really dont agree with you about the regeneration before faith thing, and I believe that is a Dortian Calvinist type position to hold.
David
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Wes,
At what point are there enough priests to make an accurate statement concerning Scripture. This seems to be a slippery slope!
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Michael,
Seems to me that two or three would about do it. That is, two or three that come together for the purpose of being a New Testament church, with all that that entails. Yes, two or three would be about right. Seems I’ve read that somewhere before…
Thanks for your comment.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Wes (the one Hood among some local priests)
You are correct to see the greater problem among us as one of ecclesiology.
cb
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:08 pm
W, the Hood among local priests,
I’ll be back for more.
It will be interesting to see how this plays
cb
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Brother WesInTex,
Since I have a little time on my hands,…I may slip off down the country to the south just a bit before they get spanked by Florida and see our favorite Alabama Theologue. Maybe he will let me hang out with him for a day and absorb some wisdom. I need a great deal of help….
Blessings,
Chris
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Brother Chris,
I hate to begin with a negative, but I think it is important to clarify a couple of things before I can attempt to answer your question. First, I don’t believe that Paul didn’t participate in the Lord’s Supper with the churches he planted. You yourself are a church planter and I would assume that you lead your church in observing this ordinance – which is certainly proper. As Paul planted churches and shepherded those churches, I would only assume that he did the same thing – leading them in observing this beautiful gospel message.
Secondly, while I myself hold to a “closed” position, referring to the local church membership, as I said, none of the churches I’ve served have held to that position. Thus, as is evident by my practice, I don’t believe this is an issue that should break fellowship among God’s people.
Now to Paul’s letter to the Corinthians and its instructions pertaining to the Lord’s Supper. I see here Paul teaching that the Lord’s Supper is a common sharing among the members of His body. We share, in fellowship together commonly, His redemption, His blessing, His grace, His presence – Him, that is Christ, through this ordinance. That does not mean I believe we are saved by the Lord’s Supper. But that by participating in the Lord’s Supper we are as a fellowship bearing witness to our faith in His death, burial and resurrection and that as a community when we obey this ordinance we “proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes,” (1 Cor. 11:26).
That the Corinthians were observing this Communion in an “unworthy way” (1 Cor. 11:27) includes all of the issues that he had had to deal with in the church – immorality, drunkenness, unsound doctrines, division, etc. Because of these issues, Paul writes in 11:20 – “Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not really to eat the Lord’s Supper,” (HCS). Because of the sin and conflict so prevalent in the body, they could not truly observe the fellowship of that common cup. So they partook of the bread and cup – that does not mean they truly observed the Lord’s Supper. The elements are only the outward expression of the fellowship we share with Christ and one another through the grace of God. As a believer visiting another congregation, I cannot know of the true fellowship of that church unless I am a part of that body. Thus, I do not believe it would be proper of me to gather at the Lord’s table with them without that intimate knowledge.
As a truth, I’m not the most articulate on the subject. You and I both know my limitations in the areas of theology. I would suppose that some of the objections to an open table by some would also be in the area concerning a proper baptism. How can we truly come to the Lord’s table except it be in obedience to this simple command?
Sorry I couldn’t be of more help.
Grace Abundantly,
Wes
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Brother Chris,
A quintuple bypass!?!?!? Oh, my – please accept my apologies for not being a better friend and making more of an effort to contact you sooner. You have been on our church’s prayer list and we rejoice with you concerning His grace in your healing. Our folks remember you with much fondness and often mention you by name in their prayers.
Now to the weightier issue of those Red River Okie types who lose on the field but somehow win in the polls – well, it ain’t over till its over bro. There is still some room to make the truth known. However, you may want to be careful taking jabs at those folks from ‘bama. I hear they’er really serious about their football (its about all they have) and you’re still recovering!
May your recovery be full and complete in Him,
WesInTex
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:38 pm
david: Les has answered this before, and it seems to be an attempt to defame rather than seek honest answers. I would ask you are you a universalist? A pelaginist? These are charges that are brought against your view by some Calvinists. But I don’t see where either Les nor I have ever said this nor do I think it having formerly had your view. Please be honest in your questions. Your view is also similar to Mormons, so are you of Mormon persuasion? I could go on and on but I think you get my drift.
December 2nd, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Scott,
I don’t think I said that. I was expressing my view of what Robin was saying was a Dortian Calvinist. You see, I see no difference between a Dortian Calvinist or a 5-point Calvinist. BTW, there is no such thing as a Calvinist who is less than 5-points. I have no problem with Arminians believing that way. I don’t agree with it but everyone is in a different place in their journey of faith. When I was less mature Christian I was an Arminian too.
WesInTex,
Landmarkism is too big to address in this comment stream. I’ll probably post on it at my blog sometime.
Les
December 2nd, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Wes Kenney,
You still haven’t asked my last questions.
I said, “So if the church is the only authorized agency on earth to declare what the Bible teaches, then I am assuming individual interpretation of scripture would be rendered invalid in your view. Correct?
And who is the “church”? Is it Southern Baptist only? Is a Southern Baptist church the only authorized interpreter of the Bible? Is that what you are saying?”
Les
December 2nd, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Brother Les,
You wrote: “Landmarkism is too big to address in this comment stream. I’ll probably post on it at my blog sometime.”
Actaully, I didn’t ask for a definition of Landmarkism as I already know what it is. I asked you to explain why you would accuse Dr. Yarnell (and presumably anyone else who agrees with his position that a proper baptism is required for participation in the Lord’s Supper) of Landmarkism considering the reading of the BFM2K – with which you say you agree. Les, I don’t read your blog and I asked you a simple questin here on this blog. Seems to me that as you so expect others to answer your questions, the least you could do is answer questions put to you. I realize that I really don’t matter in the whole scheme of things, but you imply a pretty serious charge in your post to Wes (#9) and I think it deems an explination. I hear this charge of Landmarkism all the time from certain sections and really wonder how considering the readings of the NHCF and the 2LC concerning baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
Oh well, anwer my question – don’t answer my question. I’m still going to sleep pretty well tonight.
Grace Abundantly,
WesInTex
December 2nd, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Wes wrote:
“We do not have the ability, individually, to declare with authority what the Bible teaches.”
Unless the SBC blogosphere is considered a “New Testament church,” I’d say that most bloggers are guilty of promoting a lone-ranger theology of sorts. Seems like quite a few of y’all have been “declaring with authority what the Bible teaches” here in what CB Scott calls Blog Town over the past few years.
Due to this post, I have been convicted to put away my Bible and only read it while in the presence of my local church community. What’s the point in individual Bible study if I can’t interpret what I read and study on my own? Perhaps we should heed the advice of “America’s Best Theologian” Stanley Hauerwas of Duke Divinity who wrote in a 1993 book: “No task is more important than for the church to take the Bible out of the hands of individual Christians in North America.” Hauerwas continued:
“I certainly believe that God uses the Scripture to help keep the Church faithful,” Hauerwas wrote in Unleashing the Scripture, “but I do not believe that each person in the Church is thereby given the right to interpret the Scripture. … The [Church] knows that the right reading of the Scripture depends on having spiritual masters who can help the whole Church stand under the authority of God’s Word.
Gotta love those Spiritual Masters.
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Brother Wes,
Your very kind sir… you are blessed to be among a wonderful group of believers and I do appreciate your explanation which I think does go to the heart of knowing our brothers and sisters in Christ.
I guess being a church planter does give some additional understanding to what our Lord has left us as His Table. The Table is one of the most precious participations we have with our Lord on this earth… and my understanding as I think was Paul’s is that he wanted all believers to see this participation as a “proclamation and expectation to the return of our Lord just as the Israelites were to remember the day of their Exodus redemption. I can’t imagine going to those newly birthed fellowships that I have had the privilege to plant over the years and then not participate with the Lord at His Table concerning this “proclamation” because of some policy or latest convention language just voted in. What a backward way to approach the command of Christ and the teaching of Paul. That certainly would be one of those “remaining matters” that Paul would set straight upon his return.
Is my participation with the Lord limited by my local organization or its association with a convention? Is my waiting on my brother or sister (1 Corinthians 11:33) a manifestation of some latest policy, or is it actually in the observance of the Table in the manner that is worthy in the naming of Christ and what He has done. Paul is not focused on where people are from…he is focused on what they are doing, and he is happy to help put things in better order once he returns (1 Corinthians 11:34). It certainly is not for the purpose of getting everyone in line, but far better that they will know Christ and Him alone, know His mercy and grace, and participate with Him at His Table. Paul is not instructing people to follow the party line,..He is instructing them on how to follow Christ alone.
Brother Wes, if you visit our fellowship in the future please know you are welcome to participate with Christ as we offer His Table to the church He has called to Himself. What a wonderful privilege!
Blessings,
Chris
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Brother B’Diddy,
My anti-spam word is “patience” so I will respond to your diatribe for soul competency.
If I go to the point that you are describing in your comment #36, we need to do away with all of the historical councils. Are you saying that when you interpret scripture you do it with no thought about the historical councils that have hammered out all of the great doctrines of the faith?
Blessings,
Tim
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Aaron,
I’ll assume your question is facetious, because the alternative is frankly a little frightening: “What’s the point in individual Bible study if I can’t interpret what I read and study on my own?”
Understanding that, as a part of the body of Christ and as one who, led by the Spirit, will contribute to the local church’s understanding of scripture ought to motivate individual Bible study like nothing else. I believe with all my heart that the local church is not a place one goes, but a body to which one belongs. One of the consequences of that truth is the responsibility to bring all the giftedness with which the Spirit has blessed a person to the task of building up the church. Biblically ignorant Christians aren’t much help in this regard, and obviously do not take this responsibility seriously.
Please, everyone, stop trying to see and/or color what I’ve said here as some kind of endorsement of an authoritarian system wherein people are told by the church what it is they may believe. The people are the church!
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Just because someone believes in restricted communion (call it what you want: closed communion, close communion, strict communion, consistent communion, etc.) does not make them a Landmarker. This is true in Baptist history and is true today. Take two examples:
1. John A. Broadus, professor at the Southern Baptist Seminary in the 1800’s wrote:
“Question: Why ought Baptists not to take the Lord’s Supper with believers of other denominations?
Answer: Because we think they have not been baptized, or are not walking orderly as to church connection.” – From John A. Broadus’ “A Catechism of Bible Teaching” (1892)
2. R.B.C. Howell, 2nd president of the SBC and pastor of the First Baptist Church of Nashville in the 1850’s. No man opposed Landmarkism and J.R. Graves more in the 1800’s than Howell. Yet he wrote an entire book (“Terms of Communion at the Lord’s Table”) defending strict communion. By the way, Backus Books sells this book for only $1.80! http://www.backusbooks.com/catalog/bk0007.htm
3. One last quote. R.K. Maiden was editor of “The Word and Way”, the state Baptist newspaper in Missiouri from 1896 to 1929. In 1926 he wrote on Southern Baptists:
“Open communion churches in the south are as scarce as hen’s teeth”. Interesting!
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:30 pm
WesInTex,
Okay, as simply as I can.
Landmarkism says that the only valid NT church is the baptist church. That sounds very much like what Dr. Yarnell is saying.
Les
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Brother Les,
Where did you get your definition of Landmarkism?
Blessings,
Tim
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Tim,
My anti-spam word was self-control.
I’ll do my best.
My comment makes a Hauerwasian argument against soul freedom – hardly a diatribe for soul competency. Granted, I don’t even buy into the Hauerwasian argument I made in #36.
I am saying, Tim, that there are quite a few bloggers in the blogosphere who have a penchant for “declaring with authority what the Bible teaches.” Meanwhile, Wes wrote that you and others do not have the ability to make such declarations as individuals.
As a Christian, I have a healthy respect for the historical Councils, Creeds and Church Fathers. But I don’t believe the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is the Nicene Creed or the Apostles Creed or the Baptist Faith and Message creed, er confession.
Wes notes that the notion of “priesthood of the believer” has taken mainline Protestant denominations down the path of theological liberalism. In some cases, that statement is true. Priesthood of the believer has been abused by more than a few folks along the way. For decades “priesthood of the believer” was abused by conservatives/fundamentalists to defend the oppression of the Jim Crow South. See the chapter on Douglas Hudgins in Charles Marsh’s God’s Long Summer. But in the progressive Baptist world, some of the most liberal congregations reject “priesthood of the believer” and would affirm Wes’ statement, “We do not have the ability, individually, to declare with authority what the Bible teaches.” Myers Park comes to mind.
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Brother Tim,
I got my definition from reading different pro-Landmark sites as well as my theological dictionary.
Am I wrong?
Les
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Brother Les,
Thank you for your response, though I am at a loss as to why you would view his position as such. Would you please explain why you believe Dr. Yarnell’s agreement with the BFM2K would lable him a Landmarkist. Does that mean you also consider the BFM2K a Landmarkish statement?
Grace Abundantly
WesInTex
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:06 am
very interested in hearing Les’ answer to WesInTex in comment #45.
Debbie,
Your comment to me is so far out there that I cant jump that far to answer it.
Big Daddy,
I think the point is that no one can claim to have a private interpretation of Scripture. In other words, you cant say that you dont believe in taking the Lord’s Supper…that you dont see it in the Bible. And, that you have the right to believe that because of soul competency, or priesthood of the believer. We cant just believe anything that we want to believe about the Bible. We have to believe it as it’s written.
Many liberals will use priesthood of the believer to excuse their rejection of the clear teachings of Scripture on many things. And, when they’re called on it, they’ll use the priesthood of the believer, or soul competency, to get everyone to accept their errorneous belief…or even heretical belief.
David
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:33 am
Somehow, Volfan, you’ve taken the “act of interpretation” out of the “Bible study” process.
In order to reach those “clear teachings of Scripture,” the Bible has to be interpreted, whether the community collectively interprets the Bible together or whether you do so individually (responsibly or irresponsibly).
And we can believe whatever we want to believe. To suggest otherwise is to deny basic religious liberty. Now, I can’t believe whatever I want to believe and still be a member in good standing at my local Baptist church. I do read and interpret my Bible as an individual. But as an individual, I’m also responsible to my local “gathered community.” With freedom comes responsibility.
Also, as I stated earlier, not all liberals are the lone-ranger individualists that you make them out to be. Quite a few liberals that I know are extremely critical of what I call “soul freedom” and insist like Stanley Hauerwas that the Bible can only be read and interpreted in reading communities comprised of local Christians. These communitarian Baptists have collectively as a “gathered community” reached their liberal theological positions.
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:03 am
Les,
Since…
a) you believe that Dr. Yarnell’s agreement with the BF&M – that scriptural baptism of a believer by immersion is a prerequisite for partaking of the Lord’s Supper – is a Landmarkist position (comment #9), and
b) you “unreservedly support” the BF&M (comment #16)
That would mean that…
a) you believe the BF&M is a Landmarkist document, and
b) your unreserved support of the BF&M would mean that you personally are a Landmarker.
Sola Gratia!
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:32 am
Gentlemen,
You must admit that the Stanley Hauerwas comment B Diddy threw in was the H Bomb.
I bet he could hardly post the comment without laughing. It was a stroke of pure genius.
B Diddy,
You know full well the Scripture does not allow each and every person to have a valid, equal and independent interpretation of Scripture.
You know the Bible has only one truth. It is our responsibility to seek that truth. All of church history tells us that truth is best arrived at corporately.
Consider the Great Commission:
“……..Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you…….”
The words “them” and “you” are corporate in nature are the not?
Consider Acts 2:42 “And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine…..”
Notice the word “they” if you will. Is it not corporate?
As Wes has said; he is not advocating the position that you cannot read for yourself and understand for yourself.
He is saying there is no private interpretation. Interpretation is not dependent on the impulse of a man. It is dependent upon the revelation of God. Scripture is God’s truth and God’s truth is singular in nature. We (the church) are commanded to teach that singular truth to every person. We are not commanded to teach our individual truth to every person.
Never the less, the Hauerwas comment was pure gold. I gotta hand it to you on that one.:-)
cb
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:17 am
“You know full well the Scripture does not allow each and every person to have a valid, equal and independent interpretation of Scripture.”
Yep. I agree.
“You know the Bible has only one truth. It is our responsibility to seek that truth. All of church history tells us that truth is best arrived at corporately.”
I agree again. Lone-ranger individualists usually make for lousy theologians.
However, sometimes the interpretations reached by the community of believers are just not biblical. In such situations, we need individuals to speak prophetically against the bad and oppressive theology.
Two examples from history:
We needed more Baptists to speak out against the bad theology held by many Baptist churches that supported the segregationist and racist culture during the Jim Crow era.
And (in my view), we moderate Baptists needed more individuals to speak prophetically against their moderate/progressive Baptist congregations that stayed silent on the abortion issue and/or embraced an interpretation of soul competency that viewed the right to have an abortion as a religious liberty issue. See Foy Valentine, Paul Simmons, and those Baptist congregations that supported the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights. The community and her leaders often fail us miserably with bad interpretations. Sometimes we need individuals to offer a fresh interpretation that is rooted firmly in the authority o the Bible.
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:56 am
Ben: You have given the one reason to Tim Rogers statement on history. History should be followed where scripture would agree with it. That would include interpretation. Also Southern Baptist history has within it as many differing interpretations.
david: I’ll let you sleep on it, if what I have said is far reaching, that is exactly how I felt when I read your question to Les. And my word is joy, so it is with much joy that I write this.
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:02 am
Brother B’Diddy,
quite a few bloggers in the blogosphere who have a penchant for “declaring with authority what the Bible teaches.” Those that do authoritatively have the historical councils and a full stream of history behind such a statement.
I do not believe you to be, but if one were to take your position to it’s logical conclusion you could be saying that the doctrine of the Trinity could be negated just because Arian theologian uses Arius’ argument. And that such an argument would be an acceptable argument to enter into debate. Thus, those within the debate must succumb to that just being another thought that we should allow into our “minds of mush”.
As I said, I do not believe you to be saying that, but your argument goes that way. How will one defend the faith once for all delivered to the saints using the “anything is accepted” because we do not have authority to speak approach?
Blessings,
Tim
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:12 am
Brother B’Diddy,
One more thing. Your Jim Crow argument is getting old. I was not in a position to speak out during that time. However, if I were, I would have. Dr. Cecil Sherman was and he did. One thing that I took away from his book was his tenacious stand. Does anyone realize that Asheville, NC is not only in the heart of the south, but is also in the mountains? Not only did he place his life in jeporady, but his body could have been hid and never found up in those hills. Remember Eric Rudolph evaded Law Enforcement up there for 7 years and he was living.
All of that to say, I agree with the stand that you advocate concerning the Jim Crow days. However, that is a red herring you keep throwing into debates that get us off of the issue. During the War of the States there were theologians on both sides using the Bible to support their stands. We are human beings and we will acquiesce to our lowest self, it is in our nature. However, what separates Christians from the world is acknowledging our lowest self and surrendering that self to God. I acknowledge that my forefathers were racist people. However, I have turned that over to God and spoken plainly against such mis-interpretation of Scripture. I do not believe I have to do so every time I get into a debate over the authority of Scripture.
Blessings,
Tim
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:27 am
Les Puryear,
So, suppose that I just come out and say that the sprinkling of infants is not baptism and that any institution that practices the sprinkling of infants is a false church?
Would that make me, in your estimation, a Landmarker?
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:45 am
And suppose, further, that I declared that none of those involved in the sprinkling of infants are true ministers qualified to administer any church ordinance?
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:47 am
What’s more, suppose that I alleged that anyone participating in infant baptism is basically taking part in Roman Catholicism?
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:58 am
And finally, suppose that I were to declare infant baptism to be something akin to spiritual rape, condemned by the Bible and a violation of the rights of the infant being baptized?
Were I to state all of these things as my personal belief, Les Puryear, would that lead you to conclude that I am a Landmarker?
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:03 am
But before you answer, I should let you know…
54 = John Smythe, “The Character of the Beast”
55 = Roger Williams, quoted in “Picturesque America”
56 = John Gill, “Infant Baptism, Part and Pillar of Popery”
57 = Charles H. Spurgeon, “Baptism”
So, if Malcolm and I are Landmarkers, I guess Smythe, Williams, Gill, and Spurgeon are, as well?
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:04 am
…in which case, I gladly would own the word myself, if by Landmarkism you mean the theology of these men.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:31 am
I knew this was going to be good when Wes told me about it.
B Diddy brings on Hauerwas and Jim Crow.
Tim brings on Cecil Sherman, Eric Rudolph and states he would have joined the Yankee Army back in 1860 had he been alive and been happy to haver burned Richmond.
Bart brings on the icons.
I think I will bring on the Rica brothers, Villa, Pancho and Lefty, along with Merle and the little Ronnie Duke Bigalow.
cb
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:47 am
Well stated, Wes in Okla (and Wes in Tex). While I have to disagree with CB’s evaluation that the Hauerwas quote is devastating (especially after Wes in Okla’s response), I do agree with CB’s crisp reading of Scripture and with BDW’s (Aaron’s?) subsequent response in 50.
Bart Barber, you are unanswerable, especially in that three of the four that you cite precede Landmarkism in time and the fourth was definitely not a Landmarker. What many are calling Landmarkism today has typically been held by Baptists throughout their history, because that is what they understood Scripture to teach. (NB: It is probably best to look for definitions of Landmarkism in a library rather than on the web.)
Each congregation will have to determine whether historical Baptists and the BF&M are correct or not. But Landmarkism held to local church autonomy, too, so I wonder if Bart and I will be accused of being Landmarkists for affirming that doctrine in the BF&M, too?
In Christ,
Malcolm
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:29 am
Malcolm,
Being unanswerable does not usually translate into going unanswered in blog world.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:30 am
CB,
Good luck. Last I saw Merle he was down on some blue bayou with a bamboo cane stuck in the sand.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:41 am
Now Malcolm,
You know our Methodist-Catholic-Mennonite, friend, Stanley Hauerwas is the ultimate authority on all things theological, especially ecclesiology.
You guys should bring him down to SWBTS from Duke at least once a month to lecture so the future pastors will be well rounded in their educations.
cb
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:43 am
Bart,
Then I guess the Rica brothers will have to do.
Maybe we can get B Diddy to bring Stan the Man Hauerwas to help them out.
cb
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:48 am
My Dear Brother Chris,
Thank you, my friend for your continuing friendship and encouragement in spiritual matters. You are always such a blessing to me and I pray that in some small measure, you may be blessed in return.
Thank you for your invitation to participate at the table of our precious Lord with your fellowship. In all honesty, your’s, in fact, would most likely be one of those that I would feel free to participate with. We will have to wait and see as I do pray that God would someday allow our participation in worship and proclamation together. May the grace of our Lord continue to strengthen and lead you.
Grace Abundantly,
WesInTex
BTW, sorry it took so long to write back. I spent the evening playing with my two grandsons. I have to say, this grandkid thing is way cool! 8-))
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:33 am
Bart and Malcolm,
1. Do you believe the churches in the SBC to be the only valid expressions of the NT church and all other Christian churches are apostate or in a state of unrepentant sin?
2. Do you believe that non-Baptists who call themselves Christians go to heaven?
3. Do you believe that non-Southern Baptist Christians are welcome by Christ at His marriage feast?
4. What is your definition of a Landmark Baptist?
5. Are there Landmark Baptists on the faculty or staff at SWBTS?
6. Do you welcome Calvinist Baptists as brothers in Christ and welcome to serve in the SBC at all levels?
Thanks for the opportunity to ask these questions to you.
Les
P.S. Until Wes answers my questions, I’ll not be answering any from anyone else.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:43 am
Les,
I am not Bart or Malcolm…but…
Question #6 in Comment #67= yes. I have been well received by both of these men, and as I have stated before, I am a 5pt Calvinist. I have also had discussions with both Bart & Malcolm in which they have spoken highly of Dr. Mohler’s leadership at SBTS and in our convention.
As to your PS…
Les…saddle…bur…
Sola Gratia!
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:54 am
Les,
I’d recommend that you refrain from answering my questions indefinitely. ‘Tis the second-best policy when you are wrong.
Truth, on the other hand, offers a confidence that enables one to answer questions freely:
1. No.
2. No. Neither do I believe that Baptists who call themselves Christians necessarily go to heaven. Of course, if what you meant to ask was whether there are any Christians who are bound for heaven but who are not Baptists, then I reply that not only are there some, but further there are millions.
3. Yes.
4. I spent 20 pages in my dissertation responding to this question. Anything that I post here will necessarily be less adequate, but I will gladly send you a PDF of my dissertation if you would find it helpful. I’ll simply post a sentence snipped from those twenty pages. Read carefully and in an informed manner, I think it serves well to articulate the definition of a Landmark Baptist: “Landmarkism is an ecclesiology that denies the validity of the existence or acts of any church
that does not: (1) consist solely of members who have received symbolic immersion pursuant
to a public self-declaration that they have been converted; (2) organize into a gathered,
autonomous, local congregation; (3) acknowledge only two scriptural church offices—the
pastor and the deacon; (4) perform only baptism and the Lord’s Supper as symbolic
ordinances; and (5) demonstrate without defect its continuity to the original New Testament
church.”
5. Perhaps. I don’t know. Dr. Caner no longer being there, I’m not sure how to answer that. I do not profess myself to know the theology of the entire seminary faculty. Would a ban on the hiring of such please you? Perhaps we could sew a little red trail of blood on the jacket of Landmarkers and shoot them should they step foot on Seminary Hill.
6. Yes.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:01 pm
WesTex,
I didnt know that you were old!
Bart,
You shouldnt be bringing up so many facts. People dont want to see the facts. They’d prefer to keep living in thier delusion.
Debbie,
I was not trying to bait Les. I was not trying to insinuate anything about Les, I was just trying to understand where he was coming from with his landmark accusations, and his question to Robin about Dortian Calvinism. The other stuff you said…well…let’s just leave all of that in la la land.
David
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Brother Les,
In all honesty brother, I haven’t heard anyone suggest those saved by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ are somehow less Christian than are Southern Baptists. However, allow me to rephrase the previous question I asked of you (#13) – “Why are you a Southern Baptist?” Do you not agree that as Southern Baptists we hold a truer New Testament faith and practice than say Methodists, Churches of Christ, or Presbyterians (and remember, I’m a 5-pointer too)? If in fact you believe that some other group was closer to the New Testament truth, wouldn’t it then be necessary to remove oneself from the SBC and join that group?
I don’t necessarily believe these other groups to be “apostate or in a state of unrepentant sin” but I do believe them to be in error on certain doctrinal areas. BTW, Jesus said that not everyone who called Him Lord was saved (Matthew 7:21). I have family in the Mormon organization that insists they are Christian – do you consider them saved? I also have family in the Churches of Christ that insist a person can only be saved if they are Baptized in a Church of Christ congregation – do you consider that a “saved” position? Come on Les, the repeated charges of Landmarkism is not helping your case.
Finally, as considering your “P.S.” – that’s a bit of a copout brother. Sad, very sad indeed. After all, you’re the one who brought the charge of Landmarkism but never provided any substantial evidence of your charge.
Grace Abundantly
WesInTex
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:13 pm
After further thought, I think that I should amplify a bit more on Les’s 6th question to me. I can answer a bit more fully than a simple “Yes.”
Les, it may have slipped your memory that I made a post or two on the most recent SBC presidential election. I, as you may or may not recall, loudly supported Dr. Mohler for the office until he removed his name from the race.
Rumor has it that Dr. Mohler is a Calvinist.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Tim,
It twas not I who made the argument that “we do not have the ability, individually, to declare with authority what the Bible teaches.” As far as I’m concerned, declare away. Cite the historical councils and Creeds in your arguments here in the blogosphere. A dose of humility might help all of us at times though.
As to Jim Crow: All that’s easy to say. But you might have indeed been a prophetic voice. Whatever. My point remains that the “gathered community” collectively interpreted the Bible in a way that was oppressive to others with different shades of melanin. In the context of “priesthood of the believer” discussions, it’s a fine example – maybe that’s why you get annoyed by it. I used the abortion example for balance, so don’t get too annoyed.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:19 pm
I have to agree with Malcolm Yarnell and Bart Barber. It seems that Les and others do not have a firm grasp of Baptist history, especially what notable Baptists of the 17th and 18th centuries believed. I was amazed recently in another thread that one blogger accused another commenter of being a Landmarkist but couldn’t even offer a definition of a “Landmarkist” when asked to do so.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Brother David,
I’m older than some – not as old as Chris!
We just got started early. In fact, God blessed us with 2 new ones just this month – in addition to our 18 month old. Only down side is that one of the new ones is in Alaska!
Grace Abundantly,
WesInTex (Papa!)
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Aaron,
I, for one, greatly appreciated your comments about abortion. I confess, to my own shame, that I probably would have guessed your convictions wrongly on this question had I been pressed to make such a guess. I’m thankful that I never had reason to guess, and I’m thankful to be in the know as to your pro-life convictions.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:31 pm
BDW,
I don’t know about others, but I get annoyed at your continual references to “Jim Crow” because you make it sound as if every Southern Baptist was a racist. Dr. Sherman was not the only voice against this evil. My father – a Southern Baptist pastor – was also among many voices against this ungodly practice. Did these horrible laws exist? Certainly they did. Did some (many?) Southern Baptists support them? Yes, tragically so – but NOT ALL. Not to mention the fact that I was at the meeting in Atlanta where our Convention publically confessed and repented of our involvement in these past sins of slavery and racism. I don’t deny the past, but I don’t live there either.
Grace Abundantly,
WesInTex
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Dear WesInTex:
If it is Aaron’s point to suggest that the SBC is a racist throng of sheet-wearing cross-burners, then your point is well taken.
However, that is not what I take Aaron to be saying. Rather, it seems to me that he is using two cases, racism and abortion, to demonstrate that a congregation of believers can be terribly, radically wrong. If I understand him correctly and that is his point, then he’s 100% correct.
Really, we have to tread carefully here looking for a bit of balance. Push too hard on respect for congregational interpretation, and you’ll quickly shove the foundation right out from under the Reformation (when some individuals diverged from the congregational interpretation).
On the other hand, as Wes Kenney’s post so deftly pronounces, radical individualism in interpretation of the Bible is capable of producing loathsome ills of its own.
Perhaps the best solution is to show that individual interpretation, where it shirks off the congregational standard of the faith, ought to be able to point to some body of believers beyond its author who have held likewise. For the Reformers, that body of believers was the Christians of a pre-Roman-Catholic era who held to a faith less corrupted by the accretions of the years.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:46 pm
WesInTex,
I should have added this.
The reason why you have so much right to be proud of your father is the fact that it took moral courage for him to take the stands that he took. The reason why it took moral courage is because there were not enough men like him at the time, so he stood opposed. The fact that there were not enough men like him at the time is, I think, Aaron’s point.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:52 pm
WesInTex,
Please re-read what I wrote.
I honestly thought that my point was made clear in both comments. Bart got it.
I never even brought up Cecil Sherman.
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Bart & Aaron
I stand corrected and apologize for any offence. Aaron, I did get your points and as Bart mentioned, I too meant to applaud your comments on abortion. Specifically what I was referring to was your comment to Tim: “My point remains that the “gathered community” collectively interpreted the Bible in a way that was oppressive to others with different shades of melanin. In the context of “priesthood of the believer” discussions, it’s a fine example – maybe that’s why you get annoyed by it.” I should have gone further and included the next sentence you wrote concerning abortion – again, my apologies.
I do agree that congregational interpretations also should be held accountable, but having come from a line of “dissenters” I tend to emphasize the fact that truth has been proclaimed from the beginning – just not always in the majority.
I actually think we are all in agreement on this one – wow, now there’s a landmark! (Opps, did I really say that?)
Grace Abundantly,
WesInTex
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:09 pm
WesInTex,
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Bart,
Snide remarks aside, I appreciate your answering my questions.
WesInTex,
I’m not taking your bait.
Les
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Les,
So you’re not taking Wes’s bait, but you refuse to answer anyone else’s questions until I take yours. Have I got it about right?
The reason I’ve not answered your question directly is because it is a transparent attempt to get an answer with which you can accuse me of Landmarkism. I see no point in giving you that, but considering your demonstrated lack of understanding of the term, you could probably just go ahead with the accusation based on any number of things I’ve said.
That won’t make the accusation true, of course.
Now will you answer Bart’s questions?
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:48 pm
The substance of Bart’s answers are my own convictions. Of course, he forgot to mention the Office of Landmark Studies that was established at Southwestern on April 1.
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Wes,
I’m trying to have a nice discussion here on your post and truly trying to understand your position and you accuse me of trying to trip you up or bait you. Unbelievable.
Perhaps this is why a civil conversation is hard to have here. You assign motive to me when I have none but greater understanding of your position. If you didn’t want to discuss these issues, then why did you write the post?
Why won’t you answer my questions? They are simple and straightforward. If you don’t want to answer questions about your post, then that is your right, just say so. If you only want cheerleaders to comment here that is fine too. Just let me know and I will cease and desist.
In regard to my understanding of Landmarkism, I will post my understanding of it on my blog and you are welcome to correct me when you have read my viewpoint.
How you are able to render a verdict on my understanding of Landmarkism based on these few comments is beyond me.
Robin,
I’m still waiting on your answers to my question about Dortian Calvinism.
Les
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Brother B’Diddy,
My anti-spam word was “kindness”. Here goes!
We agree. That is the best I can do. However, as Brother Bart so eloquently articulated, we cannot throw out centuries of historical interpretation.
ON that I know you agree.
Blessings,
Tim
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Les,
Bait?!?! You’re kidding, right? Honestly Les, I’m not baiting you any more than you are trying to bait Wes K.
No, wait, I have a better response to your last post to me. Here it is …
“Wes, (Make that Les,)
I’m trying to have a nice discussion here on your (Wes’) post and truly trying to understand your position and you accuse me of trying to trip you up or bait you. Unbelievable.
Perhaps this is why a civil conversation is hard to have here (with you). You assign motive to me when I have none but greater understanding of your position. If you didn’t want to discuss these issues, then why did you write the post?
Why won’t you answer my questions? They are simple and straightforward. If you don’t want to answer questions about your post, then that is your right, just say so. If you only want cheerleaders to comment here that is fine too. Just let me know and I will cease and desist.”
Does that sound familiar?
WesInTex
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:39 pm
WesTex,
Touche! I was thinking the same thing about Les’ comment to Wes.
David
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:02 pm
David: How does believing in regeneration before faith make one a Dortian Calvinist? In other words, are there any Calvinists who don’t believe in regeneration before faith?
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Les,
I’d love to have a good conversation with you. Don’t penalize me for Wes’s busy schedule. Answer my questions. Conversations are generally…you know…bi-directional.
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Okay, Les, here goes:
I think you’re putting too stark of a contrast between “the church” and “individual interpretation.” The church is the only entity given the biblical authority to speak with the authority of her Head, but that doesn’t mean that every individual interpretation is “rendered invalid” by the church. Churches are made up of individuals, after all.
The point of my post is that the church ought to be able to arrive at a congregational understanding of the Bible without having to make an exception for every possible misunderstanding that any individual anywhere might make about some doctrine or other. In other words, the congregation is not under obligation to accommodate the rogue interpretations of individuals. The fact that someone may be in heartfelt and sincere disagreement is not reason enough for a church to simply refuse to speak on a given topic.
So, individual interpretation is not rendered “invalid” in any case, but it is in no way authoritative unless it is the understanding arrived at by the body of Christ (Matt. 18:18-20).
No, it’s not what I’m saying at all. As to who is the “church,” I’ll defer to the statement of faith adopted by the congregation to which I belong, in article 6, which can be found by clicking here. That’s who the “church” is. Wherever you find those things, you find the church.
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Wes,
Thank you for your response. Your clarification helps my understanding of your post and as such, I agree with what you have said.
Les
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:42 pm
…and the line to North Carolina goes dead…
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Bart,
Dr. Yarnell and I have had an excellent exchange by email and he has also helped my understanding of his position on Landmarkism as well answering my question on Dortian Calvinism. Thank you, Dr. Yarnell.
Now to your questions. I will preface my answers by saying that I am not the baptist historian as you are, thus I defer to your knowledge of baptist history in these matters.
Comment #54 – I believe the church is in error, but is it a “false church”? Not because of that.
Comment #55 – They are in error in my view but that does not necessarily disqualify them as ministers.
Comment #56 – They are in error in my view but that does not necessarily mean they are participating in Roman Catholicism.
Comment #57 – Infant baptism is an error.
Since you agree with these men on ecclesiology, does that mean you also agree with their Calvinistic theology as well?
The issue of Landmarkism has nothing to do with paedobaptism. It has to do with the doctrine of the church. You know this so why do you try your diversionary tactics with me?
Les
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Les,
You should go back and consider the question anew. I did not ask you whether you agreed with these sentiments. I asked you whether you considered them to be Landmark sentiments.
Are you telling us that baptism is not a part of ecclesiology?
December 3rd, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Les,
I forgot to mention: John Smythe and Roger Williams were not Calvinists. Or…at least…they weren’t when they penned what I quoted. Each went through a Calvinist phase, but then grew out of it. So, if I agreed with the soteriology of all four, I’d have to be schizophrenic!
December 3rd, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Wes,
It is the New Testament church, the local congregation of baptized believers, speaking with the authority of Christ, that is able to declare with His authority what the Bible teaches.
I am not sure that I disagree with you about this… I think the “Individualization” of the Christian faith in America has been a absolute disaster. However how does this position differ from the position of the Catholic Church, and how do we protect ourselves from making the same gross errors in this area of “Authority” that the Catholic Church has made?
Grace Always,
December 3rd, 2008 at 4:45 pm
It’s been fun discussing this topic with you folks. I’m working on a post about Landmarkism so watch for it and join in.
See ya!
Les
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Greg,
The primary difference is that it is the local church, and not Rome, that determines its beliefs in this manner. In spite of the charges of some, there exists no SBC hierarchy which is dictating doctrine to the congregations.
As to how we protect against errors, I think that the existence of associations fills this role, though in many cases it could do so even better. When you have free, autonomous churches who have recognized a substantial level of theological agreement between themselves, to the extent that they decide formally to associate, there then exists a wonderful mechanism by which sister congregations can gauge the fidelity of their conclusions regarding scripture. This was a major function of the Philadelphia Baptist Association in the eighteenth century.
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Greg Alford,
Perhaps mine in #78 might provide at least a starting point for that conversation?
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Well let’s see; Dr. Yarnell gets private email communications – ok, that’s cool. Dr. Barber has his questions addressed and answered – I suppose that’s why CB calls him the “great one.” Wes K has his conversation and everybody’s happy. Little ‘ol Wes (the less) however doesn’t really matter so all he gets is a little slap on the wrist (falsely I might add) as good ‘ol Les heads back to NC.
Ok, Brother Les, thanks for the conversation. I learned a lot today too.
Grace Abundantly,
Wes
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Wes,
“As to how we protect against errors, I think that the existence of associations fills this role, though in many cases it could do so even better.”
“This was a major function of the Philadelphia Baptist Association in the eighteenth century.”
You are absolutely correct. Thanks for bringing this out.
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Now, here is a group of pastors in the SBC many of whom I would be happy to have as my pastor.
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:40 pm
I agree. EXCELLENT, Wes.
And WesInTex, you did indeed deserve better.
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Brother Bart,
Thanks for that. Oh, well, after our evening Bible Study on the Substitutionary and Sacrificial Death of Christ, I’ll just go home, play with my grandson and then go to bed – I’ll still sleep very well.
Grace Abundantly,
WesInTex
PS, my anti-spam word is JOY!
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Dear Wes Kenney, my Baptist Identitistic Friend,
You stated that SBC churches who practice ‘open communion’ are “outside the mainstream of confessional Southern Baptist identity.”
If you are correct then 99% of the churches in South Carolina will be dismissed from your Identity as who is Southern Baptist.
For once, . . . .GASP! . . . I find myself in agreement with Herschel Hobbs. Hobbs stated:
“Baptists are not closed-communionists, only closed-baptismists!”
chadwick
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Brother WesInTex,
Feelin’ the Love yet?
Blessings my “younger” brother,
Chris
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Brother Chadwick,
My anti-spam word is “patience”, so I will take that as God’s providence as I respond to your statement.
I served in SC. I will only say, head upstate and take your poll. I believe you will be sadly mistaken.
Blessings,
Tim
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Chadwick,
First of all, I didn’t say exactly that. What you have quoted is something of a paraphrase of what Dr. Yarnell has said elsewhere.
Secondly, the statement as you’ve rendered it (“…SBC churches who practice ‘open communion’ are ‘outside the mainstream of confessional Southern Baptist identity’”) is demonstrably true.
Our convention’s confession, the Baptist Faith and Message, clearly defines baptism as, among other things, the immersion of a believer in water in the triune name of God, then goes on to say that baptism is a prerequisite to participation in the Lord’s Supper. So if it is a church’s practice is to allow those whose only “baptism” experience is a sprinkling they received as an infant to partake of the Lord’s Supper, then that is their right as an autonomous congregation. But they are, by definition, outside the mainstream of our confessional identity as Southern Baptists.
Not my idea of identity, but our confessional identity.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:29 pm
The title of this post is “It’s Nothing Personal” yet it is if I again would not be considered Southern Baptist due to my Reformed beliefs. The doors seem to have been closing in the last three years. Has anyone noticed the numbers falling? It may not be Landmark leanings, although I along with Les would disagree, but it does seem to be a Independent Fundamentalist Baptist leaning. This is just too much deja vu. Fortunately I believe God is in control.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Debbie has now brought Yogi Berra (“Its deja vu all over again”) into the thread.
Bart brought the icons.
Tim brought Eric Rudolph and Cecil Sherman.
B Diddy brought Stanley Hauerwas and Jim Crow.
Wes and Robin brought the whole Phillie Baptist Association.
Maybe Debbie can get Yogi to bring the rest of the Yankees and she can coach them.
Les and Robin can bring in the Phillies.
Then we can have a baseball game.
cb
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Tim,
I’m tickled-pink that you would reply to me!
Are you sure those churches you are talking about are not Independent/Fundamental/1611 KJV-Only/Rupture-Ready Baptists? I know of a few in the hills and hollers (with about 20 members per church; they all one big family, literally) in SC like the ones you describe . . . with seclusion like that, it is not too hard to have ‘closed-communion.’
On a serious note, I know some of the guys who write for the Baptist Courier. I may get on the horn tomorrow and see if they can get a survey of CP-giving churches who practice ‘closed-communion’ in the Palmetto state.
Hey, you guys at SBCToday should take a poll on ‘closed-communion’ as compared to ‘open-communion.’ Is that a possibility?
chadwick
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Bart,
Thanks for you remarks at #78 as they temper greatly Wes’ #10 which don’t strike me as Landmark nearly so much as Catholic.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Never mind. Looks like Greg A. already noticed what I noticed and has already recieved a response.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:57 pm
If I might insert…
Wes makes a great point in #110. Our confessional Identity is indeed and should be the focus of our cooperation. Any person is free to believe that which they desire or think they learn. But to call oneself SBC, one must agree confessionally with the SBC Identity.
This is why it is not personal. The problem is when people desire to change the Confessional Identity to fit their personal interpretation and then cry foul when people do not go along. To be in the SBC is to choose the Confessional Identity of the SBC.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:16 am
Tim G. wrote:
“But to call oneself SBC, one must agree confessionally with the SBC Identity.”
Perhaps then, the Southern Baptist Convention should ask/demand that all CP-giving self-identified Southern Baptist churches affirm the BFM2000? Do you agree, Tim? Based on your assertion, why does the Southern Baptist Convention not make more of an effort to weed out the true Southern Baptist churches from the counterfeit Southern Baptist churches? Why continue to accept money from churches that refuse to affirm the “SBC Identity” ?
Also, how would you distinguish a confession from a creed? In your view, does a difference even exist between the two?
December 4th, 2008 at 12:24 am
BDW,
First, the SBC is not suppose to weed out anyone from the position you are taking. Maybe those sending money need to decide why? and who? they really are and want to be. The SBC does not nor was it ever intended to function in a vatican type role. No pope, cardinals nor bishops.
The idea was “cooperating churches of like faith and order”. When you look at many of the Constituions of SBC churches, you will find this.
Second, the above shows the difference between the creed and confession. A creed is a “code of conduct” where as a “confession” is a statement of intent. HUGE difference.
This puts the responsibility on the individual church.
To answer your mid comment question… why would an SBC church NOT endorse and accept the BF&M2000?
December 4th, 2008 at 1:07 am
“The SBC does not nor was it ever intended to function in a vatican type role. No pope, cardinals nor bishops.”
Original intent aside, the SBC (as well as state conventions) has taken steps in the recent past to define who is and is not in friendly cooperation with the Convention. The SBC could, if she chooses, continue to define those official parameters of cooperation.
Given the emphasis put on BFM2000 as the gold standard of Southern Baptist orthodoxy, it seems that the Southern Baptist Convention should take steps to ensure that those “cooperating churches” are truly of “like faith and order.” If they are not of “like faith of order,” follow the GBC’s lead and send their checks back.
HUGE difference, huh?
Greg Wills, Professor of Church History and Director of the Center for the Study of the Southern Baptist Convention at SBTS, would disagree. Wills has said that “Throughout Baptist history, Baptists have used the terms ‘creed’ ‘confession of faith’ ‘articles of faith’ ’summary of doctrines’ and ‘abstract of principles’ synonymously.”
I, however, tend to agree with Leon McBeth, retired distinguished professor of church history at SWBTS, who not too long ago said, “A creed excludes, and a confession includes. A creed tells you what you must believe, and a confession affirms what you do believe.” Using McBeth’s definition, I have to say that the BFM2000 comes across as a creed when you make statements like “To call oneself SBC, one MUST agree confessionally with the SBC Identity.”
I expect you will disagree. But you really should consider what the Southern Seminary Professor had to say above.
“To answer your mid comment question… why would an SBC church NOT endorse and accept the BF&M2000?”
If it’s such a no-brainer, why haven’t most (all?) churches made such an endorsement?
December 4th, 2008 at 2:46 am
Tim: If this isn’t about power or wanting to build a kingdom called the Convention, then why find so many reasons to exclude? We are Southern Baptists pure and simple. We are conservative. We don’t all agree with you, and I imagine that eventually there will be things that the BI group won’t agree with each other on. Then what will the criteria be to exclude?
CB: Does that ball game include free hot dogs and cokes?
December 4th, 2008 at 5:10 am
Debbie,
Did I mention anything about excluding? Dont think so! Please reread what I said. I was very specific in my wording in that churches must decide if their confession fits the SBC confession.
Where are the free dogs located!
BDW,
! Simple thought – if a church does not agree with the SBC confession, why would they want to be SBC?
You are a piece of work
December 4th, 2008 at 10:01 am
B Diddy,
You quoted McBeth in saying:
“a confession affirms what you do believe.”
OK, that is well stated. It is true McBeth did say some very right things before we trustees of the BSSB canned his book that was so very full of not so right things.
Tim G has said:
“To be in the SBC is to choose the Confessional Identity of the SBC.”
How can he be incorrect in saying that?
McBeth says a confession affirms what we believe.
Therefore if we have a confession stating what we believe; is it not logical that those who seek to be part of us identify themselves as believing what we have established by prior confession?
It would also stand to reason that those who cannot identify with what is evident as our confession are making a mistake to seek to join us. Is it their desire to change our confession? If so they are not seeking to join us. Rather they seek us to join them.
Your use of McBeth has, in efect, confirmed Tim G’s position here rather than refuted it.
We are a confessional people easily identifiable by the content of the confession we embrace. Therefore those who seek to be of us are obligated to be of the same confession.
If they cannot, in good conscience, identify with our established confession they should not make the effort to come among us to change us. They should, in fact, join those with whom they can identify.
That is of course until they discover through reading the Bible that they were wrong and then they can come back to us and say they now see the light and want to join us and identify with our confession as they should have done in the first place, but due to their blindness they did not.
It will always be true that an open Bible and an open mind will make a Baptist every time. (a “confessionally” identifiable Baptist, that is):-)
cb
December 4th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Debbie,
You are thinking in reverse here when you say:
“f this isn’t about power or wanting to build a kingdom called the Convention, then why find so many reasons to exclude?”
We are not seeking to exclude.
Our history and our confession as to our identity is structured to “include” those who identify with our confession.
Those who are “excluded” have, by their refusal to identify with a confession that identifies them as Baptists have by such a refusal excluded themselves.
We are about the Great commission. God has set the mandates determining the parameters of inclusion. We are simply to obey the mandates.
cb
December 4th, 2008 at 10:15 am
BTW, Debbie,
If you can get the Yankees and the Phillies together for a game. I will gladly control the concession for the hotdogs, drinks and anything else edible. But they will not be free. I am a capitalist.
As a matter of fact I will “confess” that no other person be allowed into the ball park with food or drink. All food eaten at the game will be easily “identifiable” as coming from my concession stand or the “eater” thereof will be escorted (excommunicated) from the park with great haste.
cb
December 4th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Big Daddy,
Why would we tell Churches to not send thier money? We need thier money.
Also, seriously, imho, it’s not about who can belong to the SBC as much as it is who can be leaders in the SBC. We have some Churches out there who affirm women pastors, women deacons, divorced pastors, divorced deacons….there are some churches that use real wine in their Lord’s Supper observance….there are some that meet on Saturday for worship….there are some that do all kinds of things….some that people like you would even have trouble with. But, are all of these qualified to come out of such Churches and lead in the SBC? No.
I know of some Churches in the hills and mountains of TN who give nothing to the CP…not a dime. But, they still call themselves Southern Baptist. Should we pick SBC leaders out of these TN mountain and hill Churches that use KJV only? No. I love them in the Lord, and I respect thier curious beliefs…but I wouldnt want one of them serving on IMB Board of Trustees….would you?
So, if some errant, misguided, Southern Baptist Church is Elder ruled and drinks real wine at the Lord’s Supper and welcomes all to the table…even those who have just been sprinkled on top of the head as babies…then that’s their business as an autonomous SB Church. But, then they shouldnt howl and start blogs when they’re not selected to teach in Seminaries and be missionaries.
BTW, I…like CB…refuse to be a Lord’s Supper policeman. My Church serves the Lord’s Supper. We encourage saved Believers only to take it. We have a time of searching our hearts and souls before we take it. And, from now on, I will emphasize that baptised Believers are invited to participate. But, I will not become the Lord’s Supper cop.
David
December 4th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
VolFan, the Gentle Giant,
My anti-spam word is gentleness . . .
You stated:
We have some Churches out there who affirm . . . . women deacons, divorced pastors, divorced deacons….there are some churches that use real wine in their Lord’s Supper observance…. (I did not include women pastors)
Do the churches that affirm the above violate the 2000BF&M?
Sincerely From the Gentle Squirt,
chadwick
December 4th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Chadwick,
I will give you my answer if that is OK
1. Yes they do violate
2. That is there choice
3. No one is running them out
4. Members from these church may not qualify for Missions service – their choice to not confess the SBC confession.
And, though David and I agree on much, I would not agree with his use of the Elder system in his comment along with the other things and yet I would also say he should have included Woman Pastors for they would be in contradiction to our Confession.
December 4th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Tim,
Where in the BFM are women deacons, divorced pastors and deacons, or communion wine addressed?
I just looked and can’t find them but maybe I missed them.
December 4th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Tim G.,
My anti-spam word is: goodness!
Let me ADD to it: goodness gracious!
Is your copy of the 2000BF&M a special edition or a revised copy?
I need your help:
WHERE does the 2000BF&M state these violations?:
1. No women deacons:
2. No divorced pastors:
3. No divorced deacons:
4. No wine for communion:
Respectfully,
chadwick
December 4th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Tim G,
Come on now, Tim. You know that there are quite a few churches that prefer 1963 over 2000 and have disagreed with the leadership over the past decade or more. Those churches are comprised of members who have been Southern Baptists for 50 years or more. They’re not willing to abandon the Southern Baptist Convention. Nor in most cases are they willing to support other non-SBC Baptist organizations. Quite a few BGCT-affiliated churches would fit the description that I have described above.
CB,
Tim also stated:
“But to call oneself SBC, one MUST agree confessionally with the SBC Identity.”
Emphasis on Must. Sounds like a statement that will exclude others. Whether they affirm your identity or not, people don’t like being dictated to what they MUST believe in order to be a good Southern Baptist.
My use of McBeth has distinguished a confession from a creed. Tim G’s choice of words indicate that he’s crossed over into the creed zone by not simply declaring what Southern Baptists believe but by declaring what Southern Baptists MUST believe in order to call themselves Southern Baptists.
Volfan wrote:
“Why would we tell Churches to not send thier money? We need thier money.”
Apparently you have not followed the recent news coming out of the Georgia Baptist Convention. I’m not a big fan of slippery slopes. But now that the GBC will not be passing along CP gifts to the SBC from churches with a female in the pulpit, what’s to stop state conventions (or even the SBC) from rejecting CP gifts from churches that practice open communion.
Actually, the Georgia Baptist Convention could now do that. The GBC defines membership as “messengers from cooperating Baptist churches.” A cooperating Baptist church is one that is in “harmony and cooperation with the work and purpose” of the convention. The GBC’s new financial policy ties “harmony and cooperation” with whether a church agrees with the BFM2000. So, at the moment, the GBC is rejecting CP gifts from churches that clearly disagree with the statement, “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.”
If Bart Barber is correct – as you all seem to agree – that the BFM2000 supports only closed communion, what’s to stop the GBC from rejecting money gifts from churches that practice open communion? It seems that consistency would demand that state conventions like Georgia with a similar policy would take such a measure.
December 4th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Tim G.
I too would be greatly interested in how you arrive at the position that churches with divorced men as pastors, or who use wine for their Lord’s Supper or have women deacons or divorced men as deacons somehow violate the BFM2K and thus exclude them from leadership positions within the SBC. Are you saying that B. H. Carroll should have been excluded from his leadership of the SBC and particularly SWBTS because of his divorce?
BTW, Brother David did include “women pastors” as he always does, but I am glad to see you disagree with him on Eldership. I trust you hold a more biblical position than does our brother from the volunteer state on that issue.
While I agree with Brother Wes’ original position that as a confessional body we do not hold to individualistic interpretations, none of these issues raised by Brother David, except the women pastors and Lord’s Day worship are addressed in current confession (or any previous confession that I’ve found) of our Southern Baptist people. Again, I would humbly ask you to direct us to the article(s) which would so prohibit such.
Grace Abundantly,
WesInTex
December 4th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Brother David (Volfan),
As an Elder in your local congregation in the hills and hollers, would your brothers and sisters think you are ruling well?
If the answer is affirmative, as I have no reason to think otherwise…may your kind aspire in number among your congregation.
Blessings,
Chris
December 4th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
In reference to the above comments on my using divorce deacons etc. allow me to explain. I stated my response in general to the original comment by Volfan and not to specifics. NO, I do not think that a church with divorced Pastors is in violation of the BF&M (any version) though I do not agree with it. Same is true with deacons.
As for my usage of the word MUST. If one wants to be than one would think they agree. It was not intended to be spun as BDW spun but that was my bad.
WesInTex,
Same goes here. I was in a hurry and made a generalization. I do however hold to the concept of Confessional Identity putting the ball in the court of the church that sends money thus one would think they confessionally agree.
Who would send money where they do not agree?
December 4th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Chadwick, Ole Boy,
It’s good to talk to you again. How’s the fam?
Well, Chadwick, I wasnt really trying to give a list of what makes Churches affirm the BFM2K, or not. I was just trying to come up with examples of Churches that do things that might cause us to not accept thier members as leaders in the SBC. IOW, they would still be accepted in the SBC, but they wouldnt be seen as Churches that we would want to duplicate thru one of them doing seminary training nor by church planters out of their Churches. Do you see what I’m saying?
Like, a KJV only, mountain Church that doesnt give any money to the CP, nor to Lottie, nor to Annie, can still be a SB Church. But, do we really want them on the BOT of the IMB? No. It doesnt appear that they care too much about missions.
Or, if you had a Church in Kansas that wanted to send a divorced man and his new wife to be Church planters in El Salvador, because they believed that divorced men could be Pastors; then they could certainly be a part of the SBC. Correct? But, we wouldnt send thier member to be a missionary to El Salvador.
The Gentle Giant,
David
December 11th, 2008 at 11:33 am
[...] It’s Nothing Personal [...]