Archive for BF&M
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.
Baptists? Methodists? Presbyterians? Charismatics?
Posted by: | CommentsSomething that I’ve been observing for quite some time now, and especially here lately, is that a lot of people, who belong to Baptist Churches, could join a Church of another denomination and couldn’t tell any difference. I can’t tell you of the people that I have heard say things like…”Well, there’s not that much difference between us Baptists and the Methodists, right?” Inside of me, I’m screaming, “Yes! Yes! How could you even begin to think that?” I’ve heard people make the comment that there’s really not that much difference between us and the Assembly of God Church, or the Presbyterians. And, in my sinking heart, I’m thinking, “What? How could you be a member of a Baptist Church for so long of a time and not know that there’s a huge Read More→
One Lord, One Vote
Posted by: | CommentsA good deal of discussion in Baptist life, even some on this site, has focused upon the role of elders in the church. How should those who hold this biblical office fulfill their role within the congregation, and how should they relate to the members of the church? Much of this discussion goes ultimately to the question of how the church is governed. Is it to be ruled by elders, or are the elders to lead, with the responsibility for making decisions remaining with the congregation as a whole? As Southern Baptists, we have clearly and, I believe, biblically, answered this question in our statement of faith.
Read More→
Biblically Centered, Distinctively Baptist
Posted by: | CommentsIn a day when some want to remove Baptist from our names and even distance ourselves from the name “Southern Baptist”, we have a college that is making strides to do otherwise. Truett-McConnell made great strides at their last trustee meeting to bring their faculty under accountability and strengthen their relationship with Southern Baptists. Thank God for the leadership of a Board of Trustees that is not afraid to step forward and boldly confess they believe in the inerrancy of the Word of God and that they are Baptists.
Enjoy the article from the Christian Index.
Acts 29 and Southern Baptist Polity
Posted by: | CommentsBefore the outset of this post let me say that this piece is not meant to criticize Acts 29. They have the right to organize the planting of churches as they feel they are led by the Lord. This post is to show the clear irreconcilable difference in ecclesiology between Acts 29 and the Baptist Faith and Message when it comes to church governance. It is also intended to show why a church planter cannot honestly accept support from the North American Mission Board and Acts 29 while affirming both ecclesiastical statements as they both drastically differ. I have no animosity towards Acts 29 and wish them God’s best in wisdom and guidance.
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
Great Commission Resurgence–Updated with FAQ
Posted by: | CommentsI would encourage all of our readers to click here to see the Frequently Asked Questions section of the GCR Declaration website. It answers many of the questions that have been bantered back and forth since this document was first posted and then changed.
This section to the declaration has cleared up a great turmoil within me from the beginning. I was asked how I could sign a document that Wade Burleson and Rick Garner signed with language about the BF&M 2000 being a sufficient guide? Let’s face it, those words sound vaguely familiar to the Garner Motion of 2007. You will likely remember that we bantered back and forth on the internet as Brother’s Burleson and Garner employed that motion to keep the BF&M 2000 as a maximal guide for our trustees in our various entities. However, I remember hearing Dr. Akin at the SEBTS alumni luncheon clearly state that the BF&M 2000 was a good summary expressing our common beliefs for working together. When I signed this declaration I was employing Dr. Akin’s understanding of that phrase and not the understanding of those who desire to see a maximal interpretation of the phrase from the motion passed in 2007.
I applaud those leading the GCR Declaration for clarifying the phrase; to look to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 as a sufficient guide by their explanation in the FAQ section:
It does not mean it is a maximal document that precludes the convention from speaking to important issues that may arise, or our agencies addressing theological and practical issues specific to their context. However, when the convention or an agency considers addressing an issue not covered in the Baptist Faith & Message, godly wisdom should be sought and we should be careful not to slide into either legalism or an abuse of our freedom in Christ.
A Humble Response to the GCR Document and a Dialog with Dr. Reid
Posted by: | CommentsRecently, Dr. Alvin Reid responded to a post I wrote after last year’s convention. We have since exchanged very affirming emails and I was truly honored by his generous and kind response. In the post last year, I had some questions concerning what the Great Commission Resurgence (GCR) was all about because it seemed to be a new buzz term that everyone was excited over, but could not exactly explain on what it all entailed. Since that time several items have been written concerning the GCR and I am happy that Dr. Akin, Dr. Hunt and others were able to put together the new GCR 10 point document. There are several items that I affirm in this document: Lordship of Christ, Baptist Identity, gospel-centeredness, faithful Biblical preaching, and Biblical inerrancy just to name a few. But, I do have some issues in which I either desire further clarification or additional information that are discussed below.
Different Opinions but Similar Concerns
Posted by: | Comments
Dr. Bart Barber over at Praisegod Barebones has presented an articulate rendering of the reasons he cannot add his signature to the Twelve Axioms of a Great Commission Resurgence. I signed this document as one that is taking this document at face value. Dr. Barber, while he takes it at face value, presents some convincing arguments for not signing the document. His most convincing argument stems from his historical discipline. The call for restructuring is an open ended call with no exact reasons other than the bloated bureaucracy. It seems that we heard that call less than 15 years ago and we still have a bloated bureaucracy.
As I said earlier, I have already added my signature to this document and I am excited about doing so. I will gladly get on the train. I certainly do not want to nor need to drive the train, but I surely desire to step up and blow the whistle. Neither does Dr. Barber desire to drive the train and I am certain he desires to blow the whistle also, but his caution is one worth noting. As we ride this Great Commission Resurgence train let’s begin defining a phrase like a sufficient guide. On what track will this phrase place this Great Commission Resurgence train? We certainly need to call for this movement to take place in the local churches. This is the only track that will take this train into the future. As the Great Commission Resurgence moves the convention forward the train must be driven by the local church. Any convention that is led by the bureaucratic servants ceases being a convention and becomes a denomination. If that happens the convention will then be defined by the leaders of the entities and not the people in the pew.
I believe that Dr. Barber has raised some valid concerns. He and I do not agree on the signing of this document as I see no problem placing my name on it. However, we do share the same concerns about the track this train is running.
