Sunday, October 10, 2010

What About The Fish?

This post comes from a class discussion we had in Sunday School this morning. Our teacher pointed out that in the key verse of our lesson, Genesis 7:23, it says that every living thing was destroyed that "was upon the face of the ground...", that he had not caught that detail until studying for this morning's lesson, and that he had always believed that all living creatures died. Upon further investigating the passage, it always mentions "every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort." Nothing is ever mentioned of the fish dying. 7:22 gives further credence to the position that perhaps fish were not included: "...All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died." What think ye?

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Is the ABA Becoming A Big Tent?

The idea for this post comes from a recent article series in The Baptist Monitor on "What is the ABA?" In Robert Ashcraft's contribution, under the heading, Doctrinal Identity, he opened like this: "Some brethren rear back and proclaim that ABA churches are closer to the New Testament than any other churches. Although some will not accept baptism administered by a church affiliated with the SBC, we have others who will receive just about any baptism, so long as it is immersion after salvation."

It seems today that we are losing our emphasis on doctrinal issues. More are calling for less of a focus on doctrine and more on evangelism. However, we need to focus on both. This seems to mirror the trend in politics and wider society away from moral issues and more emphasis on fiscal policy and the role of government in our lives. In political terms, many want the Republican party to become more of a "big tent": embracing more divergent, liberal views in order that it might win back control of Congress.

Is this what the Bible teaches? It seems that it is much more narrow: "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few be there that find it." (Matthew 7:14) The Lord Jesus Christ said in John 14:6: "...I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." While these Scriptures primarily refer to Jesus being exclusively the Way of salvation, in a secondary sense Biblical truth is also narrow and exclusive and not all-embracing. While many are not leaving the truth, it seems that there is a cry to not "major on the minors." The "minors" in my perspective always seems to be in areas where there is not a clear, ABA consensus. Issues such as: Bible translations (which is an issue of the Word of God) and what liquid element is to be used in the Lord's Supper (which virtually none would dare consider using leavened bread because it would picture sin in the Lord's body but would use wine which is as the leavened bread, fermented)are two of the main issues that fall under this category. It seems we as an association are willing to do anything to avoid divisive controversy. While this should not be our goal (Ephesians 4:12-15), sometimes divide becomes necessary and inevitable. (1 Corinthians 5:6; 11:19)

Now to the point of my reference to the article: are churches that want to stand separate from false doctrine forced by our belief in church sovereignty to fellowship with those who receive alien immersion (not the only false doctrine or practice prevalent today but the one being used for an example for this post)? The ABA by its very definition is a fellowship (albeit in limited sense with many churches). When a church identifies itself to be ABA, they are in fellowship with others who identify themselves as such. According to our Articles of Agreement, under ARTICLE III-MEMBERS, Section 1 reads: "This Association shall be composed of regular Missionary Baptist churches." Contrary to what is commonly taught, the ABA is something a church is a member of by the very definition of the word "composed".

Alien immersion is one of the most liberal practices that a church calling itself Baptist can have outside of teaching a works plan of salvation. Again, we tenaciously hold to the idea that churches are sovereign not only in their internal affairs (autonomous) but the highest authority in associational matters. #20 of our ABA Doctrinal Statement affirms this: "
We believe that all associations, fellowships, and committees are, and properly should be, servants of, and under control of the churches (Matt. 20:25-28)." However, are churches servants of other churches? Are orthodox churches forced to acquiesce to the right of voluntary association of a church that is fundamentally in error? Does this not violate the church sovereignty of the orthodox churches? Is there nothing that can be done to ensure doctrinal integrity in our associated work?

I propose two possible solutions: 1) a resolution be referred back to the churches that would, if passed, declare non-fellowship with a church that does not agree in practice with our doctrinal statement (these would not be part of the Statement if they are not agreed to be fundamental issues). This would prevent the action from being taken by the messenger body and have a messenger body or a committee "telling a church what to do", and would be a statement by the affirming churches that they wish not to fellowship with said church(es), rather than declaring them "out" of the ABA. 2) a resolution could be passed by the messenger assembly which would serve only to censure such church(es). This would be a workable compromise between those in favor of non-fellowship and those who believe such would be a violation of church sovereignty.

Are we going to look our forefathers, millions of whom died barbarous deaths over their stand on baptism, and say we must fellowship those churches who receive alien immersions? Are we going to stand before the Lord at the Judgment Seat of Christ and tell Him we could not separate ourselves from churches who practice things such as alien immersion because we could not violate their sovereignty?! God help us!!! 2 John 10,11 says: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." There will be those who say that this is speaking of the doctrine of Christ and salvation alone. However, the whole premise behind alien immersion is that when you receive someone's baptism that was administered by, for instance, a Church of Christ, you are giving assent to their doctrine of baptismal regeneration. The Landmark movement was Baptists v. Pedobaptists and not Baptist v. Baptist. The problem comes when a Baptist church fellowships in any way with churches that are not Baptist. Therefore, an SBC or BMAA, or independent Baptist church that stands true to the doctrines and practices of Scripture should be held on par with another ABA church. Therefore, being unscriptural to fellowship false doctrine, if there is no Scriptural way to protect the doctrinal integrity of our associated fellowship, then perhaps it's time to reevaluate the whole concept of the association. After all, worlds of good can be accomplished by direct support of missionaries.

One-Church Schools

This is a question that I have had quite some time. It seems that since about the 1930s the ABA has almost made a stand on the idea of one church-sponsored seminaries. Can anyone tell me what the difference is between having a seminary, such as BMATS or Jacksonville College, which is owned by all the churches of the BMA of America, and our publishing and bookstore ministries (Baptist Sunday School Committee) owned by all the churches of the ABA?

Sunday, September 26, 2010

An Appeal To The ABA Blogging Fraternity

Dear brethren,

We have quite a group of us who taken the plunge into the blogosphere. Some of you may have grown tired of blogging, may feel it takes away from your ministry, etc. but hear out my appeal to you. In this computer age, we need to utilize every means of spreading the gospel and Bible doctrine that we have at our disposal as long as it does not take away from worshipping the Lord "in spirit and in truth." (John 4:24) There is a limitless opportunity to reach others for the Lord and to show them the truth of God's Word. There are no telling how many who read our posts and may not comment from possibly anywhere on the planet. We should show them how we, although we may not agree, we can debate our differences by "speaking the truth in love" (Ephesians 4:15) while maintaining our convictions. It is a chance to give a positive impression of our work. We should not let this opportunity slip away because there are many out there in other works who are getting their message out and false doctrine needs to be combated at every turn. Also, who knows but that the Lord might use us to be the next J.R. Graves, Ben Bogard, A.J. Kirkland, I.K. Cross, to influence those of our own membership back from the moral, spiritual, and doctrinal abyss. Trust me: you are not wasting your time if you manage your time wisely as with any other endeavor. God bless and I hope you have a blessed service and lives are changed today.

Your brother,
Jonathan Melton

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Sonata or Accord?

I had an accident and totaled my Honda Civic about 2 weeks ago. I have been doing some investigating on the internet about a car to replace it. My sister used to sale Hondas and highly recommends the Honda Accord, her biggest compliment being the high resale value. She is down on the Hyundai make because of its past bad reputation and past poor resale value.

However, comparing the features of the two cars I see that the Hyundai Sonata is very economically priced and its features really give you a bang for your buck. Also, Hyundai has a reputation for being a very safe vehicle. The 2011 redesigned model has really improved in its fuel economy and is tops in the midsize class. It is also very aesthetic in its style. I really am leaning toward the Sonata but don't want to disappoint my sister, especially since she is working very hard at her old dealership to get me a good deal. What would be your advice?

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

The Church, Part 2

It looks as if that my demonstration showing how an obscure passage of Scripture confirms our teaching on the nature of the church may grow into a series. In part 2, I want to give an instance in Scripture where the church is distinguished from the rest of the saved. In Paul's salutation in his second letter to the church at Corinth, he distinguishes between that assembly and the other believers in the Greek province of Achaia:

"Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia:..." (2 Corinthians 1:1)

1 Timothy 2:15

What is your interpretation of this difficult and often misinterpreted verse?

"Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."?

Sunday, September 19, 2010

Restaurants With Bars

The idea for this post comes from a sign I saw on the way to work the other morning outside of a local seafood restaurant which said "Longnecks $1.00" I just wanted the thoughts of some of you on this subject: in your way of thinking, how would you differentiate between a full-fledged bar and a restaurant, such as Chili's, which is a bar and grill?

Monday, September 13, 2010

The Church

The idea for this post comes from a discussion on the Landmark Baptist forum on the use of the word "church" in Ephesians 5:22-33. First of all, one cannot take a position that Christ will "present...to himself a glorious church" will be made up of all the saved (called the Glory Bride), and that it is local and visible now made up of those who have been saved, received Scriptural baptism, and become a member of a true, New Testament church. The "it" that is the glorious church in verse 27 has as its antecedent the church in verse 24 that "is" subject unto Christ, and the church in verse 23 whose head "is" Christ.

I don't know if it will clarify the meaning for anyone any better, but I have found an instance where the word "church" is used both in the plural form and singular form in the same context: the plural referring to the plurality of local assemblies and the singular form referring to churches in the institutional sense, with equal application to EACH AND EVERY LOCAL CHURCH ALIKE and not one, universal church as a universal church cannot assemble as is the clear import of the word "ekkleseia" from which our English word "church" is translated. This passage perhaps in its primary application has little relevance to our churches today in that we no longer prophesy or speak in tongues in our churches today with the completion of the Bible, but perhaps it will help someone to change their view on or become stronger in their conviction about the nature of the Lord's church.

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (1 Corinthians 14:34,35)

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

The Revelation of God

This question was brought up by our instructor, Bro. Crain, at the end of our systematic theology class today. Since revelation from God to man has been completed in the Word of God, has God revealed all there is to know about Himself to man?

Sunday, May 2, 2010

Landmark Association of Missionary Baptists

"Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!" (Psalm 133:1)

"Landmark Baptist sentiment in the Southern Baptist Convention

Landmarkism continued as the dominant ecclesiology among Southern Baptists well into the twentieth century and some Landmark concepts continue to influence the Southern Baptist Convention as evidenced by the recent decision of the Southern Baptist Foreign Mission Board to require its missionaries to abstain from receiving alien immersions. In this vein it should be remembered that the original separation of the Landmark churches from the Southern Baptist Convention was as much a reaction against Conventionism itself than to any perceived drift of Southern Baptists away from Landmark principles of ecclesiology. Many Southern Baptists have no interest in Landmarkism and even those who embrace some Landmark concepts of ecclesiology usually disassociate themselves from the Landmark movement. There are exceptions to this, particularly in the Mississippi River valley (Southern Illinois, western Kentucky, western Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana), as well as in parts of Texas, Michigan, and Oregon. There are many Southern Baptists in these areas who are strong landmarkers in both doctrine and in name. " (taken from the Wikipedia article on Landmarkism)

"Though numerous churches and some organizations use the terms Landmark and Landmark Baptist in their name, there is no identifiable sub-group of Baptists known as the Landmark Baptist Church.

Landmark ideas of ecclesiology still exist within the Southern Baptist Convention, but are more closely associated with the American Baptist Association, the Baptist Missionary Association of America, and the Interstate & Foreign Landmark Missionary Baptist Association. Many Independent Baptist churches and most unaffiliated Missionary Baptist local associations also hold this ecclesiology...Some other Baptists, such as Primitive Baptists, hold ecclesiological viewpoints that are very similar to Landmarkism." (http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Landmark:Baptist:Church.htm)

This is definitely an avenue that I would like to explore more deeply. I have for a long time wished that all Baptist churches who are still standing for Bible truths on salvation and the church in both doctrine and practice could somehow unite into one fellowship.

This would include those who hold to what are considered the fundamental doctrines of Christianity such as: salvation by grace apart from works or ceremonies, the virgin birth, literal Creation, the Trinity, the deity of Christ, his incarnation and sinless humanity, security of the believer, substitutionary atonement, the divine inspiration of the original autographs and the preservation of the Scriptures in all native languages (especially the KJV in English), the indwelling of the Spirit in all believers from the point of saving faith, etc.

Also, they would need to hold to the cessation of the miraculous, spiritual manifestation gifts excluding only faith, hope, and charity with the close of New Testament revelation.

Also, they would need to hold to a literal, premillenial, personal, bodily return of Christ and the bodily resurrection of all those dead in Christ as well as the Great White Throne judgment of the lost at the expiration of Christ's thousand year reign.

They should also reject the five-points of Calvinism, or the TULIP doctrine.

Also, they should use unleavened bread and grape juice as the elements for the Lord's Supper.

Then, they should be Landmark Baptists in ecclesistical doctrine and practice including: that salvation is in no way based upon church affiliation or totally dependent upon church influence; that while those in other churches may be saved, Baptist churches are not Protestant churches, but rather predate Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and nondenominational churches, that these are schisms from Baptists and are therefore invalid churches; belief in the nature of the church to be local only; belief in the perpetual succession of Baptist churches from the shores of Galilee; that practice a strict discipline; the rejection of all alien immersions (non-Baptists), open communion, participation in ministerial alliances, union worship services, nondenominational conferences, singing conventions, or in any other function, cooperation in any secular cause, or support of any program or use of materials that would construe recognition of false churches and false ministers as gospel churches and gospel ministers or that directly promotes ecumenism; and their interchurch cooperation should be by support direct to missionary, benevolent, or Christian educational causes, sponsored by local churches or through an associated program of missions, benevolence, and Christian education which is based upon church representation, equality, independence, and sovereignty, and are under direct control of the churches.

As to a name, this fellowship could be called the Landmark Association of Missionary Baptists (LAMB) with the slogan being: "Proclaiming the Lamb which taketh away the sin of the world..." (John 1:29)

What think ye?

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Arminianism Exposed

It has increasingly frustrated me how that people will take a straightforward verse of Scripture and deny it by twisting it like a lawyer. This is the first in a series I call "Why Can't They See?" This first segment will deal with the soteriological system called Armininanism so named for the Dutch Reformed theologian Jacob Arminius. This was a direct reaction to the system called Calvinism named for the famous Protestant reformer, John Calvin, which emphasized arbitrary election as to salvation. Arminianism basically emphasizes the free will of man to accept or reject Christ, which is well enough. The most repulsive tenet of Arminianism, however, is their belief that believers are able to resist sin but are not beyond the possibility of falling from grace through persistent unrepented-of sin. This is a belief of a group of Baptist churches which are called Freewill Baptists. I recently had a conversation with a pastor who came from a Freewill Baptist background. His position is that it is possible, not probable, for a saved person to fall from grace and perish, if they repudiate their faith. I took him to John 5:24 and asked him why it says that one who is a believer (saved) shall not come into condemnation. His reply was that if one "keeps believing" that he will not come into condemnation because of the participle being in the present tense, indicating continuous action. The verse I want us to look at is John 3:16, which I believe to be the center of the Bible.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

1) The word "whosoever" in that verse means all. This means that there is no exceptions to the promise God makes to the believer. It applies to all who are saved. This is a verse that these same people, or any Missionary Baptist, would use to reject the limited atonement of Calvinism. However, they prove themselves to not really believe it.

2) The word for "not" is "un" which is a particle of negation, which means it is not possible for whatever is negated to occur.

3) The word for "perish" is in the middle voice, which indicates the action is reflected back upon the one doing the action. This means that it is not possible for a believer to perish himself. This directly contradicts the teaching of Arminianism which attempts to rebut eternal security, or "once saved always saved" by arguing that it is not God that rejects the believer, but the believer who comes to reject his faith.

4) Why is it called "eternal life"? Eternal means without cessation. If we could lose it, it wouldn't be eternal.

5) In John 5:24, it says that a believer "hath" eternal life, or we are not waiting to see if we have gained eternal life through our endurance in the faith. We have it presently. "Shall not come into condemnation" means you cannot fall from the state of grace at any point in the future.

6) Jesus said in John 10:28: "And I give unto them eternal life..." David in Psalm 51:12 called it "thy salvation", or God's salvation. Peter wrote in 1 Peter 3:5: "Who are kept by the power of God through faith..." If we say that it is even probable (it matters not whether you say it is probable or possible because what is essential is can you or can't you) for a saved person to lose their salvation and perish in hell, then you are 1) calling God a liar, and 2) saying Christ is not sufficient. Again, in John 3:16, that was the very purpose that Christ was given is so that we would not perish, or lose our salvation! Also, faith is not a work. It is accepting Christ's sacrifice on the Cross of Calvary and trusting Him to do what we cannot do for ourselves.

7) The whole crux of their argument is built upon Hebrews 6:4-6. I wanted to explain that it was saying that if (hypothetically) we could lose our salvation, it would be impossible to be saved again (most who say you can lose it will say you can be repeatedly saved again), because you have put Christ to shame, or shown Him to be insufficient to save. He would not let me finish.

Can someone please help me to understand why proponents of this false doctrine say that you can lose your salvation with such clear proof to the contrary? Also, does this belief keep a person from being saved if they trust Christ alone for salvation?

Monday, April 12, 2010

What About AWANA?

I don't know who all may be reading this, and it may perhaps stomp on some toes, but there are many ABA churches who are using the AWANA ministry in their youth program. What has fired me up about this is that it was brought to the attention of our General Epistles class by our instructor in relation to our study today on 2 John an agreement with this program that the AWANA doctrinal statement must be taught in its entirety. Whether a church must still sign an agreement with these particular terms is unclear. The agreement posted on the AWANA website (www.awana.org) says that a church using the program is solely responsible for its religious instruction while at the same time the church is not allowed to modify the materials. However, I talked to an operator at 1-888-292-6249 who told me that while the individual church's doctrinal position may be presented, that the AWANA position and the lesson materials must be presented in their entirety. The following is three of their stated beliefs that we are fundamentally in disagreement with.

THE BIBLE
We believe that the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, is supernaturally inspired, so that it is inerrant in the original manuscripts and preserved by God in its verbal and plenary inspiration, so that it is a divinely authoritative standard for every age and every life. (Matthew 5:18; 1 Corinthians 2:13; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:21)
(Notice that we do not have the original manuscripts available to us today, so according to AWANA, we do not have the inspired Word of God today.)

THE CHURCH
We believe that the true Church is composed of all persons who are regenerated by the Holy Spirit through saving faith in Jesus Christ; that they are united together in the body of Christ of which He is Lord and Head; and are commissioned for the God-given tasks of worshiping, fellowshipping, teaching, evangelizing and exercising the spiritual gifts. (Acts 2:42,47; Romans 12:5; Ephesians 1:22-23, 5:23-24; 1 Corinthians 12:12-14; 2 Corinthians 11:2) (Notice this is an outright universal church position) (Italics mine).

THE ORDINANCES
We believe the ordinances for the believer are water baptism by immersion and the Lord's supper as a memorial. They are, however, not to be regarded as a means of salvation. But both of which are an evidence of obedience and fellowship with the Lord. (Matthew 28:19-20; Acts 2:38, 41, 8:12, 35-38; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-29) (Notice there is no mention of church authority here: about the restriction of the Supper to local church members only and the necessity of authority by a Scriptural, New Testament (Baptist) church for baptism to be valid.)


In any case, it makes no difference to me. 2 John 10,11 makes it very plain: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." Many preachers will say that as long as they are right on salvation, that it is okay to use a program if we are allowed to control what is taught. Here is what the universal church doctrine does as is attested by the above article of the AWANA statement of beliefs: 1) it directly contradicts the Bible's teaching of a local, visible church only; 2) it unites those who (although individually they may trust Christ alone apart from works or ceremonies per Revelation 18:4) are part of false churches who teach a false plan of salvation; and 3) declares them to be in fellowship. If we in any way show affinity for a program, a conference, a worship service, a church, teaching of the universal church heresy, etc. that joins together with false religion, then we are bidding God speed to a false gospel. If our ABA has a similar program called Discovery, what excuse is there to go out from the truth to use a program such as AWANA? That is what programs like Discovery and All The Kings Men (an alternative to the Promise Keepers) are for. I have heard the argument that Discovery is too expensive or that all the other churches in town use AWANA and we don't want our children going to those. Let me ask this: what monetary value do we place on the truth and the souls of men? Is this the direction we want our ABA to go? Do we want to go from the Bible position to one that is ecumenical? God forbid! At some point, we will no longer be able to ignore these departures by our churches in order for us to stay true to God. This and other issues need to keep being pressed.

Friday, April 9, 2010

What About Lordship Salvation?

I have heard good preachers use the terminolgy "Accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior". It used to be "accept Jesus as your personal Savior." However, there is a vast difference between receiving Him as our Savior and as our Lord and Savior. Luke 2:11 says: "For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord." To those who are lost, He must be their Savior before He can be their Lord. What did Jesus say in Luke 6:46? "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" Therefore, if one must vow to surrender his life to Christ as a condition of salvation and not as a result of it, then he has effectively brought works into his salvation. Making a vow was a component of the Law. "When thou shalt vow a vow unto the LORD your God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: for the LORD thy God will surely require it of thee; and it would be sin in thee." Jesus Christ rendered the necessary obedience to make our salvation possible. "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righetous." (Romans 5:19). Salvation is by grace alone through faith without any regard to works--past or future. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God" Not of works, lest any man should boast." (John 6:28) The Jews asked Jesus: What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?" Jesus answered them: "This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." (v. 29) Faith is all that's necessary for salvation. Our two best examples are the publican in Luke 18 and the thief on the cross. Do you see in either of their prayers, "I now ask you to take control of my life" that sinners are told to pray today? No. The publican "would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven" and prayed "God be merciful to me a sinner." He felt his helplessness and his unworthiness! What about the thief? What could he promise? Nothing. He was dying! He implored, "Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom." He only wanted to even be a thought in Jesus' mind when He came to reign. He realized that he deserved his punishment. Am I advocating antinomianism, or living just like you want to after salvation? Absolutely not! "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? (Romans 6:1,2) I am not denying the Lordship of Christ over the believer (the one already saved); there must be a change of the heart of the lost about sin (repentance): but works does not enter into the mind of the sinner coming to God for salvation.

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Preachers and Quotes

When ABA preachers preach (especially when other ABA preachers are present, in seminary and in some type of associational meeting) they often quote from a "famous Preacher" (not ABA). The quote will almost always include a reference to universal church. IMO, a sermon may be great the rest of the way, but sours on me by a universal church quote. Watch for it in seminary chapel services, revival services, etc. Note: This post was the week before the pastor and missionary conference. Some I consider excellent preachers have been caught in this trap. Why would anyone defend using universal church heresy quotes in a MB sermon? Why have others not realized it or do not talk about it? When MB are fed a steady diet of universal church quotes, some will pick up the lingo even if they profess not to believe universal church. Example are: the Church; the rapture of the church; the American church; the Western church. When a preacher quotes someone, he is tarred by their beliefs. Who do MB quote? Mathew Henry, who couldn't find a NT church with a Bible, both hand and a flashlight. Many other names could be given. When a preacher uses a universal church quote, it doesn't make him look better in eyes of sound, solid MB.

Monday, March 8, 2010

How Far Is Too Far?

"For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God." (Romans 6:10)

Here is another situation that concerns me: churches receiving members from other churches. It is the policy of some brethren when questioning a prospective member from a Southern Baptist church to only go so far as to ask: what church baptized you? It is common knowledge that many (if not a majority) of SB churches practice open communion and it is a growing practice of these churches to receive a person's baptism as long as they are immersed and satisfied, no matter what denomination baptized them. Other brethren will say "When in doubt, I rebaptize." Even others will say that when a church starts practicing open communion, they have ceased to be a true church and have lost their authority to baptize. Others will say that because scriptural baptism by John the Baptist was the foundation of the church that Jesus established, that alien immersion is the dividing line. My opinion falls at where a church begins to fellowship false churches in union meetings, or open communion, or alien immersion. There is no Biblical consensus on this issue, even in the ABA. Here's the problem: baptism is a type of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We need to know how far is too far because it is serious business to break a type. Just ask Moses. It kept him from being allowed by God to pass into the Promised Land. I'm not saying that we don't need a line, but we must have a clearer line. 2 Timothy 3:16,17: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." Would God through Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:2 by implication command us to "keep the ordinances" and not give us the instructions in His word to carry out His commands?

Choking On The Briars

I am posting about something that really concerns me. It's a widely-used saying: "Spit out the briars." One of the reasons I bring attention to this is a conversation on Facebook that I made a comment on. This is the gist of a comment made by one of our dear brethren about another brother who has gone off "the deep end" doctrinally: I respect your views. I don't agree with everything he does, nor does he agree with everything I do. Another dear brother that we know ended the conversation with this to this same fallen brother: "I would enjoy a good conversation as well as fellowship". It's one thing to have a civil conversation (which we all need to be reminded to do at least from time to time), being respectful of the person, and even to pray for a brother who has fallen that he will return to the truth, but it's quite another issue to say that you respect their views. It's also one thing to hang out with a person: you can hang out with anyone and even be their friend, but having fellowship means we hold things in common. When someone leaves the truth on salvation or the church, you can't have the same fellowship that you once had. I wish our older brethren that I have the deepest respect for would quit giving this admonition to "spit out the briars" and would only recommend writers who are at the minimum sound Baptists if they are not ABA. I'm afraid our younger brethren may read after too many emerging church authors and may wind up choking on the briars because some of these guys are way out in left field.

Saturday, February 20, 2010

Preachers and Preaching

Why are there so many preachers and yet so many churches without pastors? In AR in the state assoc. minute book, the list of preachers is longer than the list of pastors. Could it be preachers are doing other things and considering their ministry a secondary thing? As I understand the call to preach, it includes a desire (burden) to pastor a church. 1 Tim. 3:1. 34 years ago when I started preaching, preachers still believed it was the greatest honor in the world to pastor a church. When young preachers got calls to go preach, they didn't worry how far, how many were attending or how much they would get, they were ready to go preach. Where has such a love for preaching gone? I'm sure all are not that way, but it seems more and more announce a call and find it too much sacrifice to interrupt their good time schedules to go preach. God's Word reminds us all to preach in season and out of season. Preach the Word. Prepare to preach. Go preach. The call of God requires nothing less.