Restricted Communion and the Opponents of Landmarkism

You know, the recent debates (Calvinism, Landmarkisim/BI, ad nauseum) have made me think the SBC is really like Popeye and Bluto fighting over Olive Oil. I’m sitting here watching these two cats slug it out and I’m thinking to myself “You’re fighting over THAT?”

I mean, I think there are some people that were/are unaware of all the denominational politics that are suffering from a deplorable lack of interest in the fight and have come to the conclusion that if the SBC just went “poof” their lives and relationship with Jesus would go on unabated.

I’m just sayin’…

I’m more than willing to concede that closed communion was the way the forefathers of the SBC looked at it. That it was traditional (if it was).

But so was segregation, and a host of other things we don’t hold to now. So that carries no weight with me, beyond the scriptural basis for it.

And that, I don’t see.

Brother Bob,

You seem to miss the point by looking past what we are trying to say.

While Landmarkers used closed communion, so too did those who ardently opposed Landmarkism. No one is arguing for a return to Landmarkism, but it seems that we have been described as “Neo-Landmarkers just because we hold to the BF&M. If the rule that defines Landmark is closed communion, then it would appear that Dr. Adrian Rogers, Dr. Albert Mohler, and all of the others that sat on the BF&M committee are Landmarkers

Oh, Dr. EY Mullins was the chair of the 1925 BF&M. Does that mean he is a Landmarker also?

Blessings,
Tim

Brother Wes,

It is really not a surprise that closed communion would be supported by Landmarkers. The principle of closed communion flows along the lines of separatism and so do several other doctrines supported by this group. I believe it is much more important to look to scripture for the tradition of proclamation in communion. Paul was not a separatist when it came to communion. He encouraged the proclamation of the Lord’s command with no limitation to the various congregations throughout his ministry, with no limitation to the place, with no limitation to the time. Some Baptist churches have recognized this truth, and have adjusted their practice in a scriptural direction. Others may choose to entertain other traditions based upon other associations, yet those that encourage participation in the Lord’s Table following the Apostles teaching and upon self-examination have obeyed God.

I would not argue that Landmarker’s or even possibly early non-separatist SBC Baptist’s had closed communion, but it wasn’t necessarily determined as such by what we know of the Apostles teaching. Those Baptist’s that open their communion to their brothers and sisters in Christ certainly are following the principles laid out by the Apostles in the proclamation of their Lord and Savior; celebrating His death until His return.

If it is liberal to commune with my brothers and sisters at the Table of the Lord based upon Apostolic authority and the command of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ proclaiming His death until He comes again, …count me briefly liberal every time.

Blessings,
Chris

Rut roh, Chris, welcome to the club.

Grin.

And for the record, being called a liberal in ecclesiology by Wesley and C.B. Scott is something for which you, like I, ought to be proud.

Blessings,

Wade

An appeal to traditions? Okay. I suppose then you are also calling for a return to the Founders doctrines of the 5 Points, also? Or, will it be that since some claim there was no universality it is ivalid to evoke tradition?

Maybe someone could answer: On the night the Lord was betrayed, which of the disciples had undergone Christian baptism? If they were unaware of its meaning, was John’s Baptism valid? Where is it once taught by Jesus that it is requisite to that table? Since they didn’t even understand the Lord’s death and resurrection, it would appear that their taking the Supper, that Paul restricts for the meaning in it, was in valid also. But, see as he referenced that night, then if they were a) not baptize properly with understanding, and b) did not take the Super with understanding, then it would appear that Paul’s restrictions were not intended to exclude. And, seeing that Church order is not established when most of the baptisms are conducted in Acts, how is it that proper mode and order of ordinances drawn from them, are considered proper Church Order?

There is a push for a GCR. When it is taught that it is the responsibility of every believer to evangelize, is it also the responsibility of every believer to baptize? And where?

Brothers,

Also, it appears that Brother Ben Stratton has argued very convincingly that one holding to closed communion does not a Landmarker make.

Blessings,
Tim

Well, that is the question at hand. Who is the church? If the perameters of the table as restricted by Paul are not the requirements of the table then what are? And, he made his appeal to the night of the Lord’s passover. The question follows, if the disciples were not baptized duely according to some formulistic Church Order, then isn’t the inclusiveness of the table being expressed? The only parameter that Paul places upon it is self-examination, not baptism, nor any other rite. Now, if it is the Lord’s Supper on the night He was betrayed to which he made his appeal, then are we to have a higher standard than that? And, I would make this argument, in nearly every case where it is said that we are baptized, it is not into water, but into Christ. It is that, and that alone which qualifies one for the Table. The real question that Paul is asking is if you are truly discerning the “body”. From what I can tell, the exclusionists are more like the gluttons that push ahead not considering their brothers first, not discerning the body. It appears pharisaical. The attitude that requires form over substance, I believe, close communion, of this sort, is more aligned with the Roman church, than that of the Protestant.

The question still remains, if the Supper was legitimate for the disciples, and that is the standard to which Paul makes reference, then adding above it a standard, i.e. modal baptism, is to add to the Word of God. If you can prove the disciples baptism to be one of both faith, that is understanding, and proper form, and therefore a legitimate Christian baptism, then perhaps the requirement can stand. However, there still remains the question as to why Jesus did not require it, nor teach it, nor is it a priority in the teaching of the apostles and specifically Paul who is very little concerned with baptism anyway.

For all the legalistic imposition, one would think that a little more than interpolation of the Scripture would be necessary to make it the proper Church Order.

“Paul taught this to BAPTIZED Believers.” That is your assertion, and you do not know that. Paul is silent about baptism, isn’t he, as a requirement for the Table? That is all we know. And, you are imposing upon the text your preconceived idea as to what constitutes baptism and proper church membership in the first place. Let me ask you, is water baptism just a symbol, or is it a sacrament, an instrumental agency?

To this let me add, I believe it is commanded that one be baptized and that the symbol should most closely resemble that which it signifies. I further hold that it is the local assembly that sets the standard, at least within the BFM’s structure of autonomy. Further, I believe when it comes to the real, or imagined, disruption or dissention concerning communion that it might well be the best policy to have an organized communion for local church membership, only. To that, I would add, that to either be baptized or enjoy the Supper, the understanding of the communicants must first be established. To that end, I would love to see a renewal of extensive catchization of membership before either are offered.

Chris Johnson said, “If it is liberal to commune with my brothers and sisters at the Table of the Lord based upon Apostolic authority and the command of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ proclaiming His death until He comes again, …count me briefly liberal every time.”

Me too, brother.

Les

Brother Chris,

yet he is also clear not to limit his audience to just that group,. I would agree with you as to the greater audience for his teaching, but I must humbly disagree with you concerning the specific instructions of his teaching.

I do not believe anyone has argued that Paul’s letters were not supposed to be circulated. I have argued that Paul was writing to a Church not individuals.

Brother Thomas,

“Paul taught this to BAPTIZED Believers.” That is your assertion, and you do not know that. Brother, are you saying that the members of the church at Corinth did not have to go through Baptism by immersion? I believe you would have a much more difficult time arguing that than I would.

Blessings,
Tim

“I believe you would have a much more difficult time arguing that than I would.”

Well, I am waiting for the evidence that there were no unbaptized believers who were the audience of this message. Show it.

Again the wide variety of the application of the meaning of baptism is expressed within Corinthians. And, the numbers of bapstisms “into Christ” or with the “holy Spirit” challenge all baptisms as being in water. But that is your assumption and further it is your assumption that baptism is always immersion, something which cannot be proven either. Corinthians expresses baptism as in a cloud, in across dry land between the waters, but OT reference also define it as through the Jordan. NT references, even in Corinthians defines into Christ and with the Spirit, not merely symbolic baptism by immersion in water. IOW, there is not substance to the argument that all had been immersed when the address of Paul questions “Whose name were you baptized into.” Even in todays congregations, baptisms may be delayed for some time after conversion. The question is, if as was experienced by Peter, people have the evidence of the Holy Spirit, that is they have already been made partakers of the body and blood of Christ, upon what warrant do you deny the Supper seeing that they have already received it in the Lord? So, it does not have to mean that all the audience that Paul addressed was baptized according to formulistic baptism by immersion.

I think, you are unable to show it any other way except by assertion.

But, you still have not answered. Under what conditions did the disciples take communion with the Lord? John’s baptism was insufficient for faith being without the knowledge requisite, so the question remains unanswered. If that is the reference that Paul uses to set the parameters, i.e. it is offered to all who believe themselves self-examining followers, then what is the authority to set a higher standard?

If it is Church Order that is to be established out of Corinthians, we still need to bring in the testimony of the rest of Scripture. Paul did. And the evidence is that men were made partakers of Christ before baptism. Why then, being made partakers, would they not be allowed at the Table to do that which is merely a symbol of it? Surely the lesser, i.e. baptism, should be made to serve the greater, i.e. the Supper. And not vice verse.

Again, I will ask the question. Is baptism an instrumental sacrament that includes in the body of Christ, or not? If not, then how is it necessary to partake of Him?

T. Twitchell,

In all biblical uses and in all extant classical uses in the Greek language the word “baptize” always means to immerse. There are no known exceptions. Not one.

The word was transliterated. It means to immerse.

So, when you say:

“But that is your assumption and further it is your assumption that baptism is always immersion, something which cannot be proven either.”

You are just wrong. You have no foundation in all of history to stand on with such a comment as you have made here.

Are you part of a Baptist church? If so, go talk to your pastor and let him help you with this. If you are a pastor of a Baptist church, well…..uh, well….do something. Read some books.—–A bunch of books.

cb

Wes,

Again, as nicely as possible; I told you so.

Wild Geese flying in from everywhere.

cb

Tim,

I agree, Ben is not a Wild Goose. He is a Landmarker.

Opposites attract one another. That is why we are standing out here with all these feathers all over us.

When the Wild Geese from Wade’s Wild Goose Farm saw Ben Stratton in the barn yard of SBC TODAY, they said:

“Look, free “corn”; Let’s fly down and eat it up. It will be easy because it has already been shucked and shelled.”

cb

And tosses in a little condescending diminutive, just to buttress his lack of a point. Did you notice that, Scottie? If so, you’re more observant than Pat Wagstaff or Dana Williamson…

Wes-ley,

As I remember a wise friend once said something like this…

Only two people in this world call me Scottie…and you don’t look like either of them!

Sola Gratia!

Brother Tim,

Your explanation helps somewhat,…

When you said “IOW, I believe we both agree that the church is the authority for implementation of the Lord’s Table. I do not invite a couple of friends over to my house and say; “Let’s get together and listen to some Christian music and then share in the Lord’s Table.”

You have just described what Paul described…. Exclusivism; inviting a few friends over, not really understanding the beauty of the church by excluding others and I’m assuming “listening to Christian Music” is pejorative as if
Christian music would somehow make the occasion holy enough for the event. So yes, your characterization, I believe, would be very close to the attitude that the Corinthians had begun to employ…making sure their little groups were involved in their little way.

Now on the other hand,…if you were attempting to come together for worship and those were the only church that you could find and you were meeting and singing praises to Christ and worshipping the Lord, communing together at the Lord’s Table is a great thing, even for Uncle Bob who is visiting in town and is a believer and is encouraged to partake and proclaim the risen Lord upon self-examination.

So,.. we must also be careful to understand that individuals do comprise the church (called out one’s), yet there are some that narrow the parameter to their liking to become a self proclaimed specific group of people, in a specific place, at a specific time, in a specific way. That is exactly why and how Landmark has made its name and claim. We see evidence of exclusivity error the very same way from 40-60AD reflected in the scripture,… I am not surprised that we see the same error today.

We see these same principles working in some “unions” even to this very day in the auto industry. We see some union members hold banners of “unity”, but not for the benefit of the whole,..it is for the protection of their pensions. They pretend to love the whole organization, so that they can protect what they have deemed precious (their own hide and self motivated tradition).

Blessings,
Chris

[...] we have Bro. Ben, a Southern Baptist Landmarker.  He expressed that to hold to closed communion is not just a Landmark position.  I tend to agree as I’ve [...]

Tim Rogers,

Also, it appears that Brother Ben Stratton has argued very convincingly that one holding to closed communion does not a Landmarker make.

For once I agree brother Tim!

What makes a Landmarker is when closed communion is used as a test of Baptist Orthodox.

Grace Always,

Brother cb,

It sounds like they were kind people…They did what they understood to be right, yet not necessarily biblical. We all have those

2 Corinthians 10:18 For it is not he who commends himself that is approved, but he whom the Lord commends.

I hope you get to preach the gospel with them again!

Blessings,
Chris

Greg Alford,

I, for one, am really confused. You recently indicated at your blog:

“And when you take any one of the 5-points away you diminish the Gospel and in truth you have no Gospel at all… what you have is Semi-Pelagianism or full blown Pelagianism, both of which have been condemned as preversions of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (heresy).” (See here)

So, you have explicitly anathematized as heretics all four-pointers, three-pointers, and so forth. Two questions come first to mind:

1. Why on earth would you take such interest in the actions of a convention full of heretics bound for perdition? Why such grave concern over Wes’s viewpoint, CB’s viewpoint, or any other such person?

2. Although the Landmark Baptists called all other denominations as false churches, they acknowledged the true believers in their midst as fellow Christians bound for heaven. Yet you, who condemn all who do not cross every T, dot every I, and affirm every L in the same way as you to be heretics and condemned, dare to call them arrogant and closed-minded?

???

Question for the BI guys and Dr. Yarnell if he is around,

Regarding the view of the IMB BoT on baptism that you guys defended, would you say that a belief in eternal security is necessary to partake in communion with a Southern Baptist church? I mean, say that someone was baptized by immersion in an Assembly of God church out of obedience to the Lord, but of course, that church does not believe in eternal security. Would that baptism be considered scriptural? Would they be able to partake of communion with you?

If it is considered scriptural and they would be able to partake of communion, why would that baptism not be considered legitimate for the mission field? If it is legitimate for the Lord’s Table, then it seems that it is legitimate for the mission field. If it is not legitimate for the Lord’s Table, then please tell me where a belief in eternal security is necessary before one can partake of communion.

I hope that someone will attempt to answer my question. I mean no ill will in asking it, but it did arise as I have seen this discussion unfold over the past week.

Let me sum up: If a belief in eternal security is required for baptism to be considered legitimate by the IMB BoT, then would those baptized by immersion in churches that do not preach eternal security be forbidden from the Lord’s Table?

Tim,

Could you or someone here please answer my question regarding how this would be seen?

As for whether or not you defended the baptism policy, I’ll leave that to you.

At any rate, I would love to know if there is a connection on this issue. Anyone?

Greg Alford,

Please pardon my dimwittedness. Foolishly I drew the strange and unwarranted conclusions that:

“when you take any one of the 5-points away” = anyone holding any less than 5 points (i.e. 4, 3, 2, 1)

“in truth you have no Gospel at all” = not just an imperfect understanding of the gospel, but a complete lack of it (i.e. “no Gospel at all”)

“what you have is Semi-Pelagianism or full blown Pelagianism” = anyone holding any less than 5 points are really Semi-Pelagians or Pelagians.

“both of which have been condemned as . . . (heresy)” = these folks are condemned as heretics.

So, forgive me for concluding that you meant what you wrote, rather than something else.

Brother Alan,

Are you asking if there is a connection between closed communion and the Baptism guidelines of the IMB?

If that is your question, I can tell you that from where I am sitting the two have nothing to do with each other.

Blessings,
Tim

Bart,

As your brother in Christ how could I not Pardon your dimwittedness.

Now, go forth and dimwit no more…

Grace Always,

Brother Bart,

I have already confessed to saying “Stupid” things, so it is little wonder that you misunderstood my meaning.

I have explained my comments here, but if you will not take my word for what I actually believe then there is little else I can say that will change your mind.

By the way, you have not answered any of my questions. Which leaves me to only assume the worse?

Grace Always,

Brother Alan,

One more thing. Neither should one throw out the tired accusation that Landmarkism is the culprit of such a stand.

Blessings,
Tim

Greg,

Which questions?

Debbie,

Tim did not say that Roman Catholics cannot be saved. He didnt say that all Roman Catholics are lost. How did you come to this conclusion?

David

Sister Debbie,

Do you not realize that RC believe their salvation is sustained through the partaking of the Eucharist? It is called; transubstantiation. See here for a more full accounting of what Roman Catholics believe about the Lord’s Table.

Blessings,
Tim

Bart,

(From comment #47)

Are you saying that you agree with Semi-Pelagian or Pelagian doctrine? And that they should not be considered Heretical?

Are you hinting that I should just give up and get out (of the SBC)?

Am I welcome (to partake communion with you)?

Grace Always,

Bart, Tim, David, All,

A lost man is shipwrecked on a desert island, and after a long while a bible washes up on shore… this man picks it up and read the gospel for the first time in his life; is convicted of his sin, repents and ask God to forgive him.

After his conversion he reads that he needs to be baptized, but there is no church and no one to baptize him… he wrestles with this as he wants to be faithful unto the Word of God, so he decides to baptize himself in obedience to Gods Word. He walks into the ocean and submerging himself saying “I am baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost”.

1st – Is this man a “True” Christian?
2nd – Is this man’s Baptism acceptable?
3th – Should this man be allowed to serve with the IMB?
4th – Should this man be refused communion in a Baptist Church?
5rd – Is this man an “Orthodox” Baptist?

Grace Always,

Greg,

If a lost man is stranded on a desert island, and he finds a Bible under a coconut tree, and he reads it and becomes a Christian. But, he becomes a non-five point Calvinist from his studying the Bible. IOW, from his study of the Bible…without outside influence…he becomes a Biblicist who believes Baptist doctrine, which is Bible doctrine, but he’s not a five point Calvinist. Do you…

1st…..think that this man is a Christian?
2nd…think that this man is a semi-pelagianists?
3rd…think that this man is a pelagianists?
4th…think that this man is a heretic?

David

Malcolm,

Thank you for responding. Perhaps they would want to come to our church because we exalt Jesus over a specific system of theology and they might find that refreshing? I don’t know. But, this is a hypothetical situation that I created to understand better this situation and to develop a proper approach if I ever do face it as a pastor. We don’t have any AG people visiting our church, but it is conceivable that one could visit (perhaps a family member of one of our church members, for example) on a Sunday when we were doing communion. Or, maybe one comes who is wanting to come out of the AG.

So, my question remains – They were immersed as a confessing believer in Jesus Christ, but they were immersed in a church that did not hold to eternal security. We have said that those who were immersed in churches like that would not be placed on the mission field by the IMB unless they were rebaptized in a church that held to “baptistic” theology (I think that I have that right – correct me if I’m wrong on the “baptistic” part). Would we welcome those to the Lord’s Table that we would not send on the mission field on the basis of their baptism (not other considerations, obviously)?

If we say that we would not welcome such a man to the Lord’s Table, it would seem to be consistent with the baptismal requirements for missionaries laid out with the IMB. I struggle to see where it is biblical, so therein lies my dilemma. It seems that if you are going to attach eternal security to baptism for the mission field, then you would also recommend attaching it to baptism for admissionn to the Lord’s Table. If not, what is the difference?

Am I missing something? What is the answer?

Thank you in advance. Again, I do not want to argue. I am only trying to understand the implications of this position for local church life. We might disagree, but my point is not to convince you of my position (still forming here, admittedly), but to understand yours so that I can better think through mine, if that makes any sense. Of course, all of this is being done in light of the BFM and Scripture. As a pastor of God’s church, I take this seriously.

CB,

You kill me! Metaphorically, of course.

Sola Gratia

I think some take this issue too far. For example, I believe the right way to do the Lord’s Supper is to exclude those who are not saved and baptized by immersion. This is something I would state lovingly yet evangelistically. Closed communion is good if it’s used as an evangelistic opportunity. If someone is in the crowd that is not baptized by immersion, I’m not going to be the baptism/Lord’s Supper police. That’s between them and God.

Honestly, some of US may be better off trying to convince our own Southern Baptists who we are not sure are saved or have the baptism on the right side of salvation to reverence the Lord’s Supper. We may need to try and get the non-believers in our own pews right before we going making the matter a theological one.

Give an invitation at your next Lord’s Supper!

Alan S.,

I appreciate the way you have stated this, and at the risk of jeopardizing my newly-minted neo-Landmark credentials, I can tell you that I agree unequivocally with every word of your first paragraph. That is precisely the way “closed” communion is practiced in the congregation I serve.

We carefully explain the requirements as our church understands them, then leave it to the individual to determine for themselves whether or not they should partake.

Alan S,

Seriously, I must agree with Wes here. You have stated, in the first paragraph of your comment, my firm conviction on this matter.

Also, I believe it may be the conviction of many of us who have been labeled as various things dependent on the whims of another fellow whose only fault is being too irenic and loving beyond our capability of understanding.

cb

Alan S.,

I agree wholeheartedly with your first paragraph. Welcome to the neo-landmark club.

The way to get into the clubhouse is to give the high sign.

David

And, Wes, if you will remember a couple of years ago on your blog, A Blue Blood of Ancient Baptist Pedigree.

cb

Thank you for responding, Malcolm. I do feel like that I am engaging in a game of riddles here, however. Okay. I’ll play along.

Let’s assume that our hypothetical Arminian Charismatic visitor says “yes” to your/our question. Also remember, he had been baptized by immersion upon profession of faith in Christ for remission of sins. I saw that the second half of your question said, “so that you might have assurance of eternal life?” I do not assume that you placed that there by accident. I would assume that our Arminian Charismatic brother would believe the truth of John 3:16. So, let’s say that he affirms what you have said.

Would you then allow him to take communion with you, or would you reject it on the basis of his church’s stance on eternal security, i.e., the IMB’s Baptism policies? If so, are you saying that the AG does not teach faith in Christ “so that you might have assurance of eternal life?” Would this then question if they are really saved, or no?

I do not mind the banter of questions. I’ll keep coming back looking for an answer and if I do not get one, I’ll call my good buddy Tim Rogers and ask him why none of the SBC Today guys have weighed in on this. I assume that they are all busy, as we all are as pastors, especially at this time of year. But, my curiosity as to the connection between Communion and the IMB policies regarding the nature of baptism has been piqued and I tend to be tenacious about such things.

Thank you for engaging, Dr. Yarnell.

Okay. I see that others are chiming in. I am wondering about the implications of this question that I am asking.

Do we turn away the Arminian Charismatic who was baptized by immersion as a professing believer in Christ because his church does not teach eternal security (seems to be consistent with not letting him on the mission field until he gets his baptism in order);

or,

Do we accept his baptism as sufficient to partake of the Lord’s Table, but then tell him that it is not sufficient to go on the mission field?

I’m confused.

If we say that his baptism is not sufficient to partake of the Lord’s Table with us because his church does not teach eternal security, do we think that his confession is insufficient if he does not believe in eternal security?

Does this mean that he is not saved?

Or, if he is saved, does it mean that he has to get baptized all over again?

What if he got saved and baptized in an AG church and was not taught eternal security, but NOW he did believe in eternal security, yet had not been baptized in a church that taught that, ala the IMB baptismal policy? Would he have to be baptized in a baptist church to be able to partake of baptist communion, even if he already believed along those lines?

If the answer to the last question is in the affirmative, then doesn’t that lead us into a position of looking to the authority of the baptizing church in regulating who can take communion?

Insight into these questions would be much appreciated. I hope that someone can answer these things, or show me where my logic is wrong. I’m paying attention and would be grateful.

Alan,

I am indeed attempting to give you your answers, but please be patient with this conversational socratic method as the means to doing so. It may be interesting to you and me to see the specificity to which your good question provides some good answers. Or, if you will, take this as my woefully simplistic way to answer your good question in number 57, which you requested me to address personally in number 67. Now, to continue the conversation with our Charismatic friend, who is apparently now wavering with regard to the Arminianism that he has been taught in his Assembly of God church:

“Thank you, my dear friend, for affirming your faith in Jesus as Lord! And thank you for affirming your belief that he laid down his life for you on the cross, and that he rose from the dead for you! These are indeed the central truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and this church too embraces them with you. Now, so that we may continue to rejoice together in the fullness of God’s gracious action in Christ and in the application of His grace to us personally by His Spirit, please consider this great salvation truth that we apparently hold together as one: It seems that you are saying that you know for sure that you will go to heaven, that is, that you have been born again by His Holy Spirit, whom you received when you believed and repented of sin? After all, the apostle John tells us that he wrote his first epistle, an epistle of Christian assurance, ‘so that you may know that you have eternal life.’ My friend, it is so important for us that we know that we have eternal life. And we would not be speaking of this great gospel with clarity if we did not assure one another that we understood the import of the gospel. Here in this church, we all want to rejoice together in our common assurance in Jesus Christ, and we would love to have you join us in that assurance! My friend, Will you affirm for our mutual benefit, as we set our minds on the things above (Col 3:2), your assurance (1 John 5:13) of your regeneration by the Holy Spirit (John 3:7-8), in whom all believers have been baptized (1 Cor. 12:13)?”

Thank you, Dr.Yarnell. Now that I see what you are doing, I am more than happy to engage with you in this manner even though a \”yes\” or \”no\” would have served my purposes.I can see the merit in this exercise as long as we eventually arrive at a clear yes or no. With blogging, you can never be sure if someone is coming back (one of the pitfalls), so there is uncertainty as to if the dialogue will arrive at completion. I can only assume that our bloghosts here at SBC Today have cleared the field for you to take a crack at this.

I agree with all that you say to our Arminian Charismatic friend. Assurance of salvation is very important and I have had this conversation with people before both as a layperson and in the discharge of my pastoral duties. Whether the conversation occurs before or after Communion Sunday, it is a good conversation to have. But, if this is a new teaching to the man and he has had little time to reflect on it and neither accept or reject it, would Communion be withheld from him on the basis of a faulty understanding of this doctrine?

In other words, it is Communion Sunday and you have this conversation with him before the service. Our brother says, \”This is worth thinking about but I have more questions and I am not yet convinced. I have a well articulated Biblical basis for my position as well and I need to work through this.\” How would you respond in regard to the upcoming Communion? Would he be invited to participate or would he be asked to refrain?

And, of course, the other questions in comment #86 kick in when this foundational question is answered. I hope that we can answer those as well.

Alan,

Yes! Let us assume further that the context is immediately prior to communion. Now, based on his response, “This is worth thinking about but I have more questions and I am not yet convinced. I have a well articulated Biblical basis for my position as well and I need to work through this.”

Then I would say, “My friend, I am so glad that you are asking such questions, and that you are willing to converse with me. Now, because we are a church that treasures regenerate church membership, we want our members to be convinced that they have born again. It would be a disservice to you if we did not help you find the surety of eternal life. Unfortunately, I have to participate in my church’s communion at this exact moment. However, I would really like to carry this conversation on further with you? Now, I can personally skip the communion and speak with you privately here in the lobby, or perhaps you would like to schedule a time to meet later, maybe right after our church celebrates communion. I am very interested in helping you come to the place where you know for sure that you have been born again by the Holy Spirit through faith in Christ and repentance toward God!”

At this point, I would wait for our Arminian Charismatic, who is not convinced of his salvation, to respond.

So, Alan, how does our Arminian Charismatic friend respond?

In Christ,
Malcolm

Mr. Anonymous Middle Easterner,

How can a person be “certain of his salvation,” yet “believe it can be lost at some point”?

The biblical doctrine of salvation is not confused on this point. I personally would do all I could possibly do to help my AG friend come to a biblical assurance of his personal regeneration through faith and repentance. Would you not do the same?

In Christ,
Malcolm

Mr. Anonymous,

You have said this man is not certain he is regenerate. Don’t you think you should help him become certain he is regenerate before you welcome him to a church which is composed of regenerate church members?

Now, to be fair with Mr. Cross, and to hold to my preference not to privilege the cloak of anonymity, please excuse me if I focus my attention upon answering Alan’s good question. Stick around, though, your own questions may be answered in the meantime.

In Christ,
Malcolm

Dr. Yarnell,

Thank you for returning to our discussion today. I will be in and out throughout the day with meetings followed by some office time, so if we do not come to conclusion and I disappear for a while know that I will return eventually.

Regarding your response in comment #92, let’s give us 10 or 15 minutes more to make sure that we are not cut short in our conversation by the necessity of the service. Since it is my question and I hope to arrive at a clear answer, please allow me to introduce another character that will ensure that my initial questions are fully addressed. Let’s also say that his wife walks up right at this moment. She was also involved in the same AG church as her husband and believed on the Lord Jesus, repented of her sins, and was baptized by immersion in that church. She has a close walk with the Lord, as does her husband. However, after studying Scripture, she has now come to the point that she believes in eternal security. As she listens to your response to her husband and comes to an understanding of this conversation, she expresses that she no longer believes that she can lose her salvation. She and her husband have only had preliminary conversations about this and he was not really able to understand her position. He is understanding it better in this conversation but is still struggling with it because it is so much different than what has been taught. With that context, I will provide his answer to your question. Remember, his wife is listening and wondering if she will be able to take communion in this baptist church.

Our Arminian Charismatic friend would say, “Dr. Yarnell, I believe that I am saved. I have placed my faith in Jesus Christ as my Savior. I have confessed my sins to Him. I have repented of my sins. I obeyed the Lord in baptism after my salvation. I have received the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures say in Romans 8:9, ‘And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.’ I am confident that I have the Spirit. By the Spirit, I endeavor to put to death the misdeeds of my body and bear fruit in keeping with repentance. I am committed to my local church and by God’s grace I strive to walk in holiness. I have received salvation, of that I have no doubt. According to my understand of some passages in the Bible, I believe that salvation can be lost if I turn away from God, stop believing in Him, and renounce Christ with my confession and/or my life. But, that is not where I am. I am a believer in Jesus. He is my everything. I am here today with my brother and his family (members of the baptist church) and Communion is being served. I regularly partake of this in my home church. Will this church keep me from the Lord’s Table? Will my wife be accepted? She believes in eternal security. Will she be able to partake and will I be left behind? Or, because we both come from an AG church will we both be asked to refrain? The service time is nearing and I am curious about what will happen today. I would be happy to speak with you about this issue more, but based on where I am right now, what will you do with me?”

Thank you for your time, Dr. Yarnell. Based on how you answer this question, if it is answered clearly, I have one more follow up regarding the implications.

Alan,

Sorry about disappearing on you, last night, but I had to go to sleep. Please understand also if I disappear today at times, since I am involved in the task of GRADING PAPERS. (Do I hear the general expression of lament for all those terrorized theology students?)

Well, now our friend’s wife has come forward and entered in the conversation in the lobby of the church, and we have 15 minutes left before the service starts. After all, the pastor fell down and spilled the communion bread and cup, making a huge mess and prompting a temporary delay in the service. And the pastor’s wife stands there, shaking her head as she examines her husband’s new purple shirt. Malcolm turns from the humorous spectacle and focuses his eyes upon the two AG visitors.
Let’s call him Anthony Gerald, and let’s call her Almostina Baptista.

“My dear friend, I am glad that you and your wife are visiting. And, please, do call me Malcolm–that Dr. stuff is too formal for a church context. Our church would love to have communion with you, but for your sake, we really want to help you come to a sure conclusion about your salvation. These are weighty matters and not to be taken lightly, as you surely agree, for Paul warned us against the unreflective celebration of communion (1 Cor 11:29). Unfortunately, there seems to be some confusion as to whether or not you are sure of your salvation. You say, ‘I have received salvation, of that I have no doubt.’ But then you immediately say, ‘I believe that salvation can be lost if I turn away from God….’ My friend, this must be a terrible load on your heart not to have the assurance of your regeneration. May I assume that you, AG, and that you, BC, believe the Word of God is both without error and sufficient for Christian beliefs and practices? [Both AG and BC silently but fervently nod their heads.]”

I then breathe a sigh of relief and am elated that we may soon recognize here another two people who have the assurance of being born again in Jesus Christ!

“My friend, I really do want us to exalt Christ together and have true Christian communion. But to have such a communion, we may not make assumptions that may later harm the assumed basis of our spiritual communion. And yet, you have shared with me that you are certain of your salvation on the one hand, but that you are not certain of your salvation on the other hand. This is a troubling matter, for it seems that you have not embraced biblical salvation. Would you like to have the certainty of eternal life, an eternal life based in the permanent presence of the Holy Spirit, who comes upon you and will not leave you when you have been born again? Would you like that certainty?”

And Malcolm reaches out his hand to both AG and AB, and AB turns towards her husband, waiting expectantly for his response. Alan, what does AG do now? There are 8 minutes left.

In Christ,
Malcolm

David,

Of course I reject a Church of Christ baptism for obvious reasons. Let me continue with Dr. Yarnell for awhile, however, lest something that I say in a fuller explanation to you divert our exchange.

Malcolm,

What a mess occuring in the sanctuary! Fortunately we are not Catholics. The spilling of the host would create quite a problem, much bigger than a stained shirt! Fortunately, Welch’s is just Welch’s and all that is lost is the shirt.

I notice that you are taking the hands of both AG and AB. AB has already expressed her assurance of eternal security and AG has expressed his assurance of salvation. I just want this to be clear.

AG responds to you: “Malcolm, I appreciate your tender heart and your desire to minister. I also appreciate your love for the inerrant Word of God and our Saviour, Jesus Christ. I share that love. I am confused however. What kind of prayer are you leading me in so that I may participate with you in Communion? I have prayed to receive Christ and have been baptized by immersion. I am not walking in any embraced sin, not meaning I don’t sin, but I have examined my heart and my conscience is clear before God. Are you saying that I must pray a prayer expressing or receiving assurance of eternal security regarding my salvation before I can take communion with you? I will not do that, Malcolm. That violates my conscience and my understanding of what the Word of God says on this matter.”

AB looks at her husband a little embarrassed at the strength of his last statement, but she has her own questions. She speaks up and says, “And, Malcolm, what are you wanting to pray with me? I would love to pray with you, but I am also confused. I was baptized in an AG church and have been AG all my life. Yet, I HAVE come to believe in eternal security in Christ. I assume that my husband and I will need to talk a bit more about this after, but what are you wanting to pray with me? Will you receive me to take communion with you and your church?”

Finally, AG asks one last question: “One last thing, Malcolm. If I were to agree with you about all that you have said and pray with you, would it be for my salvation or for a greater understanding and realization of my salvation? If it were for the former, I suppose that I would need to be baptized before I could take communion. If it were for the latter, would my baptism in my AG church be sufficient and would I be able to go straight in and take communion? The answer to this question relates more directly to my wife, I guess, but I just want to know where things stand.”

Time is ticking and the mess in the sanctuary is almost cleaned up. How will we resolve the mess in the foyer?

Alan,

I look forward to you answering my questions in comment #99 later.

Also, Alan, again I think that this thing is gonna boil down to what you believe about baptism and the Lord’s Supper either being a personal thing, or a Church thing. Do you believe that baptism is just something that a person has to be ok about, or is a Church ordinance that the Church has to do and be ok with. And, the same about the Lord’s Supper.

Does it not?

David

Alan,

Before I give a full response. One point of clarification. Are you saying that AB now wants to join the Baptist communion because she has been born again, but AG is still unsure that he has been born again? I will respond in full later.

CB,

Try some Nyquil.

In Christ,
Malcolm

Alan,

I’m not Dr. Yarnell, but I bet that he’d say that the AOG fella could be saved, but he has no assurance of his salvation. He’s probably not saying that AOG fella is not saved, but he certainly would have no assurance. Dont you agree?

David

Alan,

Yea, I understood that you believe in eternal security. I’m just saying that Dr. Yarnell would probably tell you that the AoG person is not assured of salvation due to his beliefs.

He may say that he’s sure that he’s saved right now, but he’s not sure of his salvation. How can he be when he can lose it?

David

Alan,

Sorry to have been away so long but a profound emergency arose today. I have two minutes before the girls need to be put to bed, so here is my concluding answer to your question.

It is obvious to all involved that AG does not have the assurance of being born again. His wife does have that assurance. We would welcome her application for membership through biblical baptism in a church that preaches the gospel with a biblical understanding. We would continue counsel him to find the assurance he needs. It boils down to this truth:

1. AG is not certain that he has been born again. After all, he can lose his salvation, and he is not assured of the continuing presence of the regenerating Spirit of God. He needs the Holy Spirit badly to bring him assurance, an assurance found when one submits to biblical teaching and not the inventions of Charismatic men.

2. As Baptists, we believe in regenerate (i.e. born again) church membership as a fundamental biblical principle. People must be born again to be members, or we do a disservice to them by propagating the lie that they can be saved without being born again by the same Holy Spirit as revealed in Scripture.

3. As a result of AG’s confession that he is not sure of his being born again, we would sadly have to refuse him the privilege of baptism into our church and the subsequent privilege of communion. We would continue to work with him to teach him that he can certainly be born again.

This is not about tradition, nor is it about human symbols. It is about whether the Bible teaches that we must be born again, and that we can be certain that we are born again.

The girls are calling!

Please be in prayer for a friend of mine. Please.

In Christ,
Malcolm

Clarification of #115:

When I said, “I will take this to mean you would not take communion with the either.” What I meant was that you would not take communion with an AG community if you were traveling and found yourself at one of their meetings on a Sunday morning due to a lack of baptist churches in the area.

Now, the girls’ hair is combed. They are tucked in bed, happily viewing the Christmas tree. I have a few more minutes.

Mr. Anonymous Middle Easterner,

I make no claim to be able to see men’s hearts, for only God can do that. Certainly you would agree with me about that.

However, men are able to hear the testimony of other men. It is the testimony of AG that he is not sure of his salvation. The one who says that he does not believe in eternal security has said that he is not certain he is saved. It would be wrong for our church to affirm him in his sense of lostness.

On the other hand, it is the testimony of AB that she is willing to affirm her church’s doctrine, even though she knows it to be false. This is an integrity issue for her and a serious one. She affirms in public by communing with a church that teaches false doctrine what she knows in private to be false.

As a church that freely gives testimony to the truth of Scripture and measures the testimony of others against the Scripture, we would want to help both AG and AB. We would want to help him find the assurance of salvation by being born again by the Holy Spirit revealed in Scripture. We would want to help her restore the integrity between her private and public life.

We would pray, moreover, that she and her husband solve their distinct but related problems together and join our church’s communion by affirming our church’s beliefs about the basis of communion: regeneration by the Spirit and conversion to Christ.

A church that respects the testimony of human beings is not in a rush to affirm what a man is not willing to affirm for himself. A person’s conscience is subject directly to God and is thus inviolable, just as a church’s operation is subject directly to Christ as Lord and is thus inviolable.

Christian history is filled with the shipwrecks of churches that have made unbiblical assumptions about men’s souls. Christian history is filled with the shipwrecks of churches that have made unbiblical heirarchical arrangements that deny the Lordship of Jesus Christ over each independent congregation.

Think here of the persecuting churches of Constantinople, Rome, Wittenberg, Geneva, and Westminster. As free churches who reject the persecuting ways of these baby-baptizing churches, we prefer to be as biblical as we possibly can be, trusting God to enlighten His inerrant, unchanging, sufficient Word to our understanding ever more.

We respect the right of others who claim Christ to follow their unbiblical ways, ways that innovate beyond the will of Christ or directly counter the will of Christ. Even as we grant them the right to be wrong, we hope they would respect our right to be obedient to the commands of Christ. He has revealed specific commands for his churches in the New Testament, commandments about doctrine and practice, and we choose to obey His Word.

Man, I forgot to brush their teeth! Have to go now.

In Christ,
Malcolm

Oh, well, they fell asleep. I wonder if my wife will forgive me for forgetting to brush the girls’ teeth. Surely, brushing their teeth for six days and missing one teeny weeny day does not mean they will have cavities tomorrow. Okay, I am not so sure, but I am not waking them up now!

Alan,

Your question is very similar to our anonymous Middle Easterner’s question. Let me try to use different words to get at the same issue:

As fellow human beings, we may not judge whether other human beings are truly saved or not, except by their own confessions. If a person says he may lose his salvation, then he is saying that he does not believe that the Holy Spirit’s work is effective in regeneration. This is an unbiblical belief, indicative that he may not have been born again. Why in the world would we want to affirm a doubtful man in his sense of lostness or even possible lostness?

From an eternal perspective, there seem to be two possible options with AG here. (1) He could really be born again but just hold to a false doctrine. This is your assumption and you MAY be correct. Yet, there is another option here that we cannot put out of the field of consideration, if we are truly concerned for this man’s eternal welfare. (2) He could really be lost but think he is saved–at least for the moment, he thinks he is saved, but he is not really sure that he is really saved.

Because this man is not sure of his salvation, my church cannot be sure that he is born again. We make no judgment about his eternal state, other than by his own testimony. Because he is not sure he is saved, we cannot be sure that he is saved. Until he is sure that he is saved, we must accept his own uncoerced testimony that he is not sure that he is saved.

For him to say that he is sure he is saved at this moment, but that he might not be saved, say, tomorrow, is a sure sign to us that he is really not sure of anything regarding his salvation! What a horrible position to be in–to be sure, today, that you might not be saved tomorrow. What a contradictory statement–”I am SURE I am saved today, but I am NOT SURE I will still be saved tomorrow!” That is not certainty based on divine grace, but certainty based on human fiat, which is no certainty whatsoever!

Would it not be wrong for my church to tell a man that he is truly born again, and that he just holds a false doctrine, when he himself really is not sure he is born again? Would it not be best for my church to present the certainty of salvation to him, calling him to believe in the truths of salvation in Christ as taught in Scripture? Would it not be best for my church to help him become sure of his salvation, so that he is not fooled by a false understanding of salvation?

If he is really number 2 (truly not saved), but your church has proclaimed to him that he doesn’t need to be concerned about it, because you are absolutely sure that he is really number 1 (truly saved but holding a false doctrine), have you not possibly done him a disservice? Have we not taken the possibility that he is really lost and put it outside the realm of his consideration by hastily offering him communion in the name of Christian unity? Are we not culpable before God for offering a man affirmation of his salvation, when he is not affirming that himself and therefore may truly not be saved?

Think about a more extreme case. How many people have you witnessed to about Christ who have told you that they were baptized as a baby, yet they do not show any fruit of the Spirit, and cannot verbalize faith, repentance, and rebirth in Christ? I have had people tell me, “Yes, I go to such and such a church.” Or, “I was baptized and belong to a Christian church.” Then, when you begin to probe about their church and their pastor–I have made it a practice to know many of the pastors of other denominations in my area of service so that I can have such a conversation with intelligence–you discover that they truly do not give one evidence of regeneration. Although our friend AG may not represent such an extreme (and all too common) case, there is still the possibility that he is not sure of his salvation because he is truly not saved!

Would it not be dishonest to assure him of his salvation, when he is not sure of his salvation? Would it not be anti-evangelistic to shut off the possibility that he might truly be lost and just not understand that he must be born again from above? A willingness to affirm him in his possible lostness is not a friendly move, from the perspective of eternity. Would it not be best through your bold witness to proclaim to him that, even though he is unsure of his salvation, he might come truly to know Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior, because he may now be born again by true faith rather than a man-generated faith?

Alan, I fear that I may lead my church to assure a lost man that he is saved, by offering him communion, when he himself, by his own confession, is not sure that he is saved. I fear that I might lead my church to shut off the opportunity for him to come to some certainty about his salvation by truly being born again.

The search for Christian unity must be based on scriptural doctrine and certainty of regeneration, not on the hope that a man might possibly be saved, even though he tells you that he is not sure that he is saved, or at least may not be saved tomorrow!

In Christ,
Malcolm

Okay, now the boys have to go to bed.

Alan,

One more thing. You have emphasized faith repeatedly. Remember that there are those who have faith but not regenerating faith. “Even the demons believe and tremble….”

You are correct: Salvation must include faith, the human response to God. But salvation must include repentance, the human turning from sin toward God. AND. AND. AND…. salvation must include regeneration, the divine movement in man.

There are people who will appear before the throne and Christ will say, “Depart from me, for I never knew you.” It is not enough to confess faith in Christ; it is not enough to practice a Christian life; one must also be known by God. See my sermon on the essentials of Christianity posted last month by the kind editors of SBC Today. That may help some.

In Christ,
Malcolm

Alan,

You will indeed have to explain how one separates faith in Christ from faith about Christ. That is a problem, unless one is willing to oppose Christ to belief in Christ. The last time I saw that happen was when the liberals in the SBC wanted to distinguish between the Christ in which they believed from the Christ which the Bible taught. I do hope that you avoid their mistake, even as you focus on salvation rather than their focus on revelation.

Also, please do not make the error of mischaracterizing my position. My beliefs regarding eternal security are not classifiable as a doctrine detachable from God, but about a living faith in a God who does not misrepresent the nature of the salvation He gives us. To put it another way: eternal security is not a detachable doctrine from personal salvation–it is integral to personal salvation. If you treat eternal security as a detachable and non-essential doctrine, then you treat it according to your own logic, not mine. In other words, Alan, I cannot conceive of Christian faith without the assurance that the God who saves really does save.

Blessings on you wherever you end up!

In Christ,
Malcolm

Malcolm,

This has been a very fruitful discussion. Your answers last night about AG perhaps not being saved were very surprising to me. I did not anticipate this discussion going that direction. I know that you said that you cannot look into his heart and determine whether he is saved or not, but you did say that you would not accept his confession unless it contained a belief in eternal security. That was an unexpected conclusion to our discussion and after having talked with a few people about where I thought that this was going, I now face a dilemma.

I do not want to play a game of theological “gotcha” with you. I am very grateful that you fully articulated your position on this and I have no desire to misrepresent you. That is why I asked question after question. Going into this, my interest was in Communion and its relation to baptism. I saw a potential inconsistency with the view being presented and the IMB policies because I never imagined that you would question the salvation of Arminians based on a lack of belief in eternal security. I was not aware that Baptists believed that. That is why I asked you repeatedly to speak for yourself.

I promised that I would not argue with you here. But, as I stated, now I face a problem. I have been engaged in this discussion for three years now and I believe that it goes to the heart of the issues that have caused division in the SBC. I have no desire to set you up and try to make hay over your position, but at the same time, I feel like a response should be given, especially considering the public nature of the issue over the past several years. This issue seems to be what has caused the conflict with Dr. Ascol over what seems to be a practice that they have of open communion regarding Presbyterians.

Thinking about it more deeply, I can understand why a theology professor at SWBTS who took several days to explain his position on a blog to a pastor would not be crazy about that pastor possibly misrepresenting his position and creating a big controversy, especially after all that has happened the past month. I do not want to do that, nor do I want to disrespect you in any way.

I also recognize that you have been a major driving force behind the theology that guided the IMB BoT in their decisions, so I do not take you lightly or consider your opinion to be inconsequential. Because of this, I do believe, however, that an answer should be given to your position. I withdraw my pledge to necessarily write about this on my blog without giving this a great deal more prayer as to how I should proceed or if I should at all.

Dr. Yarnell,

When you said,”To put it another way: eternal security is not a detachable doctrine from personal salvation–it is integral to personal salvation,” that really was a mouthful, Brother. This ought to make people stop and think long and hard about salvation….what it truly is. It makes us think deeply about salvation. And, I think I understand that you’re saying that if that person who believes that they can lose thier salvation is not sure of thier salvation, nor can they be. Therefore, there is a great possibility that they might be lost….depending on works instead of God and His grace for salvation. Thus, why would you invite a man that might be lost be invited to take the Lord’s Supper at your Church? Is that what you’re saying?

But, my Brother, i do believe that people like John and Charles Wesley, and my Great Grandmother, were saved people. Even though they believed in an “Arminian” theology. I do believe that they knew the Lord, but were just in error of this doctrine. On a side note, my cousin and I talked to my Mama Smith…my Great Grandmother…many times to help her find assurance. At the age of 94, she finally saw the light and was sure that she would stay saved forever. She died at the ripe old age of 96.

So, I think I see what you’re trying to say. Interesting. Very interesting. And, like Alan, I will ponder and pray over it.

Thanks, Brother, for stretching my mind this fine day.

David

Middle East,

Not only the Wesley Brothers, but based on their confession, we must also consider Martin Luther, C.S. Lewis, Francis Asbury, and all Lutherans, Methodists, and Anglicans to possibly not be saved if assurance of salvation is a necessary component of salvation. At any rate, if they came into our churches, we would try to lead them to salvation.

This is very interesting. I am understanding the IMB baptismal policy much better at this point.

Again, think long and hard about what you are saying when you say, “I know for sure that a person is saved,” even as they are telling you, “I do not know if I will be saved.”

Remember that we as human beings are not to play God. We cannot judge people’s hearts; but we can judge their confessions. If a person tells you he is not sure of his salvation, then you must not pretend to be God and tell him that you are sure of his salvation.

If you do claim that a person is saved when they are not sure that they are saved, then you are saying that you know their heart better than they do. Either that or you are saying that you have had a personal revelation from God. Do not tread on such dangerous ground if you truly have not had a divine revelation regarding another person’s eternal welfare.

Unless you are divine yourself, it is best for us to take people at their own word about their own spiritual condition. By the way, I am a fan of Wesley, even as I am not a fan of his theology, precisely because, as Warfield demonstrated, it historically encouraged some to embrace private revelations that went beyond and even contradicted God’s Word. You guys must simply read more than blogs!

Malcolm,

I assure you that I read far more than blogs. I would imagine that Chris does as well. Warfield had his own problems, but that is another subject for another day.

Chris makes an excellent point. If someone is professing faith in Christ and is telling you that they know they are saved, how are you to question that just because they do not accept the doctrine of eternal security. We are not dealing with someone who says, “I don’t know if I am saved.” You are confusing the issue. We are dealing with someone who says that, based on faith, I am confident that I am saved. But, what if I one day stop believing? Then, I could lose that salvation. We both disagree with that line of thinking. The difference is, their fear and confused theology at that point should not cause us to question the validity of their testimony today.

There are many Baptists who are certain that they are saved because they prayed a prayer, got baptized, and believe the doctrine of eternal security. Yet, many of them will split hell wide open because they have never been regenerated. They have never truly trusted Christ as their Savior. They believed a doctrine and were told they were okay. I know that you don’t believe that either, but I find no guarantee that those who believe eternal security are necessarily immune from being deluded.

The biblical issue is faith in Christ. The Galatians had accepted the Law as a means of justification before God. Paul rebuked them but did not question their salvation. He treated them as Christians that had erred. You are basing the salvation of people who have been convicted of sin, cried out to Jesus, believed in Christ, confessed their sin, repented, and have sought to live for Christ, on the teaching of eternal security. Assurance of salvation is important, but that assurance does not provide salvation. Jesus provides salvation. The Holy Spirit regenerates and testifies to us that we are saved.

One question, Malcolm: You say that believing in eternal security is necessary before a Baptist church should recognize a person as a Christian. I would ask, should we look back on our history and declare that all those who were racist and believed in racial slavery and segregation to not be Christians? Should we question the salvation of W.A. Criswell when he made his famous speech to the South Carolina state legislature? Should we question the salvation of all those who did not love their black brothers and ran off preachers who dared to apply the parable of the Good Samaritan to race relations? Should we despise our beginnings as a racist denomination and question if our founders were saved?

1 John 3:16-24 says, “16This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. 17If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? 18Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. 19This then is how we know that we belong to the truth, and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence 20whenever our hearts condemn us. For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. 21Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God 22and receive from him anything we ask, because we obey his commands and do what pleases him. 23And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. 24Those who obey his commands live in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.”

1 John 4:7-12 says, “Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. 10This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 11Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.”

Malcolm, you referred to 1 John earlier in our discussion when you said that we could have assurance. This passage says that assurance comes as we love one another. How could our Baptist forefathers have had assurance of salvation when many of them despised a whole race of people living in their midst? How could we have had true churches if they did not preach love for others?

To be clear, I do not question the salvation of our forefathers based on their unbiblical behavior. I believe that they were heavily deceived and needed to grow in knowledge and sanctification. But, I believe that I can make a stronger case for a lack of assurance of salvation based on not loving your brother than you could on whether or not you believe in eternal security. But, I would not make either case.

I do believe that Christians can be deceived by false doctrine. This is why it is so important that we teach the truth. But, when you have someone who hears the blessed gospel of Jesus Christ that they can be forgiven of their sins and that Christ can save them, I do not believe that they do not necessarily experience salvation if they were not taught eternal security. Or, if they were not taught that they were to sacrificially love black people in the 1950′s. Hopefully, they would be taught both things and that would be part of their discipleship. But, does an absence of those teachings and a call to faith and obedience in those areas keep them from being accepted as brothers? Perhaps, but if so, we have our own history to deal with. Are we prepared to be as hard our Baptist forefathers as we are on the Methodists, or will we pick and choose Scripture to suit us?

Middle East,

I never said that this man is not saved. I said, this man is not sure he is saved. After all, he said to me himself that he is not sure he is saved. Please note that at this point there is a great difference between what I said and then what you reported I said in 135. Interestingly, by the way, you began to read me correctly in number 129, but then you did not in 135.

Thanks for praying for my friend. I wish I could say more, but cannot. Your concern and prayers are deeply appreciated.

Chris,

We will have to disagree. My church believes it is important that a person knows he is saved. Yours apparently does not and that is your church’s prerogative as a free church, and I honor that prerogative, even as I disagree with your conclusion.

Alan,

Again, the point is that this man thinks he is saved today, but may not be saved tomorrow. He is of two opinions regarding the surety of his salvation. That means that ultimately he is unsure. In your pastoral counseling, you may not believe this is a problem. But I do! I do not want to affirm somebody in their doubt when they could have assurance, especially when the lack of assurance may point to an even deeper issue.

Think of a different context. Frank says he is sure he paid his taxes, but then says he is not really sure that he paid his taxes. If I am his tax adviser, should I say, “Oh, don’t worry about it. You paid it.” Should I assure him of his payments, even though I have no idea whether he paid it or not and only have his own words as my proof? He is sure one minute and unsure the next. Now, he may have paid it, but it is unprofessional of me to assure him that he paid it. It is best to go and check and get it right!

Sadly, your comment about unregenerate Baptists is likely true. What surprises me is that you are willing to be critical of Baptists, but you are apparently, at least so far in our conversation, not willing to exercise the same critical discernment toward an AG.

I agree with you that eternal security as a doctrine on its own does not provide salvation. However, one who repents, believes, and has been born again can be sure and therefore should hold to eternal security. The biblical issue is faith/repentance/regeneration, which should result in the assurance of election, or eternal security. If one lacks that assurance, that may be an indicator that there is not true faith/repentance/regeneration. Then again, it may not be an indicator; it may just be a faulty doctrine. But how do you know, and shouldn’t you help the man to make sure he is really saved?

As for past racism among Southern Baptists, like you, I would make a distinction between regeneration and sanctification. When a person is born again by faith in Christ, he is justified before God and this cannot be taken away. However, he will still struggle with sin and he must be constantly sanctified. Indeed, whole communities of redeemed men will still struggle with sin, as your example indicates.

Providentially, God has been sanctifying southerners of their racism. For this, we should praise God. Yes, slavery is a blight on our history. But fortunately, it is not a blight shared by all Baptists and free churches, for there were many who stood against slavery. Indeed, the drive for abolition arose first among the free churches in England and then crossed over into America! The problem is that Southern Baptists violated their own free church principles in accepting slavery.

By the way, take a moment to review the last chapter in my book on the Formation of Christian Doctrine for more on this issue. You will find that we share the same concerns. As for whether we should have encouraged our ancestors to consider the peril of their position, I most certainly wish that some prophetic Southern Baptists (other than Pendleton, bless his heart!) would have confronted their brothers and called them to consider their position before God because of how they treated their brethren.

Think of the benefits of confronting sin or bad doctrine boldly yet with love, Alan. Perhaps if a revival had swept the Southern Baptists regarding the sin of racism, slavery and the Civil War may not have been providentially necessary. Perhaps the centuries of pain and destruction would have been forestalled if some brave souls had stood and said, “This is wrong. You are wrong. You must repent. You cannot be sure of your salvation if you do not love the brethren, and these Africans are your brethren! Let your brothers, whom you have enslaved, go free! Be true free churchmen!”

Now, you will have to explain the following sentence to me. There are so many negatives used that it is hard to follow your meaning: “But, when you have someone who hears the blessed gospel of Jesus Christ that they can be forgiven of their sins and that Christ can save them, I do not believe that they do not necessarily experience salvation if they were not taught eternal security.”

Perhaps we will continue our correspondence tomorrow. Thank you for engaging in conversational theology with me. Fun, hugh? Blessings on each of you.

In Christ,
Malcolm

Brother Malcolm,

I do understand your position as evidenced in 129. You may want to reread your comment in 132 and consider whether or not you are representing others’ position accurately as well.

Again, I do understand your position that we cannot know if the person is “saved” or not for we cannot peer into the heart of a man. We must only go by his/her testimony. However, it seems inconsistent to me to say this and to then refuse to believe they are sure of their salvation at this point though they could possibly “lose it” at some hypothetical point in the future. If we are going to take them at their word, we must do so.

Along with you, Brother Alan, and, I would suspect, most of the readership here at SBC Today I do agree that the concept that one may “lose his salvation” is an unhelpful, even destructive, teaching. That being said, I find no evidence anywhere in the New Testament that a belief in eternal security is essential to begin a living relationship with Jesus.

Finally, in order to be consistent my comments in 95, I am officially bowing out of this conversation (unless you object). I told you I simply wanted your perspective and that is all I truly wanted. The blogosphere can so easily suck me in! The last word to you my dear brother.

His peace be yours in abundance,
From the Middle East

PS – I have only enjoyed one cup of coffee this morning. You have my apologies if all, or part, of the above comment is incoherent. But I assure you it makes perfect sense to me ;^)

Chris, Middle East,

I agree. God saves. We respond. Sometimes those who respond with saving faith are confused as to the implications of their response. This is true with both eternal security and the call to love your brother, as we have shown. Still, it does not negate their response necessarily. To sum all of this up, if we go beyond accepting the response of a person when they place their faith in Christ, repent of their sins, and seek to walk in fellowship with God, we are treading on dangerous ground. Let us hold up the precious doctrine of eternal security, but unless we have firm biblical basis, to make it necessary for salvation is inviting much error. What else will we require for salvation.

I have presented my case imperfectly. I also promised to just seek to understand Dr. Yarnell’s position. Like Middle East, I will also leave this conversation. Thank you all again for presenting your views here.

Chris, Alan, Middle East,

Again, we may not peer into the hearts of men. We may only accept their witness. If a man is not sure of his salvation, then neither may we be sure. Belief in the doctrine of eternal security is definitely not necessary for salvation, but many Baptists have made it necessary for church fellowship. We do this precisely because we want to be separate from the world, which means making sure that our members know they are separated from the world. We do this because it is a disservice to others to assure them of salvation when they themselves are not sure of their salvation. Your church has the option of being open to membership with people that are not sure of their salvation, whether today or tomorrow, but we in good conscience may not. We are free to restrict our membership and its concomitant communion accordingly, precisely because we feel this is honoring of Christ and His will for the churches as expressed in His Word.

Thanks for the conversation. The Lord’s blessings on you as you prepare to lead your church to the throne of the Lamb, tomorrow.

In Christ,
Malcolm