Archive for Baptism
A Testimony….from Sin to Grace…Delivered
Posted by: | CommentsMy Mom and Dad decided to go back to Church when I was a young boy. They went to the Methodist Church near where we lived in Memphis. My Mother had gone to a Methodist Church part of the time as a girl, and the other part of the time, she went to the Pentecostal Church. That was back in the day when Churches only had part time Preachers, who would preach twice a month for a Church. So, she went where there was preaching. My Dad went to a Baptist Church, when he went to Church. So, they settled on a Methodist Church in Memphis. God was doing a work in my Mother’s heart at that time thru the radio preaching of Dr. J. Vernon McGee, Oliver B. Green, Dr. Jerry Falwell, and some others. But, the Methodist Church we had joined was turning liberal; and more liberal with each passing year.
Well, I was sprinkled on top of the head with water from the Jordan River in this, liberal, Methodist Church. I was probably 11 or 12 at the time. I was truly under deep conviction at that time, but our Pastor was as liberal as they come. When I went forward to be saved, it shocked him that someone had actually came forward during the invitation. He asked me if I believed in Jesus. I said yes, and I thought who doesnt. At that time, I thought everyone believed in Jesus. Then, he asked me if I wanted to join the Church. I again answered yes. I was ready to do whatever I needed to do to get right with God. But, he sprinkled me on top of the head, and I went home that day as lost as ever.
Later, my family left the Methodist Church when we realized that every Pastor they sent us was liberal to the core. So, we went to that Church in Memphis that had this new, young Pastor that really preached the Bible like he believed it. We went to Bellevue Baptist Church. The fiery, young, Bible preacher was Dr. Adrian Rogers. Well, my family decided to join this Church. And, I got immersed there after answering the questions of the counselor down front. The questions went sort of like: Are you a Christian? I said yea, and I thought I was…I went to Church. After all, I’d gone forward in a church service, and I believed in God. And, they told us that we’d need to be immersed in order to be a member. We agreed, and we were immersed. But, I was still as lost as I could be. But, there, in that Church, my family heard the Gospel. We heard the Bible taught and preached. The truth of God was permeating my soul. But, I was a teenager, and I wanted to fit in with the crowd. So, I started living to fit in; to be a part of the crowd. Then, we moved to a little town called Hornsby, TN in Hardeman County.
Well, at Hornsby, I kept trying to be a part of the crowd; to fit in. And, after a life of sin and hedonism and rebellion against all that was holy, the Lord truly saved me one night after I had gotten drunk on Jack Daniels.I really got saved one night at the age of 19 yrs old. I had been partying all night…running from God. My Mother had told me before leaving the house that she was gonna be praying for me. Her sweet words were like a knife that stuck deep in my heart. God used those words, and all that I had heard growing up from the radio preachers and Dr. Rogers and my Sunday School teachers, to bring deep conviction to my soul. The conviction was heavy. I wanted to escape it. So, I did what I always did; I partied. I really partied. I was so drunk that night, that I had fallen out in a parking lot of a cafe in the little, Tennessee town where I went to high school, near Hornsby. And, I looked up into the sky that night, and I told God that I was truly ready to surrender my heart to Him. I was tired of my sins, and the guilt, and the shame. I told Him that I wanted Him to forgive my sins. And, I surrendered to the Lord Jesus that night in faith. Even though I’d been drinking heavy that night, at that moment, I was sober…like I’ve never been sober before. And, I had peace…sweet, sweet peace. That night, the Lord saved me, and I never was so sober in all of my life….full of love and joy and peace…real peace. I knew that I’d finally found peace with God. Now, I went to my buddy’s house and threw up the rest of the night…but, praise the Lord, I was never so content and peaceful, there in that bathroom…as I lay there on the floor all night. I had joy in my heart. I felt the love of God. And, something else, I felt that God was with me. I’d always felt lonely in a crowd before; even though I had lots of friends, and family. But, not anymore. God was with me…in me. I was changed.
So, after a period of growth and thinking on all of it, I realized that I was truly saved at the age of 19. I knew that I needed to be baptised for real…a baptism that meant something. So, I got baptised. I got baptised for real after growing in my faith and realizing that I really got saved that night in Bolivar, TN, as a 19 year old, young man…not as a child at the Methodist Church. I realized that my baptism at Bellevue Baptist was not a true baptism, either; because I wasn’t saved at that time. Thus, I truly got baptised.
So, why am I a Southern Baptist? After growing up in the Methodist Church? After living a life of hedonism and rebellion? I am a Southern Baptist kind of Christian, because the Lord saved me out of my lost, rebellious, hedonistic life. I’m a Southern Baptist Christian, because the Lord led me to a Church and a denomination that preaches the Bible. I’m a Southern Baptist Christian, because the Lord delivered me from the liberalism and heresy of the Methodist Church. He placed me in a Church with good, sound doctrine; one that preaches the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Why am I a Southern Baptist Christian? Because the Lord Jesus, in all of His mercy and grace, has provided a place for people like me to serve Him and worship Him with other Believers, who love the Lord and believe the Book. I’m so, so, so glad that the Lord Jesus called out to a lost, rebellious young redneck; and gave this angry, young man life. And, I thank Him and praise Him; I lift my hands in praise to Him; for leading me to a group of Believers, who value God’s word, who believe the Gospel. Please excuse me for a second. I want to shout. Glory, glory, hallelujah! Thank You, Jesus. Thank You, Jesus. You saved a worthless, vile sinner named David Worley, and You put His feet on solid ground. I will rejoice and praise You, forever, for Your great kindness towards me.
Landmarkists? Really?
Posted by: | CommentsJ. R. Graves, who was such a major influence for Landmarkism in W. TN and Western Kentucky, was also a major player in the development of Union University in Jackson, TN. Dr. James Pendleton was also a major influence for Landmarkism in Southern Baptist life, and he was a former President of Union University. These two men probably did more to influence the Mid South in the area of Landmarkism than anyone else. Of course, there are many others in SB history, who were real Landmarkists. Men like B.H. Carroll and J. M. Carroll, and many other, influential leaders in SB life held to this view of ecclesiology. Landmarkism slowly died in SB life, and sadly, its departure also meant that SB seemed to slowly ignore ecclesiology; began to look upon it as seemingly unimportant; or started to give it just a passing glance. That’s the way it almost appears, anyway. So, a group of people out there began to talk about good, sound ecclesiology. And, it seems in this day and age, that there are some people, who claim that Landmarkism is not dead in SB life; due to this group known as the BI(Baptist Identity) fellas stressing sound ecclesiology. They say that Landmarkism is being promoted by a group of SBC purifiers, who want the SBC to be a Landmark fortress. And, these decriers of Landmarkism claim that the so called “BI” fellas, or the “Bapstist Identity” crowd, are the ones, who are promoting this ecclesiological view. And, there have been all kinds of accusations and misconceptions floating around about what the “BI” crowd is promoting; what they actually believe. But, are the “BI” fellas really Landmarkists? Could they really be classified as Landmarkists, or do they just believe in good ecclesiology? I want us to take a look at how some of these fellas believe about doctrines that surrounds the basic beliefs of Landmarkism, and compare it to real Landmarkism. I’m going to ask a series of questions, and I’m going to ask each, so-called, “BI” fella to respond to the Landmark belief, or to the misconceptions of some people out there, with his view of these things. Then, let’s compare that to true, real Landmarkism. Answering these questions are: Robin Foster; Matt Brady; Wes Kenney; and David Worley(Me).
Question #1: Do you believe that a Southern Baptist Church can trace it’s beginning to the Lord Jesus Christ? that there’s been a trail of blood? that a true, SB Church has been in existence from Jesus until now; as the Landmarkists believed?
Robin: I don’t believe that JM Carroll’s trail of blood is correct in its theory. I do believe there has been a “free church” tradition witness throughout history, whether or not one can call it a “Baptist” tradition as we see it today I question. Baptist churches, as we know them today, I believe got their start from Smyth and Helwys, while we have a spiritual connection with the Anabaptist of the reformation.
Matt: True churches have existed from the time of Christ and will exist until He returns. I believe my Southern Baptist church to be one of those true churches. I am not so concerned with the ability to list the particular name of every true church that has ever existed in historical and geographical order back to the church at Jerusalem as the Roman church tries to do with popes back to Peter.
Wes: If by that do you mean that the baptism of everyone in my church can be traced back through churches authorized to baptize in an unbroken line all the way back to the Apostles, then no, I don’t believe that. I believe that there have always been, since the time of the Apostles, faithful New Testament churches in existence, and I base this belief on Jesus’ promise that He would build His church, and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it (Mt. 16:18).
David: I agree with the others that the trail of blood idea of J.M. Carroll is not correct. I do believe that there has always been NT churches in existence thru out history. I don’t believe that they were Baptist churches, and I know that they weren’t Southern Baptist churches. But, they were NT churches, which preached the Gospel.
Question #2: Do you believe in closed communion? that only the members of a local Church should take the LS together, as Landmarkists believe?
Robin: No. We practice “close” communion which to our understanding is inviting anyone to the table who has received Jesus as their Lord and Savior and has participated in believers baptism by immersion. With this, I do believe that communion is a church ordinance and should only be practiced among the gathered local church.
Matt: Our church follows close communion. Just as a family gathers together around the meal table, it is the church family that should gather together around the Lord’s table. If we have others of like faith and practice in attendance, we do not forbid them as I suspect that the believers at Troas did not forbid the Apostle Paul when he met with them on the day they celebrated the Lord’s Supper (Acts 20:7). Occasionally we will have guests that will be invited to eat with us at the table.
Wes: While I am sympathetic to this view based on Paul’s warning against partaking without “discerning the body” (1 Cor. 11:29), I am also in harmony with the Baptist Faith and Message on this point, and have no problem serving in churches which admit anyone who has been scripturally baptized to fellowship around the Lord’s table.
David: I believe in a modified close communion view. I do believe that the LS is a Church ordinance. I do believe that it should be observed by the Church, with others of like faith being welcomed to participate. I do believe that baptised Believers should participate in it. I do not believe in being so rigid that we’d have the LS police making sure that only baptised Believers of like faith are taking the LS with us. I would not make a big deal out of who should, and who should not be taking it. But, when I preached on it, and when we begin the LS; I would gently remind everyone about these things.
Question #3: Do you believe that SB Churches are the only true Churches out there in our world today, as Landmarkists believe that Baptist churches are the only true churches?
Robin: No.
Matt: By definition a Southern Baptist church is one that gives money to missions through the Southern Baptist Convention. Giving through the SBC cannot possibly be the measure of a true church as true churches existed long before 1845.
Wes: No
David: No
Question #4: Do you think that only SB’s are going to Heaven? that they’re the only ones that are really saved? (This is a misconception that I continue to hear from people concerning the BI fellas)
Robin: That is just simply ridiculous. Salvation is by grace through faith and is lived out among the saints in a local New Testament Church.
Matt: Had the Conservative Resurgence not taken place, I probably would not be a Southern Baptist today, but I would still be a Christian. Salvation is determined by grace through faith and not by any organization of man.
Wes: No
David: I have to agree with Robin that it’s absolutely ridiculous that we’d even have to respond to this kind of a question, yet I keep hearing it from people. My answer is “NO.”
Question #5: What baptisms would you accept? In other words, what would be the bare, basic things that would have to be true before you would consider it a true baptism? that you would accept without asking the person to be baptised? (Landmarkists would accept only Baptist baptisms; baptisms done by another Baptist church)
Robin: Baptism by a local church, by immersion, as a symbolic representation of union to Christ, death to sin, and resurrection to eternal life, “never to die again.” Romans 6:3-11
Matt: A member of our church must be baptized by immersion after conversion by a church whose baptism is an ordinance of symbolism and obedience to our Lord’s command and not a means of grace.
Wes: I agree with the Baptist Faith and Message, which defines scriptural baptism as “the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the beliefer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer’s death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus.” The BF&M also identifies baptism as a church ordinance. So as long as someone’s baptismal experience fits this definition, and took place under the authority of a local church, then I believe it to be biblical and would encourage my church to accept it as such.
David: I agree with the Baptist Faith and Message, as well.
So, hopefully this will clear things up just a little bit about who these “BI” guys are, and what they really believe. Maybe? I hope so.
A Clear Statement from Committee on Resolutions
Posted by: | Comments
In perusing the churches represented by the various ones being appointed to committees I am beginning to see signs of encouragement. For example the following statements are found on the websites of some being appointed to the Committee of Resolutions.
In this first statement I have not placed emphasis on any statement. The bold emphasis and large capital letters are placed there in the website. Thus, the church seems to desire that one understand their belief concerning Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
Baptism
We believe that the baptism taught in the New Testament is by immersion. Baptism is an act of obedience by a person who has received Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Baptism does not have power to save or forgive us from sin, but the message of baptism is significant:1) Baptism is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Savior.
2) Baptism also is a picture of the believer’s death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life, in Christ Jesus.Therefore, baptism is a personal statement of your faith in Jesus Christ. Baptism doesn’t make you a believer . . . it shows that you already believe.
Who Should Be Baptized?… Every person who has believed.
“Those who believed and accepted His message were baptized…” Acts 2:41
“Simon himself believed and was baptized…” Acts 8:13
“But when they believed Philip as he preached the Good News…and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” Acts 8:12Jesus never asked His disciples to remember His birth. But He did instruct them to remember His death and resurrection. The Lord’s supper is a memorial meal that was instituted by our Savior the night in which He was betrayed and delivered to die for our sins on the cross. As is true of baptism, we are not saved by eating the Lord’s Supper. It is a memorial of the death of Christ, that we may always remember His sacrifice for us. When believers observe the Lord’s Supper they proclaim His death until He comes again.
Who may take the Lord’s Supper? . . . Those who have trusted Jesus as their Savior and Lord and who have been baptized in obedience to His command.
Do Baptisms Matter Anymore?
Posted by: | CommentsIn our day and age of ecumenical awareness and knocking down the walls of denominations, are baptisms important to people anymore? to Churches? With all of the people saying that they would accept any ole kind of baptism, whether it be sprinkling, pouring, or whatever, is it important about the kind of baptism you have? With some people in Southern Baptist Churches saying that they would accept any baptism, as long as the person was saved, and the baptism was by immersion, is it important who does the baptizing? I mean, if momma’s can baptise their children in the backyard mudhole after they lead little Johnny, or Susie, to the Lord; and it be acceptable to a SB Church; does that not scream some things loudly about that Churches view of baptism? So, do baptisms matter anymore? Are people even concerned with a doctrine and practice that seems to be a very important one as you’re reading the NT.
I really believe that part of the problem today, which some people and some Churches have in some areas of ecclesiology, is that they have a John Wayne, rugged individualist, “I did it my way” mentality. And, this mentality rubs off on their view about baptism, and really, about the Church in general. And, we see this in the thinking of people when they say things like, “I ‘m satisfied with my baptism, so I don’t want to get baptised by a Baptist Church. I want to join your Church without being baptised again.” We see this kind of thinking when Pastors say things to the effect that it doesn’t matter if a new convert is baptised by an individual person in a hot tub, or if they’re baptised with the Churches presence and by the Churches blessing. It doesn’t matter to them that the Church is not involved in the baptism. Why? because it’s an individual thing, rather than a Church thing. In their view, it is a personal thing that happens outside of the Church.
You know, when you look in the Bible, baptism is a group thing; not a “lone Cowboy on the range, riding in the sunset as the coyotes howl” thing. The Lord set up the Church to be a fellowship of Believers. The Church is supposed to be where people are baptised, and taught the Word of God, and discipled, and encouraged. The Church is supposed to always be a group of Believers, who are seeking the Lord together. So, why would baptism not be a Church ordinance? Why would baptism be something that an individual could just do…out there… somewhere….apart from the Body? Why would the Church today let Western philosophy turn baptism into an individuals own personal possession, rather than something that the Church does and participates in? Could it be for convenients sake? Could it be to get more members in their Church, because they know that some people will not join their Church if they have to have a proper baptism? Could it a real reluctance to deal with controversy on the part of a Pastor? Could it be ignorance of the Bible? Could it be the desire to “fit in” with the greater, evangelical group out there? To accepted by the “cool group?” What do you think?
Well, baptism is supposed to be a testimony of the person’s conversion. Baptism is supposed to declare a message, the Gospel, to the people watching it. Baptism is supposed to be a symbollic picture of the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord. Baptism is a picture of the blood of Jesus washing away the guilt and punishment of our sins. Baptism is supposed to be a way of formally accepting a new born baby in Christ into the Church. So, why would people even think that it’s something that’s an indvidual thing? Why would they even want baptism to be an individual ordinance, rather than a church ordinance?
Folks, baptism is a time to celebrate the new birth. Baptism is a time to rejoice in the salvation of a person. Baptism is a very special thing, and it’s something that all the Church should have the privilege to participate in. Baptism is a time for the entire Church to join with the baptismal candidate in this wonderful ordinance given to the Church by the Lord Jesus. How much would be lost and missed if everyone was just out there baptising people in their own, private hot tub, or swimming pool, or local swimming hole in the creek? I think a lot would be missed. We would be missing much of what the Lord intended to do in the life of a Church, if the Church is not allowed to participate in the baptism of new converts.
So, who should get baptised? Of course, those people who get saved by grace thru faith. Acts 2:41. Acts 10:44-48. Acts 16:30-34. How should they be baptised? By immersion. Matthew 3:13-17…Jesus came up straightway out of the water. The very word for “baptise” in the Greek means to dip under, to immerse. So, if you want to do it right, the way the Bible clearly teaches, then it must be a dipping under; an immersion. What should baptism be about? It should be a declaration to the community that a person has been saved. It should be a testimony that the person has truly, sincerely put their faith in Jesus, and they’re willing to obey Him as their Lord. Who should baptise? The Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Great Commission was given to the Church. Matthew 18:20. The beginning of the Church was standing before the Lord Jesus that day. The Apostles were standing there, who were commissioned to preach the Gospel to the world, and baptise the new converts, and disciple them. They were the men that God used to get the Church that the Lord Jesus founded going. The Church should be the one who baptises new converts, so that they are involved with a Church family; to be nurtured in the faith; encouraged; taught; loved; affirmed; accepted; challenged; inspired; and given much needed guidance. The Church is the one, who was given this task by the Lord Jesus, it’s Head.
So, what a Church believes about salvation and baptism does matter. Who is doing the baptising does matter. It says a lot about a person’s beliefs. I mean, if you get baptised in the Church of Christ, then you are identifying with their view of baptismal regeneration and works salvation. If you get baptised by a Mormon Church, then you are saying that you agree with them about works salvation, denying the Trinity, denying the atoning death of the Lord Jesus. If you get baptised by an Assembly of God Church, then you’re agreeing with them that salvation is not an eternal work of God; that it’s something that can be lost. If you get baptised in the Methodist Church, sprinkled on top of the head, then you were not properly baptised by immersion. And, these are not true baptisms. Now, I’m not saying that these people aren’t saved. They most certainly could be saved. But, their baptism is not a valid, proper, true baptism. They should be baptised for the right reasons, and in the right way.
Now, please don’t come into the comment section calling me a Landmark Baptist. lol. I don’t believe that Baptist Churches are the only true Churches, or that we can trace our lineage back to Jesus, or that SB’s are the only ones who can baptise. Puulease. Listen, if Muddy Creek Community Church believes like we do about salvation and baptism, then we should accept their baptism as a true baptism. If Possum Ridge Bible Church believes as we do about salvation and baptism, then I believe they have a true baptism. So, please don’t come in here with all the Landmark comments. I really don’t have the time, nor the energy to deal with that malarky. But, I do believe that baptism is important. And, it should be done right, and for the right reasons. And, I most certainly believe that it should be a Church thing.
A Heritage of Faithfulness
Posted by: | CommentsThis post was originally published on my own blog over three years ago. It was published in the midst of a controversy within my state regarding baptism and church membership, but the truth it contains is as applicable today as then.
My grandfather, Glen Wesley Smith, was an alcoholic. Thankfully, God saves alcoholics, and on Mother’s Day, 1950, He saved my grandfather, and called him to preach, which my grandfather faithfully did from the following Sunday until his retirement in 1983. Even after retirement, he served as interim pastor at the First Baptist Church in Poteau, Oklahoma, where he grew up. He passed away in 1989.
Among the great treasures he passed down to me is a large satchel, filled to overflowing with sermons he typed himself. I probably have close to a thousand of these typed sermons, along with a couple of well-marked Bibles. Frome time to time, I like to thumb through these yellowed pages. It often makes for great study, and, as I don’t really have clear memories of my grandfather in the pulpit, they serve as a way for me to visualize him there, preaching the Word. Read More→
Podcast Episode 3
Posted by: | Comments
Well, it’s that time again, and here for your amusement is episode 3 of the SBC Today podcast. We were down a voice or two this week, but what we lacked in quantity, we made up in no appreciable way whatsoever. But we did have fun.
In this episode, we begin with a bit of talk about the GCR Taskforce and the NAMB trustee meeting. At the time of recording the GCR Taskforce had not yet begun their meeting, and the NAMB trustees were in executive session, so there really wasn’t much to discuss. We ended the program with prayer for both groups.
We also talked about polyamory, which is every bit as strange as it sounds. And in the middle, taking up the bulk of the time, is a discussion about the local church, the Great Commission, and baptism.
We hope you enjoy these podcasts. You can listen using the player below, or subscribe in iTunes and have them automatically downloaded each week when they’re ready. And while you’re at our iTunes page, give us a rating and/or a review. We welcome your feedback and suggestions, which you can leave in a comment on this post or by email. Just click on “About” at the top of the page, and you’ll find email links for each member of the team.
As always, here are links to some of the things we discussed.
- NAMB Trustee meeting
- GCR Task Force prayer page
- Dave Miller’s original sbcIMPACT post
- Wes Kenney’s response post
- Dave Miller’s second sbcIMPACT post
- Albert Mohler on “polyamory”
Episode 3: Us versus I
Posted by: | CommentsDave Miller wrote a post last week, published at sbcIMPACT, asking questions about the proper approach to baptizing children who have made a profession of faith. Much of his post focuses on his own approach to the question, and in this post of nearly 2,300 words, the word “church” appears twelve times. About half of these occurrences comes in legitimate criticism of the practice of another church, or when Dave is describing the actions of the apostles and others in the church in Acts with regard to baptism. The other half comes in this paragraph:
There is little or no evidence of church oversight of the process of baptism in the early church. This is not germane to my topic and runs the risk of diverting the discussion from the subject of children’s baptism. But [I] see no place in which a baptism was put through the mechanism of a local church before it was performed. Philip did not consult the Jerusalem church when he baptized the Samaritans. Peter probably knew that the baptism of Gentiles would create problems among the apostles, but he did not stop to seek consent before he baptized Cornelius. The evidence seems to lead us to an immediate baptism upon profession of faith. I am not against church supervision of the process, but wonder where the biblical support for that idea is.
What troubles me about this post is not necessarily the conclusion at which Dave arrives. I am personally inclined to agree that baptism should follow as closely as possible after someone makes a credible profession of faith. But I am stunned by his apparent lack of recognition of the authority of Christ given to the church in the Great Commission as it relates to baptism. Baptism, as is well described by the Baptist Faith and Message, is an ordinance of Christ and an ordinance of the church. That is, it is a command of Christ, given by our Lord to His church to administer. What this means is that these questions, while they make for interesting debate and discussion, cannot ultimately be answered by any one of us. They must be answered by the body of Christ, gathered in His name, and speaking with His authority. If we’re going to have a Great Commission Resurgence, there must first be a clear understanding of the responsibilities given to the church in the Great Commission.
Dave makes it clear in his post (in the paragraph I quoted above) that he doesn’t want to get sidetracked in the comments on this post by a discussion of the church’s role, claiming that what he wants to discuss is the appropriate age for baptism. But an understanding of the proper role of the church in baptism will lead us to realize that this isn’t a question that can be answered in a comment thread; you need a church to answer it. As the church speaks with the authority of Christ, it is up to the church to determine whether a child is a valid candidate for baptism.
I am convinced that, like so many of the challenges we face, this is a result of an inordinate emphasis on individualism. Because our society so values individual identity, we let that seep into our understanding of the Bible. We read passages that were intended to apply to the church as though they were intended for us as individuals.
As an example, think about 1 Corinthians 3:16, which says, “Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?” (ESV) How many times have you been taught, or taught yourself, that this is a reference to the indwelling of the Spirit in the believer, and it is an admonition to take care of our bodies? While that is a true and biblical principle, it is not what is being taught by the Spirit-inspired apostle in this verse. Both occurrences of “you” in this verse are in the plural, and this verse is addressed, like all of 1 Corinthians, to “the church of God that is in Corinth.” (1:2)
We must come to the place where we recognize the damage this individualistic focus is doing to the life of our churches. It permeates our thinking, and unless we recognize it and actively combat it, it will continue to harm our understanding, about baptism and so many other areas of the life of the church. Though Dave only manages to squeeze 12 mentions of the word “church” into his nearly 2,300-word post, I could not help but notice the prevalence of self-references:
“I” 43 times
“me” 13 times
“my” 11 times
We hear a great deal today about ordering the relative importance of doctrines. My concern is that if we fail to address this unhealthy emphasis on individualism that has seeped into our views of the church, ecclesiology will be the latest doctrine tossed into the category of “non-essentials.”
Poisoning the Fountains of Truth: Part Three
Posted by: | CommentsThis 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
Messages on Ordinances
Posted by: | CommentsOn behalf of my brothers here at SBC Today, I have the privilege of presenting our readers video of two excellent messages from Dr. Russell Moore, dean of the School of Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
In these sermons, preached at Highview Baptist Church in Louisville, Dr. Moore presents a biblical understanding of the importance of Communion and Baptism–ordinances given to God’s people to be carried out in our churches.
His message on the Lord’s Supper, the first one posted below, is, “Communion (Really).”
His message on Baptism is, “Dead Man Washing.”
I pray that you are challenged, renewed, and encouraged by these messages from Dr. Moore. May we be faithful in our proclamation of what Christ has done for us as we look forward with enthusiastic anticipation at what He has promised.
Communion (Really) from Russell Moore on Vimeo.
Dead Man Washing from Russell Moore on Vimeo.
Atheist Affirms Believers Baptism
Posted by: | CommentsIn perusing the blogs I ran across an interesting blog article. It referenced a story about groups of atheists and secularists seeking to be “de-baptised”. In this story the atheist and secularist affirm that baptism should be done by those who make a conscious decision to do so. Do not get me wrong, I am not saying these atheists and secularists are doing this on a theological conviction based on scripture. I am saying that they are using the argument that we Baptists have used for years–an infant does not have the capacity to affirm their profession of faith in Jesus Christ. We Baptists base our conviction on scripture, not concerning an infant’s capacity to decide, but on the example of Jesus and the Greek word used to describe baptism.
John Hunt, a 58-year-old nurse, began the movement when he applied to be “de-baptised” from his faith. Following the legal counsel from the Church of England, he published an announcement in the London Gazette. Hunt held that he was too young to make any decision when he was christened at five months old. We now have atheists and secularists affirming what Baptists have advocated for years–infant baptism is nothing more than a religious practice that means nothing to the person involved.
Baptism by immersion is a personal decision made by a believer. This decision should be based on a clear conviction of that believer that scripture calls one to this step. One identifies with the Lord Jesus Christ through this act and that should never be taken lightly. Nor should it be dumbed down because others try to call one pharisaical because of the insistence on baptism by immersion.
