I’ve been a bit behind on my reading and blogging lately. I have put a lot of effort into getting sbc IMPACT! up and running. I think it has gone extremely well, and invite you to visit and get involved in the conversations there.
But I came across a couple of comments over on fellow SBC IMPACT! blogger David Rogers’ blog. He has had an ongoing exchange with Dr. Malcolm Yarnell, a professor at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Here are the comments that really got my attention:
The problem in postmodern missionary practice in the Southern Baptist Convention is largely due to the unwillingness to maintain the beliefs that our biblicist forefathers held in this matter. In other words, David, let us be clear that on the basis of the long-standing Baptist interpretation of the Great Commission, the following groups specifically do not qualify to be called Great Commission Christians: Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians (and other Reformed Churches), Non-Baptist Congregationalists, Quakers, Methodists, Pentecostals, and Assemblies of God. I will not provide an exhaustive list, for that would require a dictionary, but suffice it to say that any other Christian group that believes or practices what these Christian denominations distinctively believe and practice may not be legitimately classified as Great Commission Christians, even if some of them may be classified as “evangelicals.”
The reasons that these Christian churches do not deserve to be classified as Great Commission Christians are that they violate Christ’s will in one or more of these three ways: 1) They do not obey the entirety of the Great Commission. 2) They do not follow the order of the Great Commission. Specifically, many of them place baptism prior to the making of disciples. 3) They do not emphasize the faith delivered by our Lord, but add other requirements. For instance, some of them elevate or transform the gifts of speaking in tongues or of healing, and then seek to sway other Christians to their unbiblical positions.
He then makes this statement:
The errors of these other Christian churches are why some Baptists are more than willing to refer to them as “unrepentant sinners.”
My Reaction: I suppose I just didn’t realize that the vast number of my friends who attend non-Southern Baptist Churches are “unrepentant sinners” simply because of their church membership. Are these truly the views of Southern Baptists? Do we really believe that our Methodist and Presbyterians brothers and sisters in Christ are in a state of “unrepentant sin?” Are we, as Southern Baptists, always “right” about everything?
This is very important to me because my church has entered into a four-year commitment to reach an unreached people group in Peru through the IMB. Will we be forbidden, perhaps in a couple of years, to work with the Christian and Missionary Alliance, Assemblies of God, or Church of God of Prophecy congregations that exist nearby? Is this the direction that our IMB is heading?
September 19, 2007 at 8:41 am
Geoff,
The writer seems to be suggesting, without actually coming right out and saying so, that the only true Christians are Southern Baptists. And, one infers, only a particular kind of Southern Baptists.
The blogosphere can debate the merits of the Klouda lawsuit, whether or not the president of SWBTS is overpaid, private prayer language, etc. Read enough blogs and the issues can become overshadowed by the rhetoric. What is clear, though, is the above sentiments – written by The Assistant Dean for Theological Studies who is also the Director of the Center for Theological Research – represent the vision and direction of SWBTS.
Some will find that attractive. It’s the reason I recommend going anywhere but SWBTS. And it’s the center of all the debate going on in SBC life: do we want a convention that represents Dr. Yarnell’s thinking? Or do we want something different?
September 19, 2007 at 9:02 am
Bowden,
Thanks for stopping by. I was wondering if others would read the same messages that I am reading.
I plan to do a modified version of this post at sbc IMPACT! tomorrow. I think we need to have this discussion in the safety of that forum.
Geoff
September 19, 2007 at 9:14 am
That kind of thinking makes me sick. My parents led over 150 soldiers to Christ last year with Campus Crusade’s Military Ministry. Bill Bright was a Prez and developed 4 Spiritual Laws. D. James Kennedy developed EE.
People like that make me less and less want to cooperate with them.
September 19, 2007 at 10:17 am
“The writer seems to be suggesting, without actually coming right out and saying so, that the only true Christians are Southern Baptists.
and
“Are we, as Southern Baptists, always “right” about everything?”
Yarnell says,
“The use of this language is not a claim, however, that such people are not Christians. Rather, it is a claim that they need to repent and follow Christ alone and in full. Moreover, the use of this language is not a claim that Baptists are superior to other Christians. Rather, it recognizes that God has given Baptists further illumination with regard to His Word. This compels us to help others understand His Word better. The gift of further illumination of God’s Word carries with it a greater responsibility to teach that Word with conviction and humility. Baptists are not perfect Christians, but Baptists are responsible for obeying and proclaiming with conviction what they do know, and for seeking to know even more from God’s inerrant Word.”
I would urge everyone to deal with the substance of what is written in Yarnell’s article. The term “unrepentant sinner” garnered much coverage when Dever used it in the same manner. Let that not distract you. Further, Yarnell consistently said “Baptist,” not “Southern Baptist.” Lastly, Bowden, is the quip about SWBTS conjecture or do you know what you are saying is fact? Let’s not let the issues get clouded by the rhetoric.
September 19, 2007 at 10:27 am
It is pure arrogance!!!!
September 19, 2007 at 10:36 am
Geoff,
I think that this present controversy stems from a desire to avoid the logical conclusions of what we say we believe. If we believe that the New Testament teaches that baptism only by immersion, and that the only legitimate candidates for it are those who have professed faith in Christ, then where does that leave those who practice other modes, or administer their “baptism” to infants?
There is only one word for disobedience to the clear teaching of scripture, and that word is sin. When a person who sins shows no desire to change their behavior that conflicts with scripture, it is fair to characterize that sin as “unrepentant.”
I realize that this is not a comfortable position to hold, but anything less reduces our Baptist identity to, as Bart Barber so well put it, a matter of mere personal preference. And there is no good reason to divide over matters of preference.
September 19, 2007 at 10:39 am
While I admit to having a problem “hearing” Dr. Yarnell at times, I have to agree with Colin that the good professor is using the correct term Baptist instead of the made up term Baptistic to describe theology/practice and not simply the name on a building.
From his comments I don’t think Dr. Yarnell would have a problem cooperating with my non-denom church.
All of our pastors come from SBC, or they are Freewill Baptists with good theology.
If you compared our church covenant and essentials to those of the garden variety SBC church, they’d almost be word for word identical. To the point, we have a strong commitment to baptism by immersion, and membership for only baptised believers.
What I’m saying is that our faith and practice identifies us as Baptists. For several reasons we decided to remain independent and not take the Baptist name and affiliation, but we still cooperate with local SBC churches, and did some NAMB work last year.
Now, of course I may be wrong and Dr. Yarnell really is a Landmarker; However, I think a fair reading doesn’t show him to be one.
September 19, 2007 at 10:48 am
Colin,
Re: “…is the quip about SWBTS conjecture or do you know what you are saying is fact?”
It is conjecture (opinion); I thought I made that clear. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify.
It is an opinion based on a careful reading of Dr. Yarnell’s blog posts, comments, and white papers published on SWBTS website. Combined with Dr. Yarnell holding what I would consider to be two prominent positions at SWBTS, I think my opinion is a reasonable inference. I believe many will reach the same conclusion I have reached and applaud this direction. I am not one of those.
Not only do I not think may opinions detract from the discussion, I think the vision and direction of the SBC is the core of the discussion. The topic of the day may be what constitutes a Great Commission Church, but the underlying theme is – in my opinion – where are we as a denomination headed.
September 19, 2007 at 11:14 am
Geoff,
I stated my opinion pretty clearly on Wade’s blog so I won’t duplicate all of it here. Let me just say that the “isolationist” perspective that is coming out of some places, particularly SWBTS professors Barber and Yarnell, are extremely distressing to me.
These perspectives sound more like indendependent baptists than Southern Baptists to me.
Les
September 19, 2007 at 11:38 am
Wes,
I appreciate your argument that “…this present controversy stems from a desire to avoid the logical conclusions of what we say we believe.” I certainly believe that immersion following conversion is the biblical example and am prepared to teach and defend that position.
But (you knew there was a “but” coming, didn’t you!) what gives me pause is not lack of conviction, rather it is recognition of my own fallibility.
Advocates of other modes of baptism have produced scholarly works based on biblical arguments to defend their position; I happen to think they’re wrong. I suspect most Presbyterians would argue that infant baptism is “disobedience to the clear teaching of scripture”. I am willing to admit there is a small possibility they might be correct in their assertions. It is that infinitesimal margin of error that prevents me from labeling their beliefs as sin.
I don’t see that as a lack of conviction on my part, merely a recognition of my own imperfection. Recognizing differences in interpretation – even fundamental differences such as the mode of baptism – doesn’t mean my conviction has become a preference. When we cease saying ‘I think you are mistaken’ and begin saying ‘You are in sin’, then we cannot be surprised or offended when the charge of “arrogance” is made.
September 19, 2007 at 12:14 pm
The sentence in the middle paragraph above should read: “I suspect most Presbyterians would argue against the idea that infant baptism is “disobedience to the clear teaching of scripture”.
Apparently, one of my many shortcomings is I can’t multi-task… well, I pretty much just can’t type and do anything else at the same time.
September 19, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Bowden,
I appreciate your recognition of your own imperfection; I am confronted with mine on a daily basis.
Having said that, when it comes to foundational doctrines such as baptism, I don’t think our own imperfection should enter into the discussion. It certainly resonates with a postmodern worldview to attempt to show humility in that way, but I don’t think it very well stands the biblical test.
I am humbled when I consider with great gratitude those Baptists in centuries past who, rather than considering their own imperfection, stood boldly on the Word of God as their homes, families, and lives were violently taken from them because they had the biblical conviction to look at the paedobaptists of their day and say, “You are in sin.”
September 19, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Colin,
You quoted Dr. Yarnell as follows:
“Moreover, the use of this language is not a claim that Baptists are superior to other Christians. Rather, it recognizes that God has given Baptists further illumination with regard to His Word. This compels us to help others understand His Word better.”
I’m still trying to figure out how that dispels any cloud of rhetoric. Or how it sounds any better.
Don’t get me wrong. My theology is Baptist to the core. But I have never even pretended to make a claim that we have “further illumination” of God’s Word than others do.
Do not Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Churches of Christ … among others … make an identical claim?
I think the quote you cited disturbs me even more.
September 19, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Wes,
I don’t think recognition of alternate viewpoints is post-modern. My understanding of post-modern is the belief that truth can never be discerned and all opinions are equally valid. That’s not what I’m suggesting.
Let me try this another way. Using Dr. Mohler’s famous (or ‘infamous’ in some circles) concept of categorizing theological issues. If I remember correctly, Primary doctrines are those that make us Christian; secondary doctrines are those that bond us together in denominations or like-minded churches; tertiary doctrines are those that can be disagreed upon without breaking fellowship.
I would consider the mode of baptism a secondary issue: it is important to who I am as a Baptist but not a primary issue. Therefore, I am willing to stand up and say “You are wrong”, I’m not willing to stand up and say “You are in sin”.
If I’m reading Dr. Yarnell correctly, he would probably disagree with me (if he followed Dr. Mohler’s paradigm) and would instead believe that the mode of baptism is a first tier issue.
September 19, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Geoff,
Yarnell wasn’t making an argument about the knowledge of Southern Baptists, nor coming close to suggesting Southern Baptists (or even Baptists) are the only true Christians. That was the rhetoric that needed to be dismantled.
As to illumination, consider Luther. Was he given illumination from God not possessed by the Romanists? How about Smyth, Manz, or Cranmer’s illumination from God over the paedobaptists? If they were not, then we are not. If they were, then we possess that same illumination.
September 19, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Wes,
I guess I’m just glad Jesus was saving folk long before there was any “Baptist identity.”
I do, in fact, believe that the baptisms in the Bible were by immersion. That is my interpretation and understanding as a (pretty much) life-long Baptist. I believe we are right in our interpretation.
But I cannot bring myself to the place where I would look at my brother in the Lord and tell him that he is in a state of “unrepentant sin” simply because he was baptized by another mode.
As I relate to other Christians in my life and ministry, I do not do so based on “Baptist identity.” I just look for Jesus. I look for fruit.
Jesus said, “By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” … not … “By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you are baptized by immersion in a church with a clearly defined and established Baptist identity.”
Such a stand does not reduce my beliefs to a matter of “personal preference.” I can stand and boldly proclaim that I am absolutely right without similarly proclaiming that my brother is absolutely and wrongfully in a state of unrepentant sin. There is a HUGE difference.
September 19, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Guys,
I am not above this, but I would like to make a suggestion. Statements like this:
“If I’m reading Dr. Yarnell correctly, he would probably disagree with me (if he followed Dr. Mohler’s paradigm) and would instead believe that the mode of baptism is a first tier issue”
do not help matters. If we want to do this discussion for real, esp. if you put it on Impact, let’s keep things to what we know. I am certain that if you email Yarnell, he will answer you, and that will leave very little room for conjecture or gossip.
September 19, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Geoff,
If a church is going to discipline one of its members by removing them from the fellowship, it had better be based on unrepentant sin in the life of that person. For what lesser reason can we possibly justify refusing to work with someone in planting a church?
You said, “I can stand and boldly proclaim that I am absolutely right without similarly proclaiming that my brother is absolutely and wrongfully in a state of unrepentant sin.”
Statements like this may not only be the heart of the issues Dr. Yarnell is raising, but they may also be at the heart of the loss of biblical discipline in our churches.
September 19, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Wes,
I’m just not tracking with you. I feel like you have come at me with a bit of a “bait and switch.”
How is the labeling of people of other denominations as being in “unrepentant sin” because of their mode of baptism and denominational membership anything in the VICINITY of what we deal with in the lives of individual believers in our churches? How can our discussion take such a leap … from denominational identification into the realm of local church discipline?
My friend, please do not take my statement out of context. That context was the denominational statements of Dr. Yarnell and the premise that all other believers besides Baptists exist (apparently, according to Dr. Yarnell)in a state of unrepentant sin.
I have absolutely no qualms with holding my church to standards of biblical ethics and behavior. Indeed, I pastor the only church that I have ever been a member of that has actually exercised Biblical church discipline.
At the same time, I have no qualms working with a Christian Missionary and Alliance church to plant a congregation that will reach an unreached people with the Gospel. In fact, I really don’t care if that church wants the CMA label or the Baptist label “on the sign.” I just want to see people saved, the Gospel moving, and heaven rejoicing.
I guess I just don’t ever want to miss a great view of the worldwide Gospel “forest” because of a few overgrown denominational “trees.”
September 19, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Bowden,
My words aren’t always clear. I want to make it clear now that I wasn’t accusing you of gossip.
Sorry if anyone took it that way.
Colin
September 19, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Geoff: You quoted Yarnell as saying: “The errors of these other Christian churches are why some Baptists are more than willing to refer to them as “unrepentant sinners.”
Isn’t the operative words here “some Baptists”? Therefore not ALL Baptists, and certainly not all Southern Baptists are being called to refer to other Christian churches as “unrepentant sinners” by Dr. Yarnell, are they? Isn’t he just saying that this is what “some” hold to? selahV
September 19, 2007 at 5:56 pm
I believe that is the point Selah. The “some” in context includes himself and others who hold to the same. Other Baptist who would be a critic to his rhetoric would be labeled those who through an orientation to current culture have been infected with “post-modern” proclivities (which is a fallacious argumentum ad hominem).
There could be another reason that critics have arisen to object to Dr. Yarnell’s posturing besides being infected by the mudraking of current culture – something in which he fails to concede – he could be wrong and fallible in his belief. Something which I recognize that I am – something that the supporters of Dr. Yarnell’s position fail to grasp.
Rob
September 19, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Hariette,
I think it’s clear from the context that Dr. Yarnell considers himself a part of that group. Check out David’s post for the whole exchange.
I guess my concern is that this is the direction that “some Baptists” would have us go in the SBC.
September 19, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Brother Geoff,
Great comments here. I do want to address one issue. Are CM&A churches established without members being baptized by immersion?
Also, you write; “I can stand and boldly proclaim that I am absolutely right without similarly proclaiming that my brother is absolutely and wrongfully in a state of unrepentant sin.” Is that not Value Pluralism? Which, as I understand says; Value Pluralism is “the idea that there are several values which may be equally correct and fundamental, and yet in conflict with each other.” Which brings me to another question. How can you say that you absolutely right without saying the person with the completely opposing view cannot be absolutely wrong?
Blessings,
Tim
September 19, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Tim,
All of the churches that we have spoken with in Peru baptize their new members by immersion.
No, my statement was not intended to demonstrate any type of value pluralism. Notice I said that I may believe that I am absolutely right, so by my value system assumes that any view other than mine is wrong. What I am unable to do (relationally and from my conscience) is tell my brother in Christ from another denomination that he/she is “…absolutely and wrongfully in a state of unrepentant sin” because his/her views are not the same as mine.
There is, most definitely, a point when deep and abiding conviction can cross the line into prideful, sinful arrogance.
If that brother desired to be a member of my Baptist church, he would have to be baptized by immersion. That is who we are. But I cannot and will not indict his denominational group outright, or turn away his cooperation in Gospel causes because our modes of Baptism are different.
My church members have worked alongside Methodists overseas. One of my closest friends from high school is a Presbyterian in the service of Campus Crusade in Eastern Europe. He is a strong tower in the Lord. My in-laws are members of a non-denominational church. When I first planted this church in my community, the first church to reach out to our new congregation was the First United Methodist Church, which invited our men to have fellowship with their men. My church will be working with CM&A, and possibly even a Church of God and Church of God of Prophecy (neither, interestingly, are Charismatic) in Peru. I have stood in the pulpit of a AME church (I will NEVER forget preaching that night!). I could cite other instances in my life and ministry, but I need not go on.
I believe that my life and ministry are richer because I do not live in a myopic Southern Baptist world. I firmly believe that there are multitudes of faithful believers from other denominations who are faithfully carrying out the Great Commission. I appreciate their efforts.
Like I said earlier, I just don’t ever want to miss a great view of the worldwide Gospel “forest” because of a few overgrown denominational “trees.”
Apparently there are some (perhaps many) who disagree with me. And I’m okay with that. Wouldn’t be the first time.
But Tim, in all seriousness … the only Christians who have ever rejected me and my Southern Baptist church, even to the point of excluding us from fellowship, are (mostly Landmark)Southern Baptist churches.
Something is DEFINITELY wrong with that picture … when the concept of “Baptist identity” becomes nothing more than a measuring stick by which we can figure out who we can and cannot fellowship and work with.
September 19, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Rob,
I just found your comment. You got “spammed” for some reason.
But you have been set free!
Well said, buy the way. Especially all of the logic stuff. I had to get my 9th grader to translate.
September 19, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Brother Geoff,
Are you saying then, that what you see from the Scripture is that Baptism must be by immersion, however, you could be wrong and one who believes in pedobaptism could be right?
Blessings
Tim
September 19, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Not at all. I’m just saying that there is a right way to be right, and a wrong way to be right.
And sometimes it’s not about who’s right … but about how we treat one another, as believers, in the Lord.
September 19, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Geoff
Would the logical inference of these conclusions be that those who stood strongly on their anabaptistic convictions really died for no apparent purpose? Humble orthodoxy is a necessity but fellowship based on anything but truth is a fellowship based on sentiment not love. I read nothing about Dr Yarnell’s desire not to treat others as believers. It’s not his behavior that’s being critiqued – it’s the intensity of his beliefs.
September 19, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Joe,
It must be the late hour, or I am a little slow on the uptake. What conclusions?
And I truly don’t understand what you are trying to say with your historical reference. I think that comparison of that historical stand is quite colossally out of context with the current missions environment.
I do not believe the intensity of his beliefs are being critiqued. I think its the way those beliefs have been expressed.
September 19, 2007 at 10:20 pm
G’day Geoff,
I have been approached a few times to pastor Anglican, Congregational or Presbyterian churches. They were aqfter reformed conservative men with a proven track record in church planting. (I have greater recognition outside my own denomination than inside it).
In those approaches the difficulty has arisen when I have considered the statements I would have to make at infant baptisms, and the effect on the general community.
Sure I can look at an infant baptism and say to myself, its just a wet dedication service, where instead of the tail being wet during the service, the head gets wet instead.
But, have you considered the words that need to be said?
In the Anglican church “Let us then pray that God will grant to this child that which by nature he cannot have, that he may be baptised with water and the Holy Spirit, and be received into Christ’s holy church and be made a living member of His body.” -An Australian Prayer Book 503
In the Presbyterian Church
“T h e minister of the Word and Sacrament offers a baptismal prayer. This prayer
( a ) expresses thanksgiving for God’s covenant faithfulness ,
( b ) gives praise for God’s reconciling acts,
( c ) asks that the Holy Spirit attend and empower the Baptism, make the water a water of redemption and rebirth, equip the church for faithfulness.
Declaration shall be made of the newly baptized person’s membership in the Church of Jesus Christ.” -Directory For Worship PCUSA W-3.3604 The Prayer
Can you in good conscience say that by the administration of some water to a baby’s head “You little baby are now received into Christ’s holy church and made a living member of His body.” ?
Can you say this knowing that while in your understanding the act signifies a covenantal relationship between God, the parents and the child (in an evangelical view), the vast majority of unsaved folks view it as a sacramental thing (as their formularies do declare) and that the vast majority of people have a false assurance based upon this act, and these words?
Can you in good conscience say those words
“You little baby are now received into Christ’s holy church and made a living member of His body.” knowing them to be false?
Can you in good conscience say those words
“You little baby are now received into Christ’s holy church and made a living member of His body.” knowing them to give others a false assurance?
Would it not be a sin for you to violate your conscience this way?
Can you in good conscience allow those words to be said in your hearing
“You little baby are now received into Christ’s holy church and made a living member of His body.” knowing them to be false and to give a false assurance?
Romans 14:22 Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. .. 23 everything that is not from faith is sin.”
A violation of conscience is.. sin…
Maybe it is a sin for you to say those words.
Maybe it is a sin for you to approve of those words being said.
Maybe it is a sin for you to not oppose those words being said.
Something to think about..
Steve
September 19, 2007 at 11:00 pm
Steve,
I think your decision not to become involved by leading such a church is an ample opposition to “what is being said.”
But you need not put it in writing somewhere that those who hold to such practices are mired in a state of “unrepentant sin.”
That’s my whole point. God alone is judge, not me.
Throughout this entire conversation my mind keeps going back to … the “plank” in my own eye that sticks out so far as I point out the “speck” in my brother’s eye.
And I think we should remember that Jesus said something to the effect of, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”
We Southern Baptists simply need to lay down our rocks a little more often.
September 20, 2007 at 8:50 am
geoff,
i know that you were treated bad by some landmark sb churches there in w. ky. but, if i understand dr. yarnell and bart barber right, they are not promoting landmarkism. they are saying that someone who baptises a baby is wrong. and, if it goes against the clear teachings of the bible, then it has to be called sin.
i dont think that they would say that all methodists are lost. they would say that methodist sprinkling is wrong….against the clear teachings of the bible.
i believe geoff, that they would have no problem with calling a cma church, or an independent, bible believing church that believes similar to us as baptists, as being good, true churches that are carrying out the great commission just as we are. but, what they’re saying is that an assembly of God church….while the people may be saved in that church….are not believing the bible in regards to tongue speaking and losing one’s salvation. they are calling such a rejection of clear, bible teachings….sin.
i believe i’m seeing this right. if i’m not, please correct me. i’m still mulling all of this over.
david
September 20, 2007 at 9:13 am
David is exactly right here. Russell Moore pointed out in part 6 of the audio we posted at SBC Today that we have for so long talked about what baptism is not (“the water doesn’t save them, this is just a symbol, etc.) that when anyone asserts what it actually is, they are reflexively labeled as “Landmarkers.”
The points Dr. Moore goes on to make get to the heart of the issues we’re discussing here. I’m not just advertising here, but if you go and listen to that audio, it will help in understanding where we’re coming from.
September 20, 2007 at 9:31 am
Who has been labeled a “landmarker?!!”
September 20, 2007 at 10:59 am
Brother Geoff,
You asked; “Who has been labeled a “landmarker?!!” in your comment #34. However in your response to me in comment #25 you write; “the only Christians who have ever rejected me and my Southern Baptist church, even to the point of excluding us from fellowship, are (mostly Landmark)Southern Baptist churches.”
Also, Brother Les in comment #9 writes; “Let me just say that the “isolationist” perspective that is coming out of some places, particularly SWBTS professors Barber and Yarnell, are extremely distressing to me.” He also has devoted an entire post to categorizing everyone into neat little categories with labels to boot.
You may say that no one has been called a landmarker, but when terms such as “isolationist” and “the only Christians that rejected me were landmarkers” along with “its pure arrogance!!” are comments that tell me that those making them consider those who take these stands as landmarkers, who believe the SB is the only true church. No one has said that. However, if I have someone that tells me they are a Christian living together, but are not married and I point to them that they are not following the Biblical model that God has established, and they respond that they really do not believe the Bible teaches marriage, then they are in unrepentant sin. They say that they are Christians, but they do not believe the Bible teaches that marriage is mandated. Are we to say, you believe that marriage is not mandated in Scripture, and I tell you that it is, but you go on living together and we will plant churches together. What is the difference?
Blessings,
Tim
September 20, 2007 at 11:40 am
Tim,
Respectfully, my brother … here is some more exercise of the classic “bait and switch.”
First Instance
My comment in #25 was a simple statement of fact about a particular experience of mine. That was what I was referencing. I was, in no way, making reference to the people in this thread or conversation. Any assumptions as such were simply that, assumptions.
I minister in an area that is heavily Landmark … churches have been disfellowshiped over “open” -vs- “closed” communion and “alien baptism,” being the “right kind” of Baptist. I spoke only of my immediate ministry context and the rejection that I have experienced here.
Second Instance
Switching from a discussion of labeling fellow Christians from other denominations as being in a state of “unrepentant sin” to one of co-habitation. Apples and oranges.
And I did not make the statement of “pure arrogance.” I believe Kevin did … but then again, all of this is not just “theory” to him. His parents, PCA church members, have been lumped into the “unrepentant crowd.” That hits real close to home. I believe I would buck up a bit, too, were I in his shoes.
You seem to be taking the opposite extreme to that which you have assigned to me. It seems to me that anyone who does not agree with your definition of what is and is not Baptist(ic) must be one of those “willy-nilly, anything goes, willing to plant churches with anyone…” liberal, Baptist Renaissance (don’t know where that term came from, but it seems to be on someone’s “talking points.” crowd. These generalizations simply do not hold water.
Tim, “you may say” that you are not claiming that the Southern Baptist church is the only true church … but you and many others seem, to me, to be dancing pretty doggone close to that claim.
BTW … I have planted churches alongside polygamous Christians. In Kenya, I worked with a man who had fifteen wives. He was saved later in life, after he was married to all of them. We asked him how he reconciled that with Scripture. he replied, “What do you want me to do, kill fourteen of them?” Instead, he made a home with the “wife of his youth” and supported the rest.
You see, Tim, once we move outside the comfortable, myopic world of North American Southern Baptist life, ministry, missions, and church planting issues just are not always so “cut and dry” as they are back home in Texas, Oklahoma, or North Carolina.
I guess, ultimately, this entire conversation boils down to our outlook. Do we approach our faith and practice from a positive viewpoint … seeking out those with whom we can work toward the propagation of the Gospel? Or do we approach every endeavor with a negative outlook … investing so much toil, time, and effort in labeling those with whom we cannot and must not work? I simply choose option #1, with a very good conscience.
September 20, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Brother Geoff,
Bait and Switch has nothing at all to do with this.
First Instance
I never said you made all of those statements. I said they were in the comment stream and though no one called specifically anyone a landmarker, it pretty much was implied.
Second Instance
If Brother Kevin’s parents are in PCA then they practice infant baptism. That practice is completely against the revelation of Scripture. It has nothing to do with Brother Kevin personally. I have a cousin that is in a PCA church and he has had his children baptized as infants. That does not change my view of scripture. I had a professor that claimed before divorce happened to his daughter, he would not marry a person that had a divorce in their background. However, when it happened to his daughter it changed his attitude. What is the difference? Closeness of relationship for the sinner? If is was a sin before it happened, how did it change after it happened?
As for the man you have referenced in Africa. If that man was a pastor or leader in the church, that is completely against scripture. As a member of the church it has nothing to do with the situation. However, as a deacon or elder in the church, it is absolutely against scripture and no amount of justification can change that.
In all respect, the issue comes back to scripture. Am I willing to violate scripture for pragmatism, or am I going to stand on Scripture lovingly and courageously?
Blessings,
Tim
September 20, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Tim,
What do you want Geoff to do? Fail to work with a indigenous person because they were married to 15 wives? “And such were some of you – but you are now washed…” What greater testimony to those around him than a man, formerly caught up in the ways of the world, now a new creature in Christ.
I understand the prohibitions of Scripture. I do not believe those prohibitions are concrete in the context of “if there is no one else, the work now goes undone.” Paul worked with a church who met in the home of Lydia, a maker of fine linen. We really read of no one else there who would make up that leadership than that matriarchal figurehead. We do not read where Paul refused to work with the church. I am certain that Paul did, all the while encouraging male leadership to come forward. And when male leadership did, Lydia stepped aside (as inferred by Acts 16:40).
The work must go on even in the presence of “unsuitable” workmen. God can use a sows ear, a donkey, a rock, and an imperfect human vessel to be His spokesman and leader. God used a murderer in both Paul and Moses to be his leadership at the appropriate time, and I do not see anyone here arguing against how former murderers should not be pastors or leaders – just a focus on polygamists and women.
Rob
September 20, 2007 at 1:49 pm
…and those who were baptised improperly –
Sorry – forgot about that one.
Rob
September 20, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Geoff
I hate to appear as if we are ganging up on you. I definitely don’t have that intent, but I think labels and characterizations on both ends are unfortunate. You have framed one approach as mostly positive and the other as a negative enterprise. Automatically that creates an easy pick in my mind. I’ve never approached any situation with the direct proposition of labeling anyone – just loving them.
This was the premise behind my statement that much of what is critiqued is belief rather than behavior. Malcolm Yarnell lives with a gentle and humble spirit. I’ve never seen him act in a contrarian way just to tick people off. I’m certain from what I read of your approach that your style is similar. The church God has graced me to pastor additionally desires to reach people with the gospel, and I hope I may add in a nonarrogant fashion we’ve been highly successful.
I confess my lack of experience in church planting. We are assisting several church plants in nontraditional settings but one thing we do insist on is Baptist ecclesiology. It’s not an arrogant my way or the highway approach but a careful exposition of Scripture and a pleading for the Holy Spirit to be the Teacher He is. Still our practice and our teaching is not ecumenical and evasive. It’s distinctly Baptist. I taught a new member’s class this week and spent some time on Baptist distinctives. Afterwards a young couple approached me with a quick query. This is normal in the settings I teach in. Their question – why do churches shy away from teaching what they believe? It was an interesting take from an unchurched family seeking truth. Both will be baptized Sunday – dunked down to the bottom.
Additionally, I feel for Kevin. I had in-laws that held different views of ecclesiology than I did. Here however is the heart of my tenacity on this point. My in-law’s skewed view on baptism impacted their implicit view of the gospel. It did not mean I did not love and respect them, but it did not either allow me to dismiss the subject as irrelvant. That would have been the epitomy of an unloving attitude to withhold truth to spare feelings. I did not denigrate their position as believers or dismiss them out of hand, but they knew our views on baptism and other matters were not eye to eye.
I, for one, tend to land with Grudem in his description of churches that are more pure and less pure. The purity of the church is its degree of freedom from wrong doctrine and conduct, and its degree of conformity to God’s revealed will for the church. It’s right to pray and work for the greater purity of the church, but this of course cannot be our only concern.
It seems to me (and I might be dead wrong) that much of this debate is done on different turf. One side hears cooperation as joined at the hip and the other sees it as personal fellowship. There’s a big difference between handing out evangelistic tracts in a witnessing campaign and planting a church together. Anyway – I do appreciate the opportunity to converse.
Blessings,
Joe
September 20, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Rob,
Well said.
Joe,
Don’t worry about me. I live in a house full of women age 14+ … I’m quite accustomed to being ganged up on.
As for doctrinal clarity … I lead a 2 1/2 hour “Discovering Crossroads Membership” class for all prospective members(or curious seekers) in which I clearly communicate our doctrinal distinctives. The culmination of that class is the actual signing of our church covenant … which is a requirement for membership.
I will confess that I could not cooperate with some denominations mentioned in planting new congregations on our continent. Our differences are too stark. But, then again, I wouldn’t need to. I am surrounded by like-minded Southern Baptists.
But our missionaries on the international field, many of them quite isolated, do not have our luxury of practical support. So they cooperate with other Great Commission Christians. I believe it is the right thing to do.
September 20, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Brother Rob,
In all due respect, you are moving away from the very argument. Show me in the Scripture where the Bible specifically speaks to murders not being allowed to lead a church. When you move to that level in the argument you have moved from Scripture. While I certainly do not desire to allow someone paroled from death row to have free reign in a contentious business meeting, I certainly cannot see it prohibited that said person is Scripturally unqualified to serve as Pastor, Elder, or Deacon. However, when you look at the qualifications of Pastor, Elder, Deacon polygamy is explicitly mentioned.
Also, I never said we could not partner with a person that was a polygamist, I said that person could not serve as a Pastor, Elder, or Deacon in the church planted.
Brother Geoff,
I do not want to sound harsh towards you. If I have come across that way please forgive me. I do want you to understand that my emotion on this subject does have some validity. We are all speaking about our convictions here. I certainly have not been as strong as Spurgeon.
“And equally is it far from our minds to believe that infants go to heaven through baptism—not to say, in the first place, that we believe infant sprinkling to be a human and carnal invention, an addition to the Word of God, and therefore wicked and injurious.”
This is found in his sermon “Infant Salvation”. You can find it at the following link.
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0411.htm
I promise you the above quote is not quote mining because it comes straight from a sermon where he was addressing Infant Salvation. He was rather harsh on those who practiced pedobaptism. All I have agreed to was that of unrepentant sin, I certainly am not going as far as Spurgeon. :>)
Blessings,
Tim
September 20, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Brother Geoff,
I almost forgot. I too could feel a better phrase for this diversion from Scripture could be found. I just do not know what that would be. If unrepentant sin is too harsh, what would you suggest?
Blessings,
Tim
September 20, 2007 at 2:31 pm
This is a bunch of junk. No wonder Baptist churches aren’t using the name baptist.
I don’t feel for me. My parents led 150+ soldiers to Christ last year. They are more evangelistic than the majority of Baptist churches. They have been baptized by immersion btw.
I won’t say another word and am not coming back to any blog that mentions SBC because it gets my blood going at how arrogant and self serving we have become.
September 20, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Tim,
You haven’t been harsh, my brother. Simply passionate. I’m extremely cool with that, even if we do disagree on a few things.
As for another term … how ’bout simply, “divergent interpretations?”
Kevin,
Don’t run off, man…
September 20, 2007 at 3:00 pm
I’m just a simple Christian. I haven’t been to any Bible colleges or seminars, for all I know is what the Bible says. This discussion reminds me of this story found in Luke 10: 38-42
38As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village where a woman named Martha opened her home to him. 39She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet listening to what he said. 40But Martha was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made. She came to him and asked, “Lord, don’t you care that my sister has left me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me!”
41″Martha, Martha,” the Lord answered, “you are worried and upset about many things, 42but only one thing is needed. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.”
So what’s my point? How does this conversation help further the kingdom? I have read and picked up on a lot of criticism and arrogance and all to a simple question asked at the heading. We need to step out of our “religious boxes” and realize that the only thing that matters is whether or not people are being saved. If some churches choose to stress spiritual gifts, others say women can only wear dresses and others choose to baptize babies, as long as people are being saved, does it really matter?
My old pastor used to say this about other religions. It doesn’t matter to me what road they want to take. If they want to spend all service speaking in tongues, singing old hymnals, standing every time the Bible is read, or even dictating the proper atire for church, as long as we are all heading in the same direction, they can get there however they want.
In the end, it is the pastors of those churches who will have to answer to God as to why they chose to follow a certain direction. By critizing the different churches or by stating that this denomination is the “only blah, blah, blah…”, we are merely placing ourselves as judges and allowing our pride to be a stumbling block to other Christians.
I stand by pastor Geoff. I believe that he hit the nail on the head when he said “We Southern Baptists simply need to lay down our rocks a little more often”, but I choose to take it a step further and say that we as inperfect humans need to lay down our rocks a little more often.
We all have faults and we each will have to answer to the decisions we have made in this life. Let’s not try to figure out who is right and who is wrong, but rather try to figure out how we can build each other and help each other spread the Gospel. You see, God doesn’t call the qualified, He qualifies the called.
If he can use someone like Paul to change the world, who’s to say that a man in Africa with 15 wives or a church that baptizes babies or even a church that stresses spiritual gifts can’t be used by God. After all, He is God and can use even the worst possible scenarios to further His kindom. Remember the cross? What scenario can possibly be worst than that? And yet one of the men who was crucified next to Jesus believed and was saved. Just a thought!
In Christ,
Ivan
September 20, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Ivan,
You said …
“How does this conversation help further the kingdom?…We need to step out of our “religious boxes” and realize that the only thing that matters is whether or not people are being saved.”
VERY well said.
September 20, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Brother Tim,
Just how many convicted murderers would you support for ordination? I dare say most of us would be hesitant to support such a man, no matter the level of repentance, irregardless if the letter of the law would allow such a person to be called. As you said though, it is beyond the point.
I am starting to believe that the issue here is the intemperate language that Dr. Yarnell used. The term “unrepentant sinner” could apply to all of us for I am sure there is one or two or ten areas of our personal lives that if compared to the Word of God we would be found deficient in – something frankly I currently am not hearing as a concession from the defenders here. I think that Dr. Yarnell is a very good academic, and by all accounts is a very humble man to know. I believe he writes, however, like an academic elitist, and often times gets into trouble when he writes. I believe the term was used as an academic and not ever intended to be taken out of that venue. I am willing to understand that and give him some grace – the same grace that I grant to those who baptize infants, or hold to some other abhorrent beliefs that I would consider on the second or third tier of beliefs that differentiate believers in Christ.
Rob
September 20, 2007 at 8:03 pm
kevin,
my great grandmother and grandmother were wonderful christian women. they were church of God arminians. they were wrong about many areas of doctrine. they still loved the Lord, and i loved them. but, they were wrong. their churches doctrine was/is wrong as well. i thank God for any good that comes from this denomination, but they are just wrong.
i grew up a methodist. i was sprinkled on top of the head. this was wrong. now, i dont know about calling such things “unrepentant sin.” i prefer “wrong,” or “ignorance,” or “lack of understanding the scripture.” but, the point is that these other denominations are wrong. are they not? i mean, how can you believe that immersion and sprinkling are right? one of them’s wrong….right?
i’m a southern baptist because i believe that they stick closer to the bible than any other denomination out there. i also am thrilled to be a part of such a mission organization. i hope to stay a sb.
david
September 20, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Brother Rob,
You write; “The term “unrepentant sinner” could apply to all of us for I am sure there is one or two or ten areas of our personal lives that if compared to the Word of God we would be found deficient in”. I could not agree with you more. While I would disagree that the term “unrepentant sinner” is intemperate language, because I truly do not see it as critical, I do agree that it has been taken that way. (And I am not a scholar. :>))
For me the term unrepentant sinner can apply to me in areas that I am unwilling to allow God to control my life. Unrepentant sinner does not mean a Christian in that position will go to Hell. At no time has anyone sentenced someone to Hell because their belief is different. The issue that I desire to address is the issue of stating that I believe, without hesitation, the Bible teaches baptism by immersion after belief in Christ. But, if someone else says the Bible does not teach Baptism by immersion, then they are just as right in their belief as I am in mine. That truly appears to me as what others are saying when they say that we cannot tell other denominations they are wrong in their belief.
Brother Geoff,
The term “divergent interpretations” does not seem to apply.
Divergent means “differing from each other or from a standard” What is the standard? I presume it to be Scripture. Therefore, you are saying that a pedobaptist is differing from you, but you are basing your understanding on the standard of Scripture. However, if that is the case, then the pedobaptist differs from Scripture, not you.
I just do not think that phrase adequately explains the clear teaching of Scripture.
Blessings,
Tim
September 20, 2007 at 8:34 pm
David, my Mexican food buddy …
I don’t think this is truly about who’s right or who’s wrong. It’s about the way we deal with one another … the way we treat people who have been created in the image of God.
Like I said somewhere deep in this thread, there is a right way to be right, and there is a wrong way to be right. We have all know that since our kindergarten days.
It’s one thing to have theological disagreements and argue our views, then agree to disagree in the end. I manage such discussions / debates on a regular basis.
That’s what we teach in our church. In the essentials, within our church, we require unity. In our dealings with Christians of other denominations we exercise liberty. But at all times we show charity … especially when we are in disagreement.
It’s quite another thing to proclaim those with whom we are in disagreement as being in a state of “unrepentant sin.” I think most of us know what John said regarding unrepentant sin:
“No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God.” – 1 John 3:9
Such a label, in my humble opinion, is tantamount to saying that they are not truly believers at all.
Instead of remaining convinced of our “rightness” with grace, some Baptists prefer flaunt their theological “opponents’” “wrongness” with inflammatory language … sort of like “flipping” a theological “bird.”
Again I say – there is a right way to be right, and a wrong way to be right. Since I am not without sin, I will leave my stones on the ground. I still have plenty of work to do on the plank that is protruding from my own sinful eye.
I, too, am a Southern Baptist by choice, and because of solid theology. But if the SBC were to disappear tomorrow, I would still be the pastor of a Great Commission church.
September 20, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Could it be that we all need to realize that each one of has sin in our lives that has not been repented of! In fact, we may not have even ackowledged it as sin though God does.
If one reads the comments correctly, this is what Dr. Yarnell and a few others have said. To blow it into the level that has now been obtained is to add to it and now accept the fact that whether we like it or not, the Bible determines what sin is and what it is not and even churches, conventions, and even denominations can fit into this. What is so complicated about that? And please do tell, why is it fitting to call someone the names mentioned when the Bible itself takes the stand that Yarnell and others have taken?
September 20, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Kevin,
Maybe a time is needed for one to realize that no one is advocating what you are interpretating.
A little chill and stepping back might reveal this.
September 20, 2007 at 11:00 pm
With respect, Tim – read again Marlcom’s comments. Implicitly contained is the “Illuminati” believe one way, while the critics are mired in post-modern muck. There is no equivocation or humility there.
Does the Bible truly with every jod and tittle support the position that Malcolm and others (including yourself) advocate? I think this dialogue proves that men of good will (and Baptists all) has proven that “a contraire” consensus escapes us on these points – enough to send Geoff’s hit counter into the multiple hundreds, if not thousands. The very fact of this difference does not prove anyone right – nor does it prove anyone wrong. It merely proves a difference – a difference that needs to be recognized instead of dismissed by mere ad hominem arguments.
Rob
September 21, 2007 at 12:30 am
You know Rob, I wonder that (and now here is a bag of egetical worms) we understood ourselves as I believe Paul understood himself in Romans 7, that we would not have a problem with the term “unrepentant sinner”.
I find myself saying with Paul almost every day : Romans 7:24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?
And thn I say with Paul EVERY hour of every day 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
brothers.. we are both sinners and saints every second of the day.. as CHS said, “with enough sin in each of our hearts to make another devil of hell”.
I thank God for a complete atonement.
I thank God for His continually unconditional perservering grace
I thank God for a love that will not let me go!
And then I think of myself,
“What a strange mix of man I am” “So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.”
And yes, I think that is what Malcolm Yarnell is saying.
There is unrepented, and repented and (Heb 12:1) besetting sins, and sins for which we will be disciplined, and sins for which God will hug us closer to Himself to break the power of those sins by His almighty love.. I believe there are cultural sins, and there are character sins and there are common sins and there are sins of the preacher using way too much alliteration…
I fear though that the attack on Malcolm Yarnell is not really because of what he said, but rather as an attack on a conservative because he said something that might be able to be attacked (if we can find a way to interpret it badly).
You guys are better than that aren’t you?
Steve
September 21, 2007 at 5:14 am
Steve,
I completely agree with the alliteration thing! Alliteration is of the devil!
But I don’t agree with you final paragraph. There may, indeed, be some who are attacking Dr. Yarnell simply because he is a conservative.
I, most certainly, am not one of those. My theologically conservative credentials are not arguable. And I have not attacked Dr. Yarnell. I have merely taken issue with the productivity of some of his word and thought. I simply disagree with some of the words and ideas put forth by some other visitors to my blog.
That’s what healthy dialog is all about.
But just because I disagree with them, I will not “curse” them or declare those in disagreement with me to be in a state of “unrepentant sin.”
I think, really, it is those two words that have everyone so thoroughly fired up.
BTW … do let me know if Bobby W. does his “rescuing the lost sheep” sermon (the one where he hangs off the balcony). It’s a classic. I’ve only heard him preach twice, and it was the same sermon both times.
September 21, 2007 at 6:33 am
Steve,
You have proven my point. “I fear though that the attack on Malcolm Yarnell is not really because of what he said, but rather as an attack on a conservative because he said something that might be able to be attacked (if we can find a way to interpret it badly).”
It is an assumption that only those who are not conservative would take umbrage with the placement of those words in context. There is no recognition whatsoever that others could read those words “as is” and come to a understanding that a good man said something “in my opinion” the wrong way, or even at the wrong time. Brother, I was not looking for a reason to disagree with Dr. Yarnell. Until we as a convention are willing to take the plank out of our own eye, we have no business trying to remove the speck out of others eyes. You need to consider the possibility that these words raised in disagreement are not coming from a liberal or moderate – that is purely an argumentum ad homenim.
Rob
September 24, 2007 at 3:03 am
G’day there Geoff,
We had a wonderful God blessed time.. a turning point for our church many weeping at the front over the lost.. no.. it wasn’t the lost sheep sermon.. the Lord touched us deeply…
many unrepentant sinenrs brought to deeper repentance.. I still don’t understand why you think that is cursing people, or spewing hatred.. the most wonderful thing is when God grants us sinners repentance..
2 Tim 2:24 and yes.. I too am very repentant..as I ever should be..as Calvin says we always should be… I suppsoe Calvin was cursing people, too.
I guess I will steer clear of this sort of thing..
Steve
September 24, 2007 at 5:10 am
Steve,
I certainly never said anything about “spewing hatred.” I simply cannot fathom the labeling of an entire group of people with such a term, no matter how we may define it.
It seems that Drs. Yarnell and Barber agree, and have noted the misfortunate reaction to their terminology … and changed the tone.
September 27, 2007 at 4:01 am
Geoff here is an assessment of evangelical Presbyterian infant baptism by a Presbyterian pastor of 20 years experience.
He said to remind you that World wide, the evangelicals do not outnumber the liberal and baptismal regeneration presbyterians.
“I have attached some notes on the required topic of baptism. I don’t know if this is what you wanted. There are dozens of formulae that can be used in baptism; a minister is not bound to use any of them, he can use what ever he likes. I have copied a modern evangelical formula from the PCA Book of Worship and added some comments.
Please be careful not to add my name to the document or I may have to call you as a witness to my heresy trial. Fortunately they don’t burn heretics these days! Although torture may still be a possibility!
Leading up to the actual baptism, the pastor would read passages of Scripture such as; Ezekiel 36:25-28, Acts 2:39, Mark 10:13-16.
Preliminary Statement:
Because the practice of the baptism of infants rests on God’s covenant of grace with believers and their children, it requires personal faith in Jesus Christ on the part of the parents. Therefore, it is necessary for those presenting their children for baptism to answer certain questions.
The minister shall say to the parents who shall stand:
Who is your Lord and Saviour?
Response: Jesus Christ in my Lord and Saviour.
Do you trust in the righteousness of Christ alone for your salvation?
Response: I do.
Do you promise to obey Him?
Response: I do.
Or Lord Jesus has commanded us to teach those who we baptize in His name. Do you promise to teach (NAME) from the Scriptures how to trust in Christ as his/her Saviour and to follow Him as Lord?
Response: I do.
Do you promise to pray for (NAME) and to set him/her a godly example in your actions, that by God’s grace, he/she may be a faithful follower of our Lord Jesus Christ all his/her days?
Response: I do.
As part of your godly example, do you promise to be regular and diligent in meeting with God’s people on the Lord’s Day?
Response: I do.
The minister shall say:
The Lord bless you and your child and graciously enable you to keep these promises.
The minister, then addresses the congregation:
This sacrament lays special responsibility upon you, the people of God. Will you be faithful to your calling as members of the Church of Christ, so that, by God’s grace, this child may grow up in the knowledge and love of Christ?
If you accept this responsibility, please say, I will.
Then the minister shall pour or sprinkle water on the child’s head, saying:
(NAME) I baptize you in the name of the Father ad the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The blessing of God Almighty, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, descend upon you and dwell in your heart forever.
The Congregation will then sing the Aaronic Blessing (Numbers 6:24-27).
Thereafter addressing the congregation, the minister shall say:
We receive (NAME) into the care of Christ’s Church, that as a member of the covenant community, he/she may be nurtured and strengthened, and continue as Christ’ faithful servant to his/her life’s end.
The Lord be with you as you fulfill this solemn trust, and may he abundantly fulfill in you his word.
The prayer is offer for the child, and the parents for the Lord’s blessing to remain faithful to Him for their entire life.
COMMENTS:
• This is one of a number of baptismal formulae used for infant baptism within the Presbyterian Church of Australia. It is the one used most commonly by evangelicals.
• Baptism is a public profession by the parents to bring up their child in the Christian faith.
• However, those parents who are poorly taught or nominally Christian can answer the questions without any real conviction. Many even believing in a form of baptismal regeneration –that their child is “now done” and will go to heaven.
• The process really fails to encourage and emphasize the need for the child to be converted and enter into a personal saving faith in the Lord Jesus. Although this would be assumed and the child would come under evangelical teaching in his/her life within the church, the whole process has a sense of once baptized I am a Christian in the church and I don’t need to do anymore.
• The covenantal nature of baptism is based heavily upon Acts 2:38-39 and 1Corinthians 7:14. In Acts 2 I believe that the passage that states that, “the promise is for you and your children and all who are far off” is not referring to infant children but to future generations and those not physically present at the “Pentecost event,” described in Acts 2. In this passage, the promise requires personal repentance –the promise is that those who repent will be forgiven and receive the Holy Spirit.
• The whole concept of infant baptism or covenantal baptism is a wholesale copy of the nationalistic covenant set up by the Lord with Israel (under the old covenant). Passages like Jeremiah 31:31-34 would indicate the day when this nationalistic covenant would cease and the Lord would institute a NEW COVENANT that is not like the old one. The New Covenant requires a personal relationship with the Lord where the Lord will write His Law on the hearts of believers.”
Steve
September 27, 2007 at 7:29 am
Good insights, Steve.
What you describe seems to indicate that in the PCA there is no doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Did you get the same impression from these comments?
It sounds a lot like our parent/child dedication services … except we don’t involved any water.
Do you do parent/child dedications with new babies in the church family?
Geoff
September 27, 2007 at 9:14 am
geoff,
i’d say that in the very least that this kind of ceremony would be very confusing, and could very well lead to the people believing that thier child was saved. i really see what grosey wrote, and was said and was horrified from it. especially when i think back to what i went thru as a young child being sprinkled in the methodist church while continuing to be lost as a goose in high weeds, and remembering the words of my cousins about how they were going to heaven because they were baptised as babies.
i mean, this statement from the words in the baptismal service…..”We receive (NAME) into the care of Christ’s Church, that as a member of the covenant community, he/she may be nurtured and strengthened, and continue as Christ’ faithful servant to his/her life’s end.” continue as Christ’s faithful servant????? what??? an infant?
also, this statement is confusing in the very least….”(NAME) I baptize you in the name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The blessing of God Almighty, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, descend upon you and dwell in your heart forever.” wow, that sounds like he’s saying that the Holy Spirit is in the child’s heart, and will be forever????? this is not a good thing.
david
September 27, 2007 at 9:50 am
David,
I agree. I agreed with Steve. I think this approach is faulty, and not biblical. Certainly I did not defend it.
But is it not eerily reminiscent of Baptist baby dedications … just without the water?
September 27, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Not at all Geoff.
In Baby dedications I make it very clear that 1. We are giving thanks for the birth of a child.
Its a thanksgiving service!
2. That salvation is by conscious aith in the Lord Jesus Christ. That this is a thing doen when a child or adult at an age of understanding can make a conscious decision to trust the Lord Jesus Christ as their Saviour.
3. That the parents are dedicating to teach this child so that when he/she comes to an age where they can make a conscious decision to trust the Lord Jesus Christ as their own Saviour and Lord, they will be equipped with the understanding to do so through the loving nurture and admonishing in a christian home.
Do you do something different Geoff?
By the way,
I never did an infant dedication fo my own children! We knew we would not be in the church where our kids were born long enough for that church to have a part in it.
Steve
September 27, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Geoff, the Presbyterian pastor’s comments were very critical of infant baptism and led him to be baptised by immersion this year.
I am not sure that you understand how bad he thinks infant baptism is.
Steve
September 27, 2007 at 4:19 pm
No, we don’t do anything different … basically the same. In my parent/child dedications I issue a strong challenge to the parents (and the church) to insure that the child grows up in a Christ-centered home and under the loving instruction of the church.
And I always make clear that we do not baptize infants (and why). We also cover that during our prospective members’ classes.
Now I do understand that pastor’s criticism. He was immersed last year? Awesome!