Archive for Ecumenical
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!
Baptist History
Posted by: | Comments“We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the Reformation, we were reformers before Luther or Calvin was born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the Apostles themselves. We have always existed from the very days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel underground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor, I believe, any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man. We have ever been ready to suffer, as our martyrologies will prove, but we are not ready to accept any help from the State, to prostitute the purity of the Bride of Christ to any alliance with Government, and we will never make the Church, although the Queen, the despot over the consciences of men.”
Update: This is a direct quote from Charles H. Spurgeon. I add this update for any and all of you, who do not read the comment thread. I want you to know that I did not write this. Charles Spurgeon did. I was just having a little bit of fun with some people, who love Spurgeon, yet they don’t like Landmarkism, and they don’t seem to like the so-called BI guys. Spurgeon appears to be more of a BI guy than the BI guys!
Do Baptisms Matter Anymore?
Posted by: | CommentsIn our day and age of ecumenical awareness and knocking down the walls of denominations, are baptisms important to people anymore? to Churches? With all of the people saying that they would accept any ole kind of baptism, whether it be sprinkling, pouring, or whatever, is it important about the kind of baptism you have? With some people in Southern Baptist Churches saying that they would accept any baptism, as long as the person was saved, and the baptism was by immersion, is it important who does the baptizing? I mean, if momma’s can baptise their children in the backyard mudhole after they lead little Johnny, or Susie, to the Lord; and it be acceptable to a SB Church; does that not scream some things loudly about that Churches view of baptism? So, do baptisms matter anymore? Are people even concerned with a doctrine and practice that seems to be a very important one as you’re reading the NT.
I really believe that part of the problem today, which some people and some Churches have in some areas of ecclesiology, is that they have a John Wayne, rugged individualist, “I did it my way” mentality. And, this mentality rubs off on their view about baptism, and really, about the Church in general. And, we see this in the thinking of people when they say things like, “I ‘m satisfied with my baptism, so I don’t want to get baptised by a Baptist Church. I want to join your Church without being baptised again.” We see this kind of thinking when Pastors say things to the effect that it doesn’t matter if a new convert is baptised by an individual person in a hot tub, or if they’re baptised with the Churches presence and by the Churches blessing. It doesn’t matter to them that the Church is not involved in the baptism. Why? because it’s an individual thing, rather than a Church thing. In their view, it is a personal thing that happens outside of the Church.
You know, when you look in the Bible, baptism is a group thing; not a “lone Cowboy on the range, riding in the sunset as the coyotes howl” thing. The Lord set up the Church to be a fellowship of Believers. The Church is supposed to be where people are baptised, and taught the Word of God, and discipled, and encouraged. The Church is supposed to always be a group of Believers, who are seeking the Lord together. So, why would baptism not be a Church ordinance? Why would baptism be something that an individual could just do…out there… somewhere….apart from the Body? Why would the Church today let Western philosophy turn baptism into an individuals own personal possession, rather than something that the Church does and participates in? Could it be for convenients sake? Could it be to get more members in their Church, because they know that some people will not join their Church if they have to have a proper baptism? Could it a real reluctance to deal with controversy on the part of a Pastor? Could it be ignorance of the Bible? Could it be the desire to “fit in” with the greater, evangelical group out there? To accepted by the “cool group?” What do you think?
Well, baptism is supposed to be a testimony of the person’s conversion. Baptism is supposed to declare a message, the Gospel, to the people watching it. Baptism is supposed to be a symbollic picture of the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord. Baptism is a picture of the blood of Jesus washing away the guilt and punishment of our sins. Baptism is supposed to be a way of formally accepting a new born baby in Christ into the Church. So, why would people even think that it’s something that’s an indvidual thing? Why would they even want baptism to be an individual ordinance, rather than a church ordinance?
Folks, baptism is a time to celebrate the new birth. Baptism is a time to rejoice in the salvation of a person. Baptism is a very special thing, and it’s something that all the Church should have the privilege to participate in. Baptism is a time for the entire Church to join with the baptismal candidate in this wonderful ordinance given to the Church by the Lord Jesus. How much would be lost and missed if everyone was just out there baptising people in their own, private hot tub, or swimming pool, or local swimming hole in the creek? I think a lot would be missed. We would be missing much of what the Lord intended to do in the life of a Church, if the Church is not allowed to participate in the baptism of new converts.
So, who should get baptised? Of course, those people who get saved by grace thru faith. Acts 2:41. Acts 10:44-48. Acts 16:30-34. How should they be baptised? By immersion. Matthew 3:13-17…Jesus came up straightway out of the water. The very word for “baptise” in the Greek means to dip under, to immerse. So, if you want to do it right, the way the Bible clearly teaches, then it must be a dipping under; an immersion. What should baptism be about? It should be a declaration to the community that a person has been saved. It should be a testimony that the person has truly, sincerely put their faith in Jesus, and they’re willing to obey Him as their Lord. Who should baptise? The Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Great Commission was given to the Church. Matthew 18:20. The beginning of the Church was standing before the Lord Jesus that day. The Apostles were standing there, who were commissioned to preach the Gospel to the world, and baptise the new converts, and disciple them. They were the men that God used to get the Church that the Lord Jesus founded going. The Church should be the one who baptises new converts, so that they are involved with a Church family; to be nurtured in the faith; encouraged; taught; loved; affirmed; accepted; challenged; inspired; and given much needed guidance. The Church is the one, who was given this task by the Lord Jesus, it’s Head.
So, what a Church believes about salvation and baptism does matter. Who is doing the baptising does matter. It says a lot about a person’s beliefs. I mean, if you get baptised in the Church of Christ, then you are identifying with their view of baptismal regeneration and works salvation. If you get baptised by a Mormon Church, then you are saying that you agree with them about works salvation, denying the Trinity, denying the atoning death of the Lord Jesus. If you get baptised by an Assembly of God Church, then you’re agreeing with them that salvation is not an eternal work of God; that it’s something that can be lost. If you get baptised in the Methodist Church, sprinkled on top of the head, then you were not properly baptised by immersion. And, these are not true baptisms. Now, I’m not saying that these people aren’t saved. They most certainly could be saved. But, their baptism is not a valid, proper, true baptism. They should be baptised for the right reasons, and in the right way.
Now, please don’t come into the comment section calling me a Landmark Baptist. lol. I don’t believe that Baptist Churches are the only true Churches, or that we can trace our lineage back to Jesus, or that SB’s are the only ones who can baptise. Puulease. Listen, if Muddy Creek Community Church believes like we do about salvation and baptism, then we should accept their baptism as a true baptism. If Possum Ridge Bible Church believes as we do about salvation and baptism, then I believe they have a true baptism. So, please don’t come in here with all the Landmark comments. I really don’t have the time, nor the energy to deal with that malarky. But, I do believe that baptism is important. And, it should be done right, and for the right reasons. And, I most certainly believe that it should be a Church thing.
Baptists? Methodists? Presbyterians? Charismatics?
Posted by: | CommentsSomething that I’ve been observing for quite some time now, and especially here lately, is that a lot of people, who belong to Baptist Churches, could join a Church of another denomination and couldn’t tell any difference. I can’t tell you of the people that I have heard say things like…”Well, there’s not that much difference between us Baptists and the Methodists, right?” Inside of me, I’m screaming, “Yes! Yes! How could you even begin to think that?” I’ve heard people make the comment that there’s really not that much difference between us and the Assembly of God Church, or the Presbyterians. And, in my sinking heart, I’m thinking, “What? How could you be a member of a Baptist Church for so long of a time and not know that there’s a huge Read More→
Acts 29 and Southern Baptist Polity
Posted by: | CommentsBefore the outset of this post let me say that this piece is not meant to criticize Acts 29. They have the right to organize the planting of churches as they feel they are led by the Lord. This post is to show the clear irreconcilable difference in ecclesiology between Acts 29 and the Baptist Faith and Message when it comes to church governance. It is also intended to show why a church planter cannot honestly accept support from the North American Mission Board and Acts 29 while affirming both ecclesiastical statements as they both drastically differ. I have no animosity towards Acts 29 and wish them God’s best in wisdom and guidance.
Baptist. Distinctive. Cooperative.
Posted by: | CommentsIt seems that all too often in the current environment we have in our convention today, no one is allowed to say these three words–Baptist. Distinctive. Cooperative.–without being called a liar or at least being viewed with a high degree of suspicion. Most certainly is this the case with that group among us known as Baptist Identity. A false dichotomy has been perpetuated throughout our convention that you are either someone who ‘loves Jesus’ or you are “Baptist Identity.” You are someone who is for the Great Commission Resurgence or you are “Baptist Identity.” You are someone willing to cooperate with folks from other denominations or you are “Baptist Identity.” As one who includes himself among the many in the Baptist Identity group, I know those accusations to be unequivocally false!
I have been asked why I have chosen to identify myself with this group, so let me share. My initial interest in blogging and the larger environment of Southern Baptist life began after the 2007 convention meeting and the buzz on the internet concerning motions passed and an entity head being vociferously maligned (seems the more things change…). I blame my church’s youth pastor where I served in Oklahoma for ‘awakening’ me to all that we had going on in our convention. 
Nonetheless, I began my own blog and soon reconnected with a ministry friend of mine, Wes Kenney, and the rest, as they say, is history.
The reason I have taken my stand with the Baptist Identity group has not changed since day one. As I have stated numerous times and in various formats… Why must I be required to acquiesce my biblically-based convictions as a Southern Baptist for the sake of what some are saying is absolutely necessary for a true spirit of cooperation to be evident to the larger Evangelical community from Southern Baptists? Why do so many of us within our convention seem all-too-ready to dismiss our commonly held confession and distinctive convictions for a seat at the table of influence in the larger Evangelical world? Why must cultural relevance take priority over biblical fidelity?
You might ask, ‘Why mention this again?’ The fact that I keep hearing such aspersions cast at those of us within the Baptist Identity group indicates that this hurdle still exists in our convention. I ask these questions, not to stir the pot of dissention with our current leadership within our convention; nor to highlight the error of others by name. I am grateful for the conversations I had in Louisville with many brothers with whom I disagree on certain doctrinal issues. I take them at their word that they are not selling, nor will they sell, our convictional Baptist beliefs for the sake of influence or popularity. I have been encouraged thus far by the tenor and direction of the Great Commission Resurgence within our convention. The Declaration of the GCR even including that beloved phrase…Baptist identity 
. I have those whom I consider to be good friends in the various ‘camps’ within our convention, all of whom I believe are God-honoring pastors and leaders. May God continue to move us forward for the sake of His glory and the proclamation of His gospel to the nations!
Our purpose at SBC Today is to encourage unity within our convention by emphasizing biblical discipleship and our distinctive Baptist convictions. I believe that will help us to aid in encouraging our brothers in the larger Evangelical community as well. What we need in our day is clarity of conviction and resolute determination to glorify God by studying, proclaiming and applying the truth of His word to our lives.
Sola Gratia!
Poisoning the Fountains of Truth: Part Three
Posted by: | CommentsThis is part of an article originally published January 1922 in the Southwestern Journal of Theology by Dr. L. R. Scarborough entitled, “Poisoning the Fountains of Truth.” It was republished in the most recent Southwestern Journal of Theology, “Baptists and Unity.” You can find part one here and part two here. May a voice of our past speak to us today. Below is part three of a four part series reprinting Dr. Scarborough’s essay:
2. Another way by which the fountains of truth and life of our churches can be poisoned is by doing violence to the ordinances of Jesus Christ, in depreciating their value and emasculating their testimony. This is done when a Baptist church receives baptism administered at the hands of some other organization than a Baptist church. If a Baptist preacher admits into the fellowship of his church Christians who have received baptism at the hands of pedobaptists, without requiring them to be baptized by a Baptist church, he violates the truth of God and is guilty of a heresy in ecclesiology which will eventually ruin the testimony of the ordinances and vitiate the witness of Christ’s churches. Such practice eats at the very heart of the life of Christ’s churches. Such a practice will not only injure the life of the church practicing it, but will eventually poison the fountains of truth in all of our churches
A pastor of one of the leading churches of Texas told me recently of a member from another Baptist church in Texas seeking admittance on a letter from this church, but when questioned as to her baptism she reported that she came to this other church on the baptism from a certain Campbellite church and had not been required to be baptized by this Baptist church. This pastor tells me that he promptly refused to admit this woman into the fellowship of his church. I think he did right.
There lies at this point a great danger and we should guard the fountains of truth from the poison that will come by the emasculation of the ordinances of Jesus Christ.
Reprinted with permission, Southwestern Journal of Theology
Confusing Message, but Concerns for Millions
Posted by: | CommentsPaul told Timothy to be “instant in season and out of season.” The New American Standard Bible translates 2 Timothy 4:2 “Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season;” When I entered the ministry I was instructed by an old pastor to be ready on every occasion to give a gospel message. I asked what was meant by a “gospel message” and he told me it was the “good news”. Not a good word but the good news. It seems that we have changed the definition of “the good news” today to a different meaning in order to accommodate society’s new right: the right not to be offended. Dr. Albert Mohler has a great article on this new right and you can read about it here. However I would like to address something that took place on July 4th that did cause an uproar, but not one that would be expected.
Poisoning the Fountains of Truth: Part One
Posted by: | CommentsThis is part of an article originally published January 1922 in the Southwestern Journal of Theology by Dr. L. R. Scarborough entitled, “Poisoning the Fountains of Truth.” It was republished in the most recent Southwestern Journal of Theology, “Baptists and Unity.” May a voice of our past speak to us today. Below is part one of a four part series reprinting Dr. Scarborough’s essay:
Poisoning the Fountains of Truth
Christ’s churches are the most important institutions in the world. He gave them a definite form of government, a specific character of membership, set up in them the two ordinances, gave to them the great body of the truth found in the New testament, set for them their officers, and committed to them the great task of winning the world to Him and building His great Kingdom. He says through His inspired apostles in 1 Timothy 3:15 that this organization which He set up and called His church is “the pillar and ground of the truth.” He says this church was purchased by His blood; and in His spiritual economy He calls this institution His Bride. All this and many other things in the New testament indicate that these spiritual organizations set up by Christ and established in many places by the apostles and which have for their successors these New testament churches of today are the most important institutions in all the world. These churches are to keep, guard, and promote the ordinances. They are to propagate the gospel. They are to win souls. They are both the preservers and the heralds of the gospel truth. They are to establish Christ’s Kingdom and to make Christ King in all the world. From any angle you look at these churches their importance is magnified.
Read More→
Save the Last Chair for Me
Posted by: | CommentsPerhaps you, like me, are overwhelmed at the rapid happening of events within the Southern Baptist Convention. Consider the words of the Preacher, “there is no end to the writing of books,” or the reading of blogs. Recently, a rather eyeopening article appeared here.
In the article, two young Southern Baptists appeal to nuclear disarmament as the way forward in order for the world to produce peace for itself. They base their appeal on the Sermon on the Mount and the hopes of world peace. Merritt boasts that he is a “member of a rising generation of Christ-followers who engage public policy differently than the generation that came before us.” Question: What exactly was wrong with the public policy of those who came before him?
Promoting his supposed more faithful approach than the former generation, Merritt proceeded to postulate that his generation will “attempt to mirror the ministry of Jesus Christ by promoting compassion and justice and peace, we seek to transcend partisanship, and we welcome the opportunity to partner with people of mutual good will.” I suppose that is in opposition to the former generation who did not seek to mirror the ministry of Christ, in Merritt’s view.
The ABP article proved to be intriguing, but it caused us at SBC Today to wonder what theological foundation this political philosophy would be founded upon. Since the effort of nuclear disarmament is headed by Tyler Wigg-Stevenson, one who none of us at SBC Today were familiar with, we decided to examine exactly who Merritt is advocating our partnering with in cultural engagement.
Tyler Wigg-Stevenson certainly has a world-class education that speaks for itself. He earned his bachelor degree from Swarthmore College, a college of the Quaker tradition. Wigg-Stevenson next set his sites on Yale Divinity School, where he graduated summa cum laude. While at Yale, he had the opportunity to serve Holy Communion at the Marquand Chapel, where his wife would serve as preacher. This made for an interesting foray into the doctrinal background of Marquand Chapel. Perhaps most enlightening is the following extended quote from the chapel’s worship guide.
In Marquand Chapel, it is necessary to be attentive to language. This is a community where there is great diversity in people’s prayer practices, and language is central to Christian prayer. Making sure that as many other worshippers as possible are invited to join in your prayer and praise is vital, so we ask you to be critical in your use of militaristic imagery, metaphors that elide blackness with evil, and phrases that say disability is sinful.
In particular, we ask you to be attentive to your use of gendered language for both God and humankind. Naming God as Lord, Father, Master, King and He is scriptural and a significant part of much Christian worship; but Christian scriptures and traditions also name God in feminine and non-gendered ways. Naming God only with masculine nouns and pronouns can create the sense that divinity is characterized by maleness, and not by femaleness, and this can both limit our knowledge of God and, potentially, negatively affect our view of men andwomen, made in God’s image. Additionally, for similar reasons, please do not refer to all humankind as ‘man’ or ‘mankind’ in chapel.
Wigg-Steveson also demonstrates disregard for his American citizenship. In a video found here, Wigg-Stevenson was asked by an audience member about the possibility of Iran developing nuclear weapons and his concern in regards to America, Wigg-Stevenson responded in part, “I don’t quite get what is going on– why there is such profound antipathy toward Iran in Washington.”
Elsewhere, Wigg-Stevenson said nuclear weapons touch on a number of Christian moral concerns, including protection of innocent life, care for creation and concern for the poor. He labeled reliance upon weapons of mass destruction as “enacted blasphemy.” Perhaps Wigg-Stevenson should examine the history of Iranian-American relations and see which country he would prefer to be a world power.
It seems Wigg-Stevenson and Merritt have confused political philosophy and personal protectionism due to a liberal theology. Indeed, the Christian is commanded by Christ to turn the other cheek when they are the victim of persecution. But the Lord also places the sword into the hand of the Government for the protection of those very citizens whose blood may be shed in their innocence. Would Wigg-Stevenson and Merritt to have their way, America would destroy all of their nuclear weapons, even as North Korea and Iran complete theirs. Then we would cease to be the land of the free and the home of the brave in order to become the land of the afraid and the home of the slave.
Finally, both Merritt and Wigg-Stevenson are written advocates of the Washington DC based think tank “Third Way.” Their website, www.thirdway.org says of the organization, “Third Way is the leading think tank of the moderate wing of the progressive movement. We work with elected officials, candidates, and advocates to develop and advance the next generation of moderate policy ideas.”
In regard to their stance on cultural issues, they write:
Third Way is developing new progressive approaches to the toughest cultural issues. Highlights include: pioneering a new approach on abortion that is embodied in legislation sponsored by both pro-choice and pro-life House members; drafting a bill to shore up the gun purchase background check system that was signed into law after the murders at Virginia Tech; contributing significantly to the planks of the Democratic platform on guns and abortion and helping to define the approach used by the Obama campaign on many cultural issues; releasing a set of common ground policy ideas with a group of centrist Evangelical leaders on issues like religion in the public square, abortion and gay equality;
Would Merritt and Wigg-Stevenson hope to see the SBC become advocates of Third Way? Wigg-Stevenson, a member of a Southern Baptist church and Merritt, a national spokesman on behalf of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in regard to environmental issues must either admit that they would lead in that direction, or succumb to the accusation of hypocrisy.
Considering the constant appeal for younger generations to have a place at the table, may we as Southern Baptists carefully weigh the results of failing to stand firm on Scriptural principles. Let us pray for God to continue to raise up Elishas to follow our Elijahs; but should those who continue to hold to theological abandonment rise to prominence, our concern will no longer be for maintaining a Baptist identity; we will be too busy searching for our Christian identity.
