At its annual meeting in Indianapolis in 2008, the Southern Baptist Convention spoke clearly on the issue of regenerate church membership. This is an area in which many SBC churches (my own included) have struggled greatly. At an earlier time in our convention’s history, it was not at all uncommon for a church with 100 members to average 200 or more in weekly attendance. We have turned that right around in the last century or so, and that’s not a good thing. We’ve taken membership and discipline far less seriously than we ought, and our witness as churches has suffered for it. It is indeed sad that a person who may have walked an aisle, repeated a prayer, and been immersed in a tank of water when they were seven years old can, at the age of 50, say with a straight face that they are a member of the church where these events took place when they have not attended a service for three decades or more. What is even sadder is that the church might be more concerned with offending someone than they are with the spiritual condition of their erstwhile “member.” Yet this situation, in some variation or other, is played out countless times in churches throughout our convention.

Several years ago, a blogger named Brad Williams published a post in which he shared a letter his church had sent to “members” that nobody knew how else to contact. In the post, he shares the text of the letter, along with the rationale behind it, listing four reasons why the church’s bloated membership roll was biblically unacceptable. While I agree with all of his reasons, I’d like to highlight his fourth reason in particular:

“4. It lessens the high commitment Jesus calls for in Christian life and service, and it makes a sham of the Lord’s Supper table.”

We need more pastors who will take the doctrinal stand that Williams did. However, it fascinates me to see that there are those within our convention, perhaps even some who teach in our seminaries, who seem to be advocating an abandonment of any connection between the Lord’s Table and the covenant community of believers. This is especially interesting to me in light of our convention’s clear statement on the importance of regenerate church membership. Our confession of faith unambiguously recognizes that biblical baptism is prerequisite to participation in the Lord’s Supper. Therefore, in an environment in which Southern Baptists seem to be recognizing the need to take church membership more seriously, I believe we should take the Lord’s Supper more seriously.

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.

Today we have the honor of bringing you a guest post by our good friend Dr. Malcolm Yarnell, Associate Professor of Systematic Theology, Director of the Oxford Study Program, Director of the Center for Theological Research, and Editor of the Southwestern Journal of Theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

In this post, Dr. Yarnell addresses the depth of the biblical witness regarding the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper for churches.

Recently, a friend passed me the link to a video promotion for a DVD entitled “Communion.” It is an interesting video (and painfully slow, so be warned!) It is interesting in that the author(s) seems to present the Lord’s Supper as indiscriminately intended for all sinners. But this is too simple of a solution, and does violence to the biblical witness.

It is an indisputable truth that all human beings, other than Jesus Christ, are tainted by sin. This is what makes us worthy of the eternal punishment of death. Death, of course, is separation from God. And the Son of God took on our humanity in order to suffer the penalty of death for us on the cross and rise from the dead so that we might have eternal life. Christ came to save sinners from sin and its consequence of death, which ends in eternal punishment away from the comforting presence of God. One is saved through being born again, which accompanies faith in Him and repentance toward God (John 3).

Unfortunately, the video’s author, in this short promotion, presents the Lord’s Supper as being intended for all sinners indiscriminately. But is this the case? Is communion intended for all sinners? Absolutely not!

When the Corinthian church demonstrated a penchant for gross immersion in the sins of the wider culture of their day, Paul rebuked them in no uncertain terms. The point he repeatedly made in the Corinthian correspondence was that the Lord’s Supper was to be reserved only for the regenerate church. Those who were still infatuated with the sinful culture of Corinthian paganism were reminded that communion with God and communion with the devil are incompatible (1 Cor 10:20-21). The Corinthians were warned that they must be separate from the world: “‘Come out from their midst and be separate,’ says the Lord, ‘and do not touch what is unclean; and I will welcome you’” (2 Cor 6:17).

In other words, I believe that, according to Scripture, the ordinance of communion, practiced by the churches at the direct command of Jesus Christ, is to be reserved for sinners who have been born again and are pursuing a life of repentance. Are the unholy invited into communion with the Holy One? Yes, indeed. But, first, there must be a transformation prior to communion. Sinners must repent and believe; otherwise, they are still sinners subject to the judgment of God. Moreover, such repentance from sin and faith in Christ must continue to characterize the Christian’s life.

Paul warned that those who continued in sin are subject to divine judgment precisely because they were unrepentant sinners. “For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly” (1 Cor 11:29). The body must be judged. “The body,” of course, is a common Pauline metaphor for the church. Individual Christians, in other words, must examine their own consciences (1 Cor 11:28), and Christians in the local church must hold one another accountable for one another’s doctrine and conduct (1 Cor 11:29).

A concrete example in Corinth occurred with a young man involved in gross sexual sin. The speech of the Corinthian church had become so saturated with vice that she overlooked a situation by which even the pagans would be shocked (1 Cor 5:1). But rather than pass over the matter in silence, or make excuses for it, Paul called the church to take immediate action. As an Apostle, Paul recognized the need for the congregation itself to exercise governance through the application of discipline. The church must repent of its habit of condoning gross sin and excommunicate the sinner. When the church gathered, it must remove the sinful person “in the power of the Lord Jesus” and return him to the realm of Satan, i.e., the world (1 Cor 5:2-5).

The action of the Corinthian church in disciplining the unrepentant sinner was necessary, in spite of the difficulty it might bring to all involved. Yet, the difficulties were worth what seems to have been the result. Rather than continue condoning sexual sin, the majority of the Corinthian church seems to have obeyed and applied church discipline. This resulted in getting the sinner’s attention, bringing to him great sorrow, and as a result, he repented. Paul then called the church to restore the repentant sinner to fellowship (2 Cor 2:1-9). Through discipline, an unrepentant sinner who thought he was already a Christian but did not act like it, was brought to repentance and faithfulness towards Christ.

My friends, our churches must seek to maintain their public purity. On the one hand, the church will never be perfect until all Christians gather (for the first time as one) at the marriage supper of the Lamb (Rev 19:7-8). On the other hand, the members of the church are commanded by Christ to help one another towards repentance and a faithful lifestyle even now. If an individual Christian will not repent of publicly-known sin, then he or she must be excluded by the church (and only by the church–there is no room for elders arrogating to themselves the power of church discipline) for the purpose of loving redemption (Matt 18:15-17).

Let it be clearly noted that the intended outcome is, ultimately, the redemption of the sinner. Punishment is entirely in the purview of God alone, but loving discipline is given by the Lord to the church to practice when necessary. The church is to separate from unrepentant sinners in order that they might prompt one another through the covenantal life of the community to follow Christ completely.

So, we come back to the question prompted by the subject video: Is communion for sinners? Yes, but not without discrimination. Communion is only for sinners who have been born again. We know we are truly born again only because we are repenting of sin and are seeking to live lives faithful to the high call of Jesus Christ in discipleship.

Perhaps the video that prompted this short essay goes further into these matters. Unfortunately, the website does not clarify. I hope the full content is better than the presentation available publicly, for what they have posted online presents a highly distorted picture of the scriptural witness. For more on the biblical understanding of the regenerate church practicing close communion, see the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 articles on the church (art. 6) and on baptism and the Lord’s Supper (art. 7).

Jesus is the Lord of His churches, which means that He is to be followed in what He commands them.

First, the Supper is an ordinance that is to be practiced by believers. As a pastor, when I administer the Supper to my congregation, I emphasize this. As my students participated in the Tuesday evening service, the Supper was served to 3 of my students who had not accepted Christ. Therefore, they participated in an ordinance that was not intended for them and that, in contradiction to what their pastor has taught.

Second, the Supper is an ordinance which is restricted from those who are under church discipline. The church at Corinth had been infiltrated by pagan practices and immoral lifestyles. The Supper plays a prominent role in the book of 1 Corinthians, especially for the practice of church discipline. By administering the Lord’s Supper, Worldchangers runs the risk of serving the Supper to someone who may be under church discipline. If the first danger undermines the authority of the pastor of the local church, this one undermines the authority of the local church itself.

Third, it is a direct disregard for the Baptist Faith and Message. The primary definition of the church in Article VI says in part “A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the two ordinances of Christ.” The students that gather at youth camps or missions endeavors are not covenanted together. The practice of covenant belongs to the local church, and not to a mission board, youth camp, or any other organization outside of the church.

I am pleased that NAMB has suspended this practice and believe that they have made a decision to honor the local congregation, respect the leadership of the pastor, and show agreement with the Baptist Faith and Message. I see far too many detriments to the practice of the Supper outside of the local congregation, and no benefit.

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.

Concerning the Baptist Faith & Message (BF&M), There is not a clear statement that discusses its role in the life of the convention. Recent history has proven that there are two branches of thought. One branch is that it is a maximal statement (The only items trustees can deal with in their responsibility of overseeing their particular agencies are those items specifically addressed in the BF&M. If anything arises outside the parameters of the BF&M, it must be ignored). The other branch views the document as a minimal statement (Trustees, in their responsibility of overseeing their particular agencies, are entrusted by the convention to deal with various issues outside the BF&M the way God leads them for His glory). I realize that Dr. Akin has never seen the BF&M as a maximal statement, but this GCR doc is not about Dr. Akin, it is about a philosophical understanding of vision about where and how the Convention needs to progress. I believe that either branch (maximal or minimal) has major ramifications on the trustee system in place. I also believe for a GCR to be implemented in our convention, a stand must take place with a specific statement articulated on how the BF&M guides the Convention’s trustees in their oversight of the specific agencies entrusted to them.

In relation to reorganizing and streamlining the Convention, what is particularly broke? I am not saying that everything is running smoothly, but I would like to know what the framers of this GCR document believe is not working and how will a streamline reorganization fix the problem? Will NAMB be absorbed into the IMB? Will the Executive Committee be reorganized and mission redefined? Will all six seminaries come under one main centrally located administrative framework removing the current administrations of each seminary causing them to loose their own distinctiveness and autonomy? I understand the size of our convention can use some trimming to cut down on unnecessary costs and inefficient systems, but I would like to know where the inefficiencies are before I sign the document. I would like to know how reorganization would benefit the local churches of the SBC in accomplishing the Great Commission. The SBC is not responsible for accomplishing the Great Commission. It is the local church that has been given that mandate. So, how will reorganization benefit the local church in accomplishing the Great Commission?

One thing I did not discuss with Dr. Reid, but has been gnawing away at my mind is the GCR doc’s understanding of Christ having “preeminence in all things … that results in greater obedience to all that He commands” yet later the document states, “We believe that by God’s grace the BF&M 2000 will guide us in our cooperation as we attempt to discern the difference between primary, secondary, and tertiary issues, an endeavor that lies at the heart of many of our present tensions.” This is a tension in my mind. I can affirm both statements individually, yet I struggle when putting them together.

Here is the tension for me: If Christ is to have preeminence in all things, why are we classifying His commands as to what is essential and what isn’t? What about moral issues? The convention spoke out about alcohol with a resolution in 2006. What about the national debate about same-sex marriage/unions? Will these be “tertiary” issues for the GCR allowing cooperation with non-Southern Baptist mission agencies that do not agree with us in those matters? These are good questions that are in need of clarification, and while the two aforementioned statements concerning Christ’s preeminence and discernment could seem to be opposed to one another, I also understand that we will not agree down to the minutiae. There needs to be a framework by which we can cooperate.

Yet, allow me to bring up one point of doctrine and practice we treat like the uncle at family reunions that no one talks about. Communion is the second ordinance of the church commanded by Christ to be followed by His believers. While the GCR document affirms believer’s baptism by immersion, it is silent in the matter of communion. Some might think that having a statement on communion would be divisive, yet as the Great Commission states we are to, “teach them to observe all that I [Jesus] commanded.” The Lord’s Supper is the second ordinance of Christ given to His church. As I stated in this post, the BF&M has a statement concerning communion that allows a wide variety of church practices on this ordinance. For example, churches who are closed (those who teach only church members may participate), strict (those who teach only church members and transient believers from churches of like faith and order may participate), and close (those who teach that anyone who has trusted Christ for salvation and has participated in believer’s baptism by immersion may participate) can all work together according to the BF&M. Those who open the table to any believer regardless of baptism are not affirmed in our confessional statement.

To say it differently, the confessional statement of Southern Baptists does not affirm partaking of the Lord’s Supper with those who have been baptized as an infant, participated in a baptism believed to have regenerative effects, or have been sprinkled. From what I understand, communion is a hotly debated item. But, if the standard becomes how badly a church doctrine or practice creates division for deciding what is primary, secondary, or tertiary, have we not then become judges of what Christ commanded? These are only thoughts in my head that cause me to be cautious in signing the document in light of the tension I see in the Lordship of Christ and classification of His commands. In no way do I consider the framers of the GCR doc to be weak on theology or practice. Nor do I know how they feel about the debate-surrounding communion.

As I have said repeatedly in the past, I am all behind a GCR. For example, another document that I found many areas I was in agreement with was the recent resolution adopted by the SBTC that centered on the GCR. Jeremy Green authored that resolution that the SBTC adopted. In fact, I think it is the only official statement adopted by any Southern Baptist affiliated entity that deals with the GCR. I also believe that Bart Barber has put forth some great ideas in his Fifth Century Initiative that would be worthy of dialog.

In Dr. Reid’s response, he brought up the issue of trust. As I have said again and again, people like Drs. Akin, Mohler, and Hunt have been heroes in the faith for me. I was thrilled to interview Akin and Mohler a couple of years ago for our site. I especially became a fan of Dr. Akin when I heard him speak at SWBTS a couple of years ago concerning Expository Preaching. My disagreements with the GCR doc are not because of some distrust I have in these men. It is because I have legitimate questions on what is specifically meant in the document. I am not claiming Dr. Reid said I have a distrust of these men; it is only my desire to explain what I think of these men in light of the questions I have about the document.

But I also believe that trust in this situation will have to be given by all. Bart Barber, while not signing the document, has put forth some great ideas in his Fifth Century Initiative. It would be a shame to not invite him in working out the particulars of the new GCR movement. He is not only a scholar of good standing; he also takes what he teaches in the classroom and lives it out in the pastorate. He is one of the best of both worlds. Jeremy Green, who signed the document and produced the GCR document of the SBTC, would also be a person worthy of partnership in taking the GCR in practical ways to the churches. Ultimately, I believe and hope those leaders of the GCR will work with and trust men like Bart who has some questions about the document in its current form and Jeremy, who signed it.

I thank Dr. Reid for dropping by and I pray that open communication will continue. In a later email he stated that we are not enemies. AMEN!!!!! We have posted many positive posts concerning the GCR on SBC Today. I hope those who framed the GCR doc will find that I want to work with them and others who are like us in desiring to see God glorified in the churches of the SBC. My caution in not signing at this moment is not a statement of non-cooperation, but one of tensions within my own understanding of the document.

Below I am posting an email from Dr. Reid (with permission) in which he responded to some of my earlier emails. I have expanded my thoughts since that time, so he has not addressed everything. I am still in prayer over this matter and hope that with this honest and open dialog, we can glorify God in ways greater than has been seen in the past. Here is Dr. Reid’s response:

Robin:

Thanks for the opportunity to discuss these matters. Let me say at the outset
that Dr. Akin and others working on this did not want to be so bold as to try
and speak too specifically on recommendations on behalf of the convention. I
guess the catch 22 is to try and cast a vision for the future without being
so specific as to speak out of turn for the SBC, given our polity. Let me say
clearly I am not speaking for Dr. Akin, but I know him well and know him to
be a man of great humility and one who trusts the SBC system to bring about
changes. He is simply trying to speak about changes many have been
discussing.

On the BFM2000, Dr. Akin has spoken in a forum some time back (I love the
fact that each semester he does a forum to answer questions from students)
that the trustees certainly have a right to make policies specific to their
institution. So I do not perceive his comments to refer to a maximal
statement. There may be issues for a given institutional for which the BFM
does not speak specifically. But his point is that as a convention, we should
be able to allow people at the table who affirm the BFM, even if on some
issues we would disagree.

I am more comfortable speaking on the next issue, that of reorganizing. That
is the most tenuous one. Can I say that having been a Home Missionary, a
state worker in Indiana, a trustee at one institution, a Baptist University
employee, and a seminary employee, that I have seen SO much time in our
convention spent on justifying one’s denominational position than effectively
serving the Kingdom. If we became so evangelistic that we no longer needed
evangelism professors, I would not spend my life trying to hold on to my job!
As one has well said, in the CR we did not like CP funds going to pay liberal
profs (I went to Samford and had some of them, I was convinced of this!);
now, many do not like CP funds going for ineffective ministry. Now in a
convention as large as ours we will always have waste. Understood. But when
our students have to jump through NAMB, state, church, and associational
hoops, often with various criteria that do not match and without much
communication, one can at least understand why other networks would be
tempting? Years ago when serving in Indiana our WMU director bemoaned the rise of Awanas. Our Exec said perhaps we should at least ask the question why people are switching to it? We can become more efficient.

That being said, this is the one where I think a GRCD must be open ended. The convention, not a declaration, must decide this. But in his Axioms address
Dr. Akin made it clear that even if it meant SEBTS had to be reorganized, for
the Great Commission it is worth it. So once again I defer to President
Hunt’s BP release where he spoke of appointing a group to study this further,
one that would take time to listen to various constituencies. So signing the
declaration is in my opinion saying I agree we need change, for the sake of
the gospel. I respect those who do not sign it as brothers. But for those
who say we are doing just fine, let’s just keep doing what we are doing, I
could not disagree more. I think Tim Roger’s stated reasons for signing the
document make a lot of sense, for example.

I really like what you said about the churches, not the SBC, fulfilling the
GC. But of course it is not one or the other. If you search J.D. Greear’s
blog for his article on “good parachurchism vs bad parachurchism” you will
see what I mean. The SBC at the association, state, and national levels makes
HUGE decisions that effect how churches fulfill the GC. I had a student in
my office this morning who is going to Portland to help a church develop a
college ministry to 40k students. It is a NAMB funded position. That
definitely relates to how churches fulfill the GC as it relates to allocating
resources. I have conversations like this almost every day. I guess I am so
passionate about it because these students are like my children. I so yearn
for them to do well in the gospel fields. But so many of them depend on
decisions made by our entities as they go about their service to God.

But regardless, my prayer is we would come together for truth, for the
gospel. I have no doubt, I am doubly convinced, that if we do not find a way
to refocus on a biblical call to evangelism our neighbors and the nations, we
will see a much smaller SBC in a decade or two. I have spent my entire adult
life studying spiritual movements, awakenings, etc. Things do not “just
happen,” when change comes men of God take action. When they do not, decline continues. There is an inertia either way.

I am not sure this helps one bit. So sorry if it does not. But know that I
can say with a clear conscience before my God that the folks involved in this
have a love and commitment to the CR and a motive simply to fulfill the Great
Commission effectively.

Alvin L. Reid, PhD
alvinreid.com
Professor of Evangelism and Student Ministry
Bailey Smith Chair of Evangelism
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
P.O. Box 1889
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587