This is part of an article originally published January 1922 in the Southwestern Journal of Theology by Dr. L. R. Scarborough entitled, “Poisoning the Fountains of Truth.” It was republished in the most recent Southwestern Journal of Theology, “Baptists and Unity.” You can find part one here and part two here. May a voice of our past speak to us today. Below is part three of a four part series reprinting Dr. Scarborough’s essay:
2. Another way by which the fountains of truth and life of our churches can be poisoned is by doing violence to the ordinances of Jesus Christ, in depreciating their value and emasculating their testimony. This is done when a Baptist church receives baptism administered at the hands of some other organization than a Baptist church. If a Baptist preacher admits into the fellowship of his church Christians who have received baptism at the hands of pedobaptists, without requiring them to be baptized by a Baptist church, he violates the truth of God and is guilty of a heresy in ecclesiology which will eventually ruin the testimony of the ordinances and vitiate the witness of Christ’s churches. Such practice eats at the very heart of the life of Christ’s churches. Such a practice will not only injure the life of the church practicing it, but will eventually poison the fountains of truth in all of our churches
A pastor of one of the leading churches of Texas told me recently of a member from another Baptist church in Texas seeking admittance on a letter from this church, but when questioned as to her baptism she reported that she came to this other church on the baptism from a certain Campbellite church and had not been required to be baptized by this Baptist church. This pastor tells me that he promptly refused to admit this woman into the fellowship of his church. I think he did right.
There lies at this point a great danger and we should guard the fountains of truth from the poison that will come by the emasculation of the ordinances of Jesus Christ.
Reprinted with permission, Southwestern Journal of Theology
Brother Robin,
It appears that Dr. Scarborough is accentuating the value of “organizational polity” implying that Baptist only “organizations” (his word) comprise the instruments and teachings of ordinational non-depreciation and non-violence. I hope he is being specific to “pedobaptists” as violent and not all others. Do you believe that his commentary is teaching that the “some other” (which he doesn’t define very well) actually means (any) other than Baptist are violent and depreciative?
Also, when he says “our churches” what do you think he means….since in the opening paragraph in article one he says “Christ’s churches”? I’m assuming he is speaking to “SBC” birthed churches and not all of Christ’s churches that may lack the branding.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris
I believe Dr. Scarborough would include those who practice regenerational baptism as his example has shown.
Concerning your second paragraph, whether he means SBC churches, Baptist churches in general, or churches that doctrinally adhere themselves to a biblically informed Baptist tradition, I don’t know.
One thing is for sure, he felt that the importance of baptism did not only lie with mode, but with meaning also.
Thanks Robin,
There is a good book written by Thomas R. Schreiner a couple of years back on the history of baptism. He brings forward some of Campbells struggles that Dr. Scarborough seems to be addressing as well.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris
The book is “Believer’s Baptism.” and is is coauthored with Shawn Wright. It is part of the New American Commentary Studies in Bible and Theology. It is a great read and does a good job dealing with the Stone-Campbell restoration movement.
Thanks
Robin
Brother Robin,
Yes,..I thought how that particular section concering the Stone-Campbell movement was very well articulated. It may surpise many that have labeled or colored Campbell in one specific direction without understanding his apparent motive and how his contemporaries ran way ahead of him into what we see of this distinct movement today. The entire book was definitely one of the better recent compilations on the subject.
Blessings,
Chris
There can be no doubt that L.R. Scarborough was a “Baptist Identity” Baptist. You will notice in the “Poisoning the Fountains of Truth: Part Three” quote that he believed that alien immersions (non-Baptist immersions) should be rejected.
You will notice in the below quote that Scarborough also believed in Baptist perpetuity.
“Without boast or pride, but with joy and certainty, Baptists trace their lineage back to an ancient honorable beginning – to the meeting of John the forerunner and Jesus in the holy baptizing scene in the Jordan River. Through the centuries, sometimes by indistinct lines, sometimes by definite groups and mighty doctrines, they profess love for and loyalty to the teachings and principles which Christ gave to the apostolic group and are recorded in the New Testament.” L.R. Scarborough
The above quote is from his booklet “Vital Essentials Worth Preserving and Perpetuating”
Scarborough is the kind of Baptist that we need more of today in the Southern Baptist Convention. Kudos to Southwestern for republishing his article in their journal.
Ben
Now don’t go and steal my thunder. The final installment will be out in a few days.
Robin
Brother Ben,
Don’t you think though…that there are many groups and some denominations that have always claimed the same genesis and are teaching right doctrine without claiming and depending upon the label Baptist. What good is it really, to claim an exclusive right to an act of obedience that can commence or be corrected at anytime?
Is it the goal of teachers to link together perpetuity for the sake of the term “Baptist”, or is the goal of the teacher to teach the truth so that obedience can be known? It appears to me that the Southern Baptist Convention is simply a contemporary group of similar tradition that determined their beginning in the mid 1800’s.
I guess the question in my mind,…is what good is it to argue and strive for “Baptist Identity” as exclusive when identifying with Christ is obvious and brings unity?
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Chris,
You write; “is what good is it to argue and strive for “Baptist Identity” as exclusive when identifying with Christ is obvious and brings unity?”
This, I believe, is the question that is at the heart of disagreement among Baptist and Southern Baptist in particular and should provoke further understanding and dialogue.
No one, that I know, is arguing for “Baptist Identity as exclusive” when it comes to the Great Commission. Each church and individual is free to partner with and identify with any denomination one desires. Identifying with Christ is what brings unity and should in fact further our unity. However, when one begins speaking of the convention moving to partner with churches, to plant churches, that advocate an ecclesiology that promotes Bishops, alien baptism, or other non-historic Baptist positions the Great Commission is not jeopardized by the convention not being a partner. The jeopardizing of the Great Commission begins when the Gospel is not faithfully shared. Various denominations that are not willing to partner together does not jeopardize the Great Commission. If that is true then Barnabas and Paul parting ways should have stopped the 1st century church in their tracks.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Tim,
So Baptist Identity “is exclusive” when it comes to what? I am all for getting doctrine rightly divided, yet it does appear that some believe that this so-called “Baptist Identity” is somehow exclusive or they would not spend a great deal of resources proping up the argument. I’m not sure that Barnabas and Paul can be used to articulate the birthing of denominations either. I have disagreements with other leaders some of the time, but I would not think that necessarily demands a call for an exclusive disunity,..neither did Paul or Barnabas.
Blessings,
Chris
Pingback: Poisoning the Fountains of Truth: Part Four :: SBC Today