Archive for Convictions
Thank God for the CR
Posted by: | CommentsOne of the reasons that the CR was needed is illustrated by the recent string of articles in the Associated Baptist Press on women pastors. There are some people in our SBC sphere of existence who wish to rewrite history, and who like to think that the CR was not really needed. They think that it was all purely political, and it was an evil grab for power and control. But, the issue was definitely theological. The leaders of the CR just represented what thousands and thousands of Pastors and people in the pews were wanting to happen; praying for; and longing for someone to lead the charge. Thank God for Dr. Page Patterson and Paul Pressler and Dr. Adrian Rogers and all the others, who had the guts and the faith to lead out in this incredible endeavor. God used it and blessed it greatly.
But, what I really want you to see in this post is some of the reasons that the CR had to be, and where the SBC would be today if it had not happened. The ABP is a good place to look when trying to see what the SBC would’ve been. Look at this article: http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5411/53/ and this one: http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5410/9/ So, clearly going against the teaching of the Bible does not seem to matter to these people. They could care less that the Bible clearly teaches that only men should be Pastors/Elders in a church. This just shows their total disregard for what the Bible teaches. They’d rather fit in with society. And, this is where the SBC was going before the CR.
Also, I’ve always thought that winning souls and worshipping Jesus was at the heart of Christian ministry? I always thought that fulfilling the Great Commission was at the heart of what a Christian should be about? I’ve always thought that people knowing God and loving Him would answer the problem of man. Is that not what the Bible teaches? But, according to the ABP, the heart of Christian ministry should be something else. Now, please, dont come in here telling me that I dont believe in helping the sick and the poor. Of course, Christian compassion should lead us to help people in need, and we’re commanded to do that in the Bible. But, is this the “heart” of Christian ministry? Is this the core of what we should be about? Look at this article: http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5410/9/ Also, notice that it’s a woman that’s “preaching” it! lol. And again, this is where the SBC was going before the CR.
Also, the ABP has shown how the liberal/moderate crowd of the former SBC’ers disregard the clear teachings of the Scripture concerning homosexuality. Look at this: http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3469&Itemid=9 and this one: http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5001/9/ And then, look at this one: http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5281/53/ This is where the SBC would be today had not the CR taken place. This is the way we were going before the CR.
Folks, we need to thank the Lord that the leaders of the CR had the courage and the faith to lead our SBC back to the Bible. We need to thank God most of all for doing this great work in the SBC. God has blessed us in the SBC in great ways. God is using the SBC in tremendous ways to carry out His work on this Earth. And, we need to realize that being a people of the BOOK is the reason that God uses us and blesses us so greatly. The fact that we preach the Gospel and teach His Word is why He continues to choose to bless us and use us. And, if we ever drift away from a true faith….based on the Bible….then we’ll go the way of the other denominations and churches that left the faith. You dont have to look far to see how dead and dying these churches and denominations are.
“To Clear from Accusation or Blame”
Posted by: | CommentsThe title of this post is the Merriam-Webster definition for the word “exoneration”. I used “exoneration” in the post announcing the completed investigation of Dr. Ergun Caner. In this post I would like to explain to our readers the thought process that went into that announcement.
First, I placed the announcement there without any consultation of the other managers here at SBC Today. That post was my doing and I accept full responsibility. I know that Brothers Wes, Scott, and David have taken some serious attacks on their characters and for this I am sorry. It was never my intention to place them in such a position as to have to defend their integrity as others have hammered away.
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.
Harmony…Unity…Fellowship in the SBC
Posted by: | CommentsA conversation I had the other night, a good and productive conversation, got me to thinking about something. It got me to thinking about disagreements on doctrines in the Bible. And, I just wanted to let all of you know that I believe that it’s okay to disagree on minor issues; on the finer points of theology. In fact, I’d bet you a Krispy Kreme doughnut that none of us, Baptists, agree on every point of doctrine and theology, and that’s okay. We don’t have to agree on every jot and tittle. We can still love each other, and worship together, and fellowship with each other, and serve God together; even if we disagree on the minor, finer points of theology.
Now, on the main things, we must agree. On the main truths of the Bible, we must believe the same. On those things that are clearly spelled out in the Bible, there must be conformity. We must all surrender and yield our hearts and minds to the foundational truths of the Christian faith. We must all believe the fundamentals of the faith. Things like the virgin birth; the atoning death of Jesus; salvation by grace thru faith; the Trinity of God; etc. These are the things that would mean whether we’re even truly a Christian, or not. If someone denied the foundational truths of Christianity, then I wouldn’t even consider them to be a true Believer. But, those people that do hold to the main doctrines of the faith, I call my brother, or sister in Christ; even though they may not be Southern Baptist.
And, as Baptists, we must agree to the doctrinal distinctives which we hold dear; that we believe the Bible clearly teaches; in order to really be considered a Baptist Church. There are things that we must believe; doctrines that make us a Baptist Church. Theology that makes us a Baptist kind of Christian. Things like Believers baptism by immersion; the Lord’s Supper being a symbolic act; once saved, always saved; congregational polity, or governance; etc. If a Church can’t even agree to the BFM2K, is it really a Baptist Church? Is it really a Church that holds to what we consider to be the clear teachings of the Bible? that holds to the doctrines that would make us consider them a good, sound church? I would contend that churches must…in the least…hold to the BFM2K, in order to considered a cooperatiing, Southern Baptist Church.
But, on many, many other things, we can disagree on them all day long; and still worship and serve God together. My friends, there are many, many, finer points of doctrine that we can not see eye to eye on, and it’s okay. We can just have fun trying to convince the other fella that we’re right! Lol. But, these minor things should not cause separation, nor should they cause us to divide. They should not cause strife, nor should they be the source of contention. On the finer points of the major doctrines, we should allow for freedom; even while not agreeing with the other person. Amen? Amen!
How Lost People See Us?
Posted by: | CommentsI was reading the On Mission magazine from NAMB when I saw a study done by the Barna Research Group. The research was done to show how lost people between the ages of 16 to 29 see evangelical Christians. I’m not sure why this is so important, nor what you and I can do with this research. I mean, lost people are not gonna like Christians. The Lord told us this. Did He not? Matthew 10:22 (English Standard Version) says that ”you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.” In the book of Luke 6:22 (English Standard Version), the Bible says that “Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man!” And, in 2 Timothy 3:12 (English Standard Version) we’re promised that “Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.”
So, when the research tells us that 91% of non-Christians see evangelicals as anti-homosexual, what are we supposed to do? Quit saying that homosexuality is a sin? Because, I’ll guarantee you that no matter how nice you try to say it, and no matter how many times you say that you love the homosexual person; whenever you say that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin, people are gonna accuse us of being anti-homosexual. I’ve seen this first hand on more than one occasion. The lost crowd just does not want to hear that it’s sin against God; plain and simple.
And, when 87% of the lost crowd sees evangelical Christians as judgmental, are we supposed to stop calling sin what it is…”sin?” Because, listen, the lost, rebellious crowd will say this just because we call sin by it’s ugly name. That’s just how a lost person is, when they’re living in those sins. They don’t like for their sin to be brought to light. And, once again, no matter how nice and loving you try to be, once you name a sin as a sin, especially one that a person is living in; then you’re labeled as judgmental. Go on a talk show, and as nice and as lovingly kind as you can possibly say it; say that any sex outside of the marriage boundary is a sin against God. See how the crowd responds. It wont be pretty.
Okay, the next thing on the research list is that famous old, worn out line that a lot of lost people like to use about evangelical Chrisitans. 85% of the lost crowd sees us as hypocritical. So, what’s new here? I’ll bet this has been said ever since Noah first lifted a hammer and told people to get right with God, because it was gonna rain. Christians have faults and shortcomings. Every Christian sins; every last one of us. We all fail to be all that God wants us to be. So, everytime a Christian fails God, the lost crowd is waiting to pounce on it like a coyote after a fat, plump bunny rabbit. I think it makes them feel better about their own sins, when they can call Christians “hypocrites.” I think it eases their consciences just a little bit to point out the failures of a Believer. It gives them a good excuse to stay lost. And, you know what, lost people just dont understand grace. Again, what do we do with this info? I mean, we cant stop sinning. We’re gonna sin. We’re gonna fail God. So, what good is it to know this info? How does this help us? What in the world can we do with it?
Now, I’m not gonna go over every single research item that was listed in the Spring 2010 On Mission magazine by NAMB. But, here are the other topics: Non-Christians see evangelicals as Old Fashioned 78%; Too involved in Politics 75%; Out of Touch with Reality 72%; Insensitive to Others 70%; Boring 68%; Not Accepting of Others Faiths 64%; Confusing 61%. Well, some of these things we can work on. The old fashioned thing can be remedied, and it is being remedied by many, many Churches with contemporary music, technology, and dressing more cool and hip at Church. The “Too involved in Politics” thing is something that we’ll always be accused of, if we ever take a political stand for moral reasons. I do agree that some Pastors are too involved in politics. But, I’m glad that some Christians feel led to get into politics, in order to do good. And, any political stand that we take will be seen as too much for a lot of the lost crowd out there
Now, I’d imagine that evangelical Christians will always be looked upon as being out of touch with reality by the lost crowd. After all, we look thru the lens of faith at the world, and the lost crowd doesn’t. We can work on being more sensitive to others, but I doubt that us being more sensitive to others will ever be good enough for the lost crowd. The boring thing….well, I was bored with worship and Bible study and prayer, too, back when I was lost and living in sin. It didn’t do anything for me, as a lost person. I doubt that there was anything that could’ve been done to make it less boring for me, as long as I was lost and living in sin. Then, the “Not Accepting of Other’s Faiths” thing…well, this is just how it’s always gonna be. How could it ever be seen as any different? I mean, as Christians, who believe the Bible, Muslims are lost and wrong, and they worship a false god. Buddhists are lost, and they will not go to Heaven. Jews are not going to Heaven when they die, unless they put their faith in Jesus as their Messiah. Mormons are involved in a cult, and they definitely worship a false god. So, how in the world could we ever change this perspective, and still be true to God and to His Word? The Bible is exclusive. God is exclusive. All dogs don’t go to Heaven.
You know what I think? I think that the lost, rebellious crowd is always gonna view us, Christ Followers, as a strange and peculiar people, no matter what we do. I think that the lost crowd is gonna look upon us in a bad light, no matter what. I think that the lost crowd is not gonna be accepting of our beliefs, nor change their view of us, unless we’re willing to compromise our faith. They will look upon us in a bad way, unless we’re willing stop living for the Lord. I knew this before this study was ever done, and we all knew this before NAMB chose to put it in their magazine. I mean, I didn’t expect to win any popularity contest in the arena of the world, as a Believer. Who does? Anyone? The simple fact is that the lost crowd does not like us due to our walk with God; due to our being a follower of Jesus; due to us calling sin what it is; due to us preaching the Gospel….exhorting them to repent and put their faith in Jesus.
I’m not really sure why NAMB put this in their magazine, nor what we’re supposed to do with this study; but I’m sure that there’ll be some wimpy Christians out there that this will really disturb. There will be some namby, pamby Christians out there, who’ll be really upset that the lost crowd doesn’t like us. And, they’ll want to make every change possible to “get the lost crowd to like us.” Why? Why are there some Believers out there, who think like this? Who think that we have to please the worldly crowd? Who think that we have to be acceptable to the lost bunch? Who honestly think that somehow we can “make the lost people out there like us and accept us?” Who think this study is even important to know?
Are we gonna stop preaching against the sins of adultery and fornication and lying? Are we gonna start preaching that “all dogs go to Heaven?” Do we need to start telling homosexuals that “you’re ok, and I’m ok?” Are we gonna start having scantily clothed dancing girls in our church, so that the men will not be bored? And, sign up men from the church to be in our newly formed, worship leaders group the “Holy Chippendales,” so that the ladies will be more excited about coming to church? Do we need to start advertising that pre-worship cocktails will be available in the lobby? Maybe that’ll make the lost crowd feel better about us? or, at least, less bored with our worship?
I dont think so. I think that what we really need is for Christians to be more like the Believers in the book of Acts, and turn our world upside down. I really think that we need to trust the power of the Holy Spirit to call people to salvation. I really think that we need to preach the Gospel, stand on the truth of God’s Word, and leave the results to God. I really think that we should tweak how we do worship without violating Scripture; be creative in our outreach without getting stupid or crazy; and be open to making sensible changes that might open doors for us to able to reach lost people, without compromising our faith. Now, please know that I was not saying that NAMB, nor Barna, was saying anything about compromising, nor even hinting at compromising. I’m really not sure why they felt that this study was important. Maybe they just did it, and printed it merely for information’s sake, or out of curiousity, or to tell us what we all should already be aware of? I don’t know. But, I can just see the wheels turning in some “Evangelical Christians” minds about this info. They might start thinking of all the things that we need to do to be more acceptable to the lost crowd. I can just hear their thoughts about the shame it is that the lost crowd would think this of us, and how we need to change this perception.
Again, I ask how? And, will anything really change their perception of us? Do we honestly think that the lost crowd will ever view us in a truly positive light? I mean, if we really live for God, and preach the Gospel?
UPDATE: Franklin Graham was cancelled from speaking at the Pentagon for some remarks he made about Islam. Franklin Graham spoke the truth about Islam, and he was censored. Anyone surprised? Some of the people, who think that lost people will love us are probably a little shocked.
Relevant, or Biblical?
Posted by: | CommentsIt seems in our day and age that being relevant is more important than being Scriptural. Pastors seem to be more concerned with meeting emotional and mental needs than teaching the Bible. They seem to be more concerned with meeting needs with psychological, self-help messages, than with making sure that they feed God’s sheep. They preach and teach things that could very easily appear on a TV, daytime, talk show and be applauded, rather than preaching the Gospel, which will sometimes draw the boo’s of the lost crowd.
It’s very concerning to me to see so many young Pastors try to copy Joel Osteen, or Ed Young, Jr.; rather than copy some of the great Pastors and Preachers of the past, who really declared, “Thus saith the Lord.” I truly wish that these young ministers would be more influenced by Dr. Adrian Rogers, and Dr. W. A. Criswell, and Dr. Jerry Vines; rather than some guy getting on a stage, who’s trying to be cool and hip and with it. And, he depends on his stage props, and his hair-do, and his cool mic, and his 5 or 6 step sermon to help people be more successful, or to achieve personal happiness; rather than depending on the Holy Spirit’s power and the truth of God’s Word. It’s very concerning to see where some preachers seem to be heading. Read More→
I’m Not Sorry for Being a Christian
Posted by: | CommentsIt’s really sad to hear some people whine and cry and complain about the way that some Christians have messed up in the past, or about all the bad things that they think are happening now. It’s really sad to hear someone get up in front of some crowd in a coffee shop, or a poetry reading group, and apologize for being a Christian. It’s a sad day when people listen to the lost crowd, and they listen to the lost crowds’ shouts of “hypocrites,” and “mean, intolerant buffoons,” and then some Christians apologize to this angry, rebellious crowd for being a Christian. Read More→
What Happened to the Church being a Covenant Community?
Posted by: | CommentsI would like to thank SBCToday for allowing me to guest blog on the topic of Church Covenants. I miss the daily interaction and fellowship with these guys so allowing me to post is a tremendous blessing. The piece below is actually part of an article I will include in a church newsletter. Whether you agree or disagree, I hope that you all are in some way blessed after reading it.
What is a church covenant? A church covenant is a commitment to God among fellow brothers and sisters as to how they will conduct themselves under the Lordship of Christ in their mutual relationship as fellow members of a New Testament church. Baptist churches have used covenants since their beginning. As one Baptist historian stated, “[Baptists] have written and used hundreds and perhaps thousands of church covenants” (Charles Deweese). But why were church covenants used by our Baptist forefathers and are seldom used today?
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.
What Gets You ‘Worked Up’?
Posted by: | CommentsAfter recording the podcast which airs today (Episode 12), I have had occasion to speak with others about the issue surrounding the resolution debate which took place in our association as well as those issues which will comprise the focus of the gathering of the Missouri Baptist Convention next week. I have been involved in a discussion on Twitter regarding some interesting developments relating to an upcoming Evangelical apologetics conference. I have spoken with ministry friends over serious issues which they face in their ministries. I have spoken with church members on the burden and heartbreak which accompanies our evangelistic endeavors. In all of these conversations, I have been brought to ask myself this question: “What does it take to get me ‘worked up’?” Read More→
