Archive for Doctrine
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.
Podcast Episode 29
Posted by: | Comments
Les Puryear joins us on the podcast to discuss the SBC Majority Initiative and his recent series of posts on the distinction between Reformed pastors and traditional Southern Baptist pastors who are Calvinists. A storm caused us to lose our connection with Les just as we are beginning to discuss his blog series, so you’ll notice a bit of disconnected dialogue in there, as we edited out the chatter that went on while we were working to get everyone reconnected.
This podcast also marks the beginning of a bit of a hiatus (or should that be “an hiatus”?) for us here at SBC Today. As we explain in the closing moments of the podcast, summer is in full swing, and everyone is busy with VBS, camps, mission trips, and the like, so we’ve decided it would be best to take a break. We plan to be back around the time state conventions begin having their annual meetings in the fall, and we will return with a renewed focus on the issues of ministry, evangelism, and ecclesiology that give us our distinctive identity as Baptists. We look forward to promoting and discussing these issues.
You can listen to the podcast using the player below, or you can subscribe in iTunes by clicking the image in this post or the link in the sidebar. Below are links to some of the items discussed in the podcast:
SBCMI’s online presence:
Les Puryear’s Reformed/Southern Baptist series:
- Introduction
- Pastors
- Why It’s Important
- Ordinances or Sacraments?
- Covenant Theology
- Polity
- Altar Calls
- Support of SBC/non-SBC ministry
- Final Thoughts
Article about the SBC
Enhanced Podcast [47:38m]: Wes Kenney Motion
Posted by: | CommentsWes Kenney presented a motion during the convention at Orlando that was referred to the Executive Committee. The following is the motion in full:
I move that the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Orlando, Florida, June 15-16, authorize the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention to consider any church’s affiliation with the Alliance of Baptists to constitute an action to affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior.
Some may try to call this “guilt by association”, but it allows the Executive Committee the authority to make a determination during the year instead of waiting six or seven months after an incident. Also, it keeps precious business time from being consumed on the convention floor.
The catalyst for this motion was the DC City Council bill that was passed legalizing same sex marriage. The bill presented to the DC City Council was based on a Declaration that was authored by Clergy United for Marriage Equality. This group has for its members an area DC Baptist pastor the Rev. Dr. Amy Butler. Dr. Butler is Senior Pastor of Calvary Baptist church in Washington DC. Calvary Baptist, while not sending messengers to the convention, is sending ACP information to the Southern Baptist Convention and thus is listed as a Southern Baptist Church. Also if you scroll down to the signatories of this declaration one will find Rev. Stan Hastey, Alliance of Baptists. Rev. Hastey is not just a representative of the Alliance of Baptists but he is Executive Director of this group The Alliance issued a position statement on same sex marriage back in 2004 as follows:
“Affirming that our federal and state constitutions exist to protect the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority and in the context of the current debate over same-sex marriage, we of the Alliance of Baptists decry the politicization of same-sex marriage in the current presidential contest and other races for public office. We specifically reject the proposed amendments to the constitution of the United States and state constitutions that would enshrine discrimination against sexual minorities and define marriage in such a way as to deny same-sex couples a legal framework in which to provide for one another and those entrusted to their care.
As Christians and as Baptists, we particularly lament the denigration of our gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender sisters and brothers in this debate by those who claim to speak for God. We affirm that the Alliance of Baptists supports the rights of all citizens to full marriage equality, and we affirm anew that the Alliance will ‘create places of refuge and renewal for those who are ignored by the church’.”
While many in the Alliance openly affirm same sex marriage the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship is not quite ready for that step, or is it?
This recent article reporting a break-out session that was attended by nearly 300 persons is one reason we see a need for the Kenney motion. While Kenney’s motion does not identify the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship it may not be long before a motion similar in language may be needed. Why would I say such a thing? Notice the position one of the presenters at the 2010 Cooperative Baptist Fellowship gathering takes. George Mason, Pastor of Wilshire Baptist in Texas presented the following thoughts in a break-out session of approximately 300.
“I can tell you that my mind has changed and I am seeing differently on this over time.” That has disappointed some people, he said. “As a pastor, I have known the pain of people who have left the church I serve because I was too conservative about the matter – and people who have left because I was too liberal about the matter.”
“A family conversation about same-sex orientation is not necessarily about behavior,” Mason said. “Some people think different orientations don’t exist, that there is only acting gay and sinning as a result. Others say people are simply born one way or the other.”
“I’m not certain about either position,” Mason said. “It seems that people are more on a continuum about their orientation. That’s uncomfortable.”
Mason noted that the few biblical texts that mention homosexual behavior are more likely to be about specific acts like rape or pederasty, and that “the Bible seems to be silent about orientation.”
It appears that now the position of non-committal is the favored position of the CBF. There is only one step left for this organization to take and that is the position of orientation. Orientation is the only viable position left for those that want to say they believe the Bible but be seen as scholarly by the academy. In the orientation position the ungodly behavior is not the fault of the person it is the fault of the Creator. If the CBF position of non-committal prevails, I believe, within five years the position on same sex marriage of the CBF will be the same as the Alliance of Baptists.
Whosoever Will
Posted by: | CommentsI’ve been reading the book by Dr. Steve Lemke and Dr. David Allen entitled “Whosoever Will: a Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism.” I’m not ready to give a complete book review of it, yet. I’m still reading it. And, according to some people, it takes me a long time to read anything due to my mental shortcomings. lol. But, I can tell you from what I’ve read so far that this book is excellent. It’s one of those must read books. So, buy you a copy, and enjoy.
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!
Sufficency of Scripture
Posted by: | Comments
Matthew 7:5-13 tells us of a time the Pharisees confronted Jesus about his disciples’ non-washed hands before they would partake of a meal. Jesus responded to them about their own traditions where they were dishonoring the word of God through what they thought to be wisdom. In other words, they did not rely on the sufficiency of the Scripture. The Pharisees said they believed the Scripture but developed numerous rules to keep the Scriptures and these rules ended up being used to violate the Scripture they said they believed. These, over 600, rules used to keep the Ten Commandments could be said to be the wisdom of man in determining how to follow the Scripture. This example of affirming one’s belief of Scriptural authority raises a question; “If the Scriptures are sufficient to guide my life, why does my wisdom keep me from engaging in an action the Scripture affirms?
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→
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.
Podcast Episode 23
Posted by: | Comments
This week’s podcast is our longest yet, at just over forty-four minutes, but hopefully the discussion will prove worth the time. We didn’t even cover all the topics we intended to address. In times past, such long-windedness would have been laid squarely at the feet of Bart Barber, but since he’s not around to blame, we’ll have to come up with another excuse. We began by addressing the response by Dr. David Allen to a review by Dr. Tom Nettles of a book by Dr. William Dembski. If you think you’re confused now, wait until you hear our discussion. We finished the podcast discussing tithing, antinomianism, and Les Puryear.
Listen to the podcast by using the player below, or subscribe in iTunes by clicking the image in this post or the link in the sidebar. We’d love to hear your ideas on how we can improve the podcast, and we’d also appreciate a review or a rating on our iTunes page. Thanks for listening.
Links to some of the items discussed:
- A Reply to Tom Nettles’ Review of William A. Dembski’s The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World
- Les Puryear’s original “storehouse tithing” post
