Recently, two SWBTS seminary professors have been vocal about their belief that if a church is not Southern Baptist then they are in "unrepentant sin." You can read their assertions here and here.
Dear brothers and sisters, this push for isolationism is extremely dangerous. As a matter of fact, once we begin to believe that we in the SBC are the only people who have the "real truth" we begin to cross over from orthodox Christianity into culthood.
According to NAMB, one of the characteristics of a cult is "Cults and sects usually claim to be the only true (or the most true) church in the world. Full salvation is said to be found only by membership in the movement. Jehovah's Witnesses, for instance, regard all other religious organizations as devoid of truth. In their view, only their Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has the truth that leads to eternal life. The LDS teaches that eternal life (exaltation) can be achieved only by being a baptized member of the LDS church.
Is this where the SBC is going? If it is, you can count me out.
Dear brothers and sisters, this push for isolationism is extremely dangerous. As a matter of fact, once we begin to believe that we in the SBC are the only people who have the "real truth" we begin to cross over from orthodox Christianity into culthood.
According to NAMB, one of the characteristics of a cult is "Cults and sects usually claim to be the only true (or the most true) church in the world. Full salvation is said to be found only by membership in the movement. Jehovah's Witnesses, for instance, regard all other religious organizations as devoid of truth. In their view, only their Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has the truth that leads to eternal life. The LDS teaches that eternal life (exaltation) can be achieved only by being a baptized member of the LDS church.
Is this where the SBC is going? If it is, you can count me out.
Posts
62 comments:
Les, while I don't agree with their conclusions vis a vis a Baptist Renaissance, I don't think they specifically mention the SBC as the only denomination with the real truth. They use the term Baptist to describe ALL churches (even those with no Baptist in their name) that believe and practice historical Baptist distinctives. For instance, if a gospel preaching, non-SBC denomination (or non-denomination for that matter) baptizes new believers by immersion as a symbol of regeneration, serves communion only to baptized believers, and practices congregationalism, you could easily be identified as having Baptist polity.
Obviously it's the strong words unrepentant sin that's stirring up everyone. From my reading of these professors, I believe that one tends to take an extremely confident view of his theology. He's used inflammatory words before regarding a soteriology that he differs with.
I do find it a bit disconcerting to automatically ascribe your understanding of theology (assuming it's in line with historical orthodoxy of course) as the most biblical.
At least you know where he stands!
Mike
les,
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, which infant baptism clearly does, then it has to be called sin. that's thier position as i understand it.
i dont think that they would say that all methodists are lost. they would say that methodist sprinkling instead of immersing is wrong….against the clear teachings of the bible. thus, you should call it sin.
i believe, les, 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 hope that help clears up what they are actually saying.
david
Mike,
You're right. At least we know where they stand. That's what is so scary.
David,
I would expect you to defend their position. Thanks for trying but I do understand what they are saying. That's why it's so scary.
When anyone says "we're better christians than [fill in the blank]," that is a problem. To me, it sounds like the prayer, "Thank you God I am not like other men." You do know who prayed that prayer, don't you?
When we think we've got all the answers, that's a problem. When we think we cannot learn from other denominations, that's a problem.
I have nothing personal against Bart or Malcolm. This is about ideology, not personality. If Wade or Ben or Geoff or anyone else began spouting this stuff, I would speak up just as strongly.
This position is dangerously close to the characteristic of the cult I quoted from our own SBC agency's (NAMB) website.
If you agree with them, shame on you.
Les
"Is this where the SBC is going?"
No. Not when I attend my local association's meetings or hang out with pastors. It does sometimes appear we may be headed for diverging roads: denominational leadership going one way, individual churches headed another. If that were to happen, it would be one divided house that could not stand for long.
My money would be on the majority of the 42,000 churches headed down a road you and I are more comfortable with.
Les,
I have to agree with you here. This is shocking, to say the least. To call someone an "unrepentant sinner" means something, and these men know it. 1 John 3 is very clear as to the state of people who persist in unrepentant sin - the question arises, are they even saved? That is the biblical definition of an unrepentant sinner. If these men want to talk about something else like error or theological confusion, then let them do so. Most of us would agree. But, they are intentionally using inflammatory language to stir everyone up without adequately defining their terms, or by co-opting commonly understood biblical terms in a way that is misleading if you believe the best and horrific if you believe the worst.
Would they say that those who do not engage in congregational church government are unrepentant sinners?
What about those who have differing eschatology?
What about those who are continualist in their theology, especially in regard to gifts like "speaking in tongues"?
Where does it end? Dr. Yarnell did address the tongues issue and included those who believe that this is biblical as unrepentant sinners. The answers to my questions for almost two years are becoming much more clear.
I CANNOT BELIEVE that CP money is being spent to fund this type of confusion. When will people see what is really going on?
Bowden,
I hope you're right about the "rank-and-file" rejecting this stuff. However, these professors are influencing new pastors who will become a part of the "rank-and-file." That's my concern.
Alan,
Excellent point. Where does it stop? Apparently their test of faith is belief in the "right" baptism. Eschatology will be next and then soteriology and then who knows what.
It seems that those who agree with this approach agree with the new definitions of what a "true" Christian is as well.
This is so sad.
Les
Les,
Uggh! I got dragged in again. That kind of thinking is horrible! I can not believe that my seminary has that kind of trash being taught! What are they going to do when we get to heaven? Are they going to fellowship with "unrepentant sinners?"
I believe what I believe because I see it as right. Now there are three possibilities when I enter into a discussion with someone with whom I disagree...I am right and he is wrong; I am wrong and he is right; I am wrong and he is wrong (only if you have a post-modern bent can there be four...I am right and he is right :-) ).
Now, if I am wrong and he is right, what does my being wrong mean? Am I amorally wrong (it just doesn't matter), or am I wrong with consequences (it just does matter)?
I think this is the bottom line on the matter. Can we be wrong theologically and have it be a non-issue for God? I still have one passage of Scripture to which no one of whom I am aware has responded. In Job 42:7-9 God tells Job's friends that His anger burns against them because "you have not spoken of Me what is right." What is going on here?
Les, I believe the amount of responsibility incurred for a matter is directly proportional to the amount of knowledge one has about the issue involved;
Matthew 11:20 Then He proceeded to denounce the towns where most of His miracles were done, because they did not repent: 21 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented in sackcloth and ashes long ago! 22 But I tell you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will go down to • Hades.For if the miracles that were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until today. 24 But I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.”
Given this principle, the amount of sin invloved in a theological matter can be determined... is it more sinful to hold to baptismal regeneration of infants (or some derivative of it)in the face of clear gospel statements such as John 3:36 The one who believes in the Son has eternal life, but the one who refuses to believe in the Son will not see life; instead, the wrath of God remains on him.
than over some obviously more difficult to exegete issues such as congregationalism versus a plurality of elders governing a local assembly?
I think it is pretty clear to any evangelical (of any church group) that any biblical evidence supposed to support infant baptismal regeneration is wanting.
Therefore support of such a view is more sinful than support of some other greyer matters.
Hence Paul held the Jews more responsible for not repenting than he did the gentiles. Romans 2.
So, we ought to be more direct in encouraging those supporting doctrines intrinsically opposed to the nature of the gospel itself to repent. For to not do so is unloving to them and irresponsible to our Lord.
I guess I am saying we should be more overt in sharing the gospel and sometimes these very doctrines supply us a unique opportunity to share Christ.
Yesterday I was travelling in a courtesy bus for a car place and began a discussion with the driver that led her to ask me about the gospel. Her interest was on the difference between Baptists (1% of our community) and Catholics (30% of our community) and anglicans (35% of the community).
Our view of Baptism flows from our understanding of the gospel. It is the gospel.. of justification by faith, that leads us to our view of baptism (an ordinance not a sacrament: a conscious act not an unconcious thing, a confession of faith, not a means of regeneration, a personal identification with Christ, rather than an act done for someone else).
I guess I am saying in short that there is a degree of moral responsibility in the matter of Baptism versus infant baptism.
I hope this hasn't come out muddled.. its early here.
Oh.. Les, not being SBC, am I In or Out in your Landmark argument? Do Bart and Malcolm regard me as in unrepentant sin BECAUSE my church is not SBC?
In fact my denomination is thoroughly mixed with Barthians, conservatives, all versions of pentecostal, all degrees of "reformed", all degrees of emergent, and liberals proposing homosexual ordination!
haha.. now .. classify THAT! :)
Steve
. For instance, if a gospel preaching, non-SBC denomination (or non-denomination for that matter) baptizes new believers by immersion as a symbol of regeneration, serves communion only to baptized believers, and practices congregationalism, you could easily be identified as having Baptist polity.
A. "Gospel preaching" is ambiguous. That's why we once had Particular and General Baptists.
Problem is, Particular Baptists didn't rebaptize General Baptists if they determined that they were baptized after having made a credible profession of faith - unlike the desires of some on the IMB and their supporters.
B. Speaking of baptism, our Baptist forebears were more Calvinist than Zwinglian in those years, for they affirmed baptism was a means of grace, not a mere "symbol."
C. Presbyterians practice open communion but deny communion to those, including children baptized in infancy. They fence the table just like Baptists - based on a credible profession of faith and baptism or a credible profession pending baptism. Baptism of any kind can't guarantee a credible profession of faith unless you affirm it is regenerative.
Considering the discussion that the SBC is having at present regarding the number of baptized but unregenerate persons that line the pews of its churches, I don't think many in the SBC, if they wish to put this out there as part of what constitutes a "true church," have any room to talk. Some of the SBC's "flagship churches" strike me as functionally Paedobaptist.
By the way, where does Scripture connect offering communion to only baptized persons to being a "true church?" That's the historic Baptist position - that is true and nobody denies it - but if that is true, then (a) the Presby will simply say that everybody partaking is baptized or pending baptism. True, we don't recognize their infant baptisms, but what about their credo-baptisms? If there are, by our standards, validly baptized persons in their midst, that's another problem this objection must face.
d. Congregationalism? Baptist tradition and theology do not select for any particular form of church polity within the local church.
e. Does nobody notice what is happening here? People are starting down the road of claiming to be the one true holy apostolic church of Christ. Who else does that? Think about it.
This isn't a "Baptist Renaissance," It's a "Baptist Catholic Phase." The arguments employed are exactly those that began with Cyprian and ended with Augustine, particularly insofar as the administration of sacraments / ordinances is concerned.
Apparently there are those who sat through Church History because they simply had to take it and didn't pay close enough attention. That's what you get for snoozing in class.
What's happening here is a move beyond distinguishing between kinds and levels of error toward defining faith as dogmatic faith such that if you don't believe just like everybody else you are in "unrepentant sin."
Kevin,
I know this is particularly distasteful to you because your parents are Christians but are not baptists. Not every baptist agrees with Barber and Yarnell.
Scott,
I'll let those who are smarter than me address your Job question.
Steve,
It sure sounds like you're a bunch of unrepentant sinners according to some people. :)
Gene,
I knew I could count on you. I agree with your assessment that some are moving toward a "Baptist Catholic Phase."
Les
Go read what Dr. Y said on David Rogers site.
I'm done!
Yet as someone posted, on Wade Burleson's blog, a quote from the Westminster Confession, this idea of unrepentant sin is not novel with Baptists such as Dr. Yarnell.
Confessional Presbyterians who believe the Westminster Confession seem to think it is unrepentant sin for you and I not to baptize infants.
Does it come down to whether or not you can sin in ignorance?
Are mistakes in theology sin?
Is telling someone he has unrepentant sin the exact same thing as saying that he is not a Christian? I doubt that is what Dr. Yarnell is saying.
If I'm depending on just how right I get this stuff, I might as well pack it in now. There simply wouldn't be any hope for me.
On the other hand, I can get my head around what Peter said in Act 2. I think I'll run with that.
And I STILL think it's hilarious for a bunch of Baptists debating what Presbyterians believe.
Gee, Les, what more can you expect from those of us intellectually incapable of rising above personalities to deal with ideas?
I assume that you also place Dr. Mark Dever on this list?
Bart,
Who is attacking personalities? Your views are scary. What are you going to do in heaven? Are you going to fellowship with D. James Kennedy or Ruth Graham even they lived in what you call unrepentant sin?
I'm ashamed at how my seminary has become a place of legalism and arrogance.
G'day Les,
Man!! I hate to do a david... but... I put too much work into it not to.. and it highlights my concerns.
I have been approached a few times in the last 2 years to pastor Anglican, Congregational or Presbyterian churches. They were after 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 not.. what do you think?
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. Maybe you are happy to encourage others to say those words.. do words really matter?
:)
Something to think about..
Steve
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.”
In context, Paul is talking about things like food sacrificed to idols and "adiaphora."
So, if your argument from analogy is to hold, Brother, you'd have to say that baptism is "adiaphora."
Is that your position? Is that Yarnell's position?
Dare I say the answer is "No," and, if it is, then we must concede that matters of "adiaphora" can rise to the level of either (a) "no true church," or (b) sin - but where does Paul say eating food sacrificed to idols is sin? He says just the opposite in the selected text and its parallel in 1 Corinthians.
So, we're really back to declaring who is part of the one true holy apostolic Catholic church - on the basis of the administration of the sacraments. Who else has historically held that view?
Kevin,
Is legalism a sin? Arrogance?
What are you going to do in heaven with me there?
Bart,
You're right. I guess my expectations have been too high. Like that old Beatle said, "I should've known better."
Read it again, buddy. I said that I disagree with your ideology not your personality.
Les
I've got no beef with personalities just bad theology. I'll worship and work with anyone who believes Jesus is the way. John 14:6
Les,
I was referring to your previous post, where I was categorized as one who dealt with personalities rather than ideas. I was not accusing you of attacking personalities—I was highlighting your categorization of me. Belonging in that category, I wonder why you would take seriously my theological musings.
Were you going to respond about Dever?
Kevin,
I'm just wondering why, upon my heartfelt expression of my personal beliefs about Christian unity, you feel justified in presuming an entire attitude about people like Dr. Kennedy. But then, when you accuse me of sin (legalism and arrogance), I am not free to draw the same inferences regarding your attitude toward me that you have so freely and without justification or substantiation drawn regarding my purported attitude toward Dr. Kennedy.
How are personalities getting into the equation. What else am I to think? You and Dr. Y both say that you are right and those who disagree with you are wrong. That is arrogance. I'm done with this. You twist everything around. I could care less about this academic mess. All I care about it leading people to Christ. You can argue all you want. I'm deleting every site that speaks about SBC stuff and will never come back. I'm busy building relationships with Atheists and building friendships with my Church of Christ, Assembly of God, Prez, Methodist and Non-denom friends.
God bless you in your ministry.
Kevin,
And God bless you in yours. And when we get to Heaven, perhaps Dr. Kennedy, you, and I can carve out some time to get together and talk the whole thing over.
Les,
I'm going to ignore your guests smart remarks.
I like you and will continue to read unless I see the letters "SBC" on any post. Don't take it personally.
See Kevin, you seem to be so convinced that I'm some evil, Baptists-have-it-all-right, everybody-else-is-going-to-Hell monster that, when I affirm that all three of us are going to be in Heaven together and share fellowship, you presume that it is a smart remark. I was trying to be gracious. But I suppose that I will give up as well.
Bart,
I disagree with anyone who holds to your position as I have stated in this post. You may insert any name you wish.
Kevin,
You said, "I've got no beef with personalities just bad theology. I'll worship and work with anyone who believes Jesus is the way."
Amen, brother.
Les
Bart: What in your mind is the implication or consequence of being an "unrepentant sinner?" What is the Biblical answer to that question?
(may I?) Answer:
Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Bart,
Perhaps you're running into trouble communicating with people because calling someone an "unrepentant sinner" generally means something very severe. You can't just call people that and have it not mean what everyone knows it means (see 1 John 3:4-10). This is the argument that I was trying to make last week.
I have no problem with your statement that those who baptize differently than us are wrong, are missing God's will, are disobedient, and thus, are sinning. But, to call someone an unrepentant sinner have historically meant that they are in total rebellion, or worse, they are unregenerate. It implies that they are candidates for church discipline and excommunication and should be treated like pagans and tax collectors. It is very severe.
Perhaps a change of terms that would more clearly express what you are trying to communicate is in order?
Les,
Kevin said: "I've got no beef with personalities just bad theology. I'll worship and work with anyone who believes Jesus is the way." You have seconded the motion.
Might I ask what that means? If it means that we're glad to stand next to them at Together for the Gospel and worship with them...if it means that we're glad to unite with them in a Billy Graham crusade to win the lost for Christ...to stand alongside them ministering to the poor or victimized...to worship and work with them in those ways...if it means THAT, then I am in 100% agreement with you.
If it means that we regret our separation from them over the sin of infant baptism as a mistake, because we no longer regard pedobaptism as a sin at all...if it means THAT, then I find that I am not in agreement at all with what you are saying. Of course, since you remain within (even in leadership of) Baptist churches, I am still in 100% agreement with your actions—just not with your words that contradict your actions.
Alan,
I offered just such a change in terminology over at my blog last week. I said:
"I am perfectly willing to substitute for the phrase 'a matter of unrepentant sin' the phrase 'a matter of clear biblical teaching.'
I believe that it amounts to a matter of unrepentant sin to be at odds with a clear biblical teaching (like believer's baptism), but if the phrase "unrepentant sin" be too inflammatory, I'm just as comfortable with this alternative phrase.
What say ye?"
The change in terminology seems not to have helped much. But thanks for trying.
Come on people, this is not that complicated.
Anyone who violates the Bible is in sin. The statements posted were not trying to pridefully say that "we are better" or anything like that.
Before you attack me, remember I am in all types of churches on a yearly basis.
Guys, please lighten up. This is the real scary part of this. Bart, nor Yarnell, nor Les, nor anyone else is better than anyone else. Please step back for a moment. This is getting crazy. The interpretations of what people are saying are totally off the mark.
P.S. Les, that is why I think your categories of us are all wrong. You imly without knowing especially in my case. Let's see, in 2007 alone, I have been in 7 different denominational or non denominational churches. Where does that put me?
Bart,
I wonder why there is no accepting of your willingness to adjust the term?
This is crazy!
Dr. Yarnell offered the term Alan used as an alternative to "unrepentant sinner": "out of God's will." In fact, he then acquiesced the term "Baptist," though that has not fazed too many critics.
He offered, "As for denominations which qualify as Great Commission Christians, it would be all those that seek to implement the order and totality of what Christ commanded, without adding human requirements. This is too broad to name. I do know that this is what my local church believes, so I can vouch for them. I also know that this is what the SBC's confession teaches, so I can vouch for that. The name "Baptist" is not however necessary, although it is helpful."
In my observation, too many are not dealing with the substance of Yarnell's thoughts, but with fanciful conjecture and logical conclusions pushed on him. He is right, this discussion needs to happen.
Bart,
Isn't it good to know that Jesus has forgiven ALL my sin? Past, present, and future? Therefore, my friend, my sins have been forgiven, erased, as if they never occurred. Even my sins tomorrow.
Do I grieve over my sin? Absolutely. Do I have or will I ever have any sins that have not been forgiven? Not according to my Bible. Therefore, I cannot be an "unrepentant sinner."
Your assignment of who is repentant and who is not reeks of a "works-based" salvation. Bad theology. Those who claim that we must "confess and repent" of every sin each day or we are guilty of "unrepentant sin" have no idea what "grace" and "mercy" means. I sure hope you don't forget to repent of every sin today or else you're not a "true" Christian. Give me a break.
Tim G,
I have never said I was any better than anyone else. I have never claimed that non-Baptists are not "true" Great Commission Christians. Bart and Malcolm said that, not me. Your beef should be with them, not the rest of us who are calling them on their undisguised legalism.
You're right, this is ridiculous. That's why we must speak out.
How about surprising me and disagree with the "establishment" guys for once in your life. Eh?
Les
Les,
Yes, and thanks be to God for His wonderous grace and forgiveness. You do truly misunderstand if you think me to be limiting God's grace or proclaiming what has been forgiven versus what has not. But how do you read any of what the New Testament says about church discipline if you will not allow for the possibility that a genuine believer could be, at least for a time, in a state of unrepentant sin?
Les,
Good evening and God bless. I write you from Northboro, Massachusetts tonight. In the morning I will accompany my darling one to Plymouth and then to Boston. In the past two days we have seen Providence and Newport, RI, Concord and Lexington, and Kittery, Maine.
May God have mercy on my students—I have a slideshow now! Oh well, at least I haven't been to the Holy Land yet to take slides there.
Today I stood over the grave of Dr. John Clarke, remembering how he and Obadiah Holmes were accosted for preaching believer's baptism, how Holmes was beaten within an inch of his life, and how their story helped to give us the liberties we enjoy today. We can sit at our respective computers and write these things without fear of the stocks thanks to their sacrifices. It has been good for the soul to be up here.
And I return to it in the morning, followed by more travel, so it may be several days before I can return. I request your patience with me, believing that our conversation is important, but knowing that I must lay it aside for a while.
Isn't it good to know that Jesus has forgiven ALL my sin? Past, present, and future? Therefore, my friend, my sins have been forgiven, erased, as if they never occurred. Even my sins tomorrow.
Amen Les.
Bart,
Yes, that change is very helpful. I did not see that on your blog last week. Thank you for posting it here.
I also saw Dr. Yarnell's change to out of God's Will and I accepted that, Colin. It makes the issue much more clear. This is not to say that everything that we do out of God's will is not sin. By definition, it is. But, to call someone an "unrepentant sinner" means something very grave regarding their nature - perhaps more grave than what you intend. That has been my point all along.
I am encouraged that dialogue seems to have been fruitful. Thank you for listening and adjusting.
Les,
That is not what either one of them said. Please re-read.
P.S. I am not an establishment guy! I am who I am. Why are you now so prone to giving of terms. This is what I see as totally wrong in SBC discussions. People put labels then attack for labeling and then re label.
Come on Les, you are better than this? And by the way, did this not start out dealing with Infant Baptism? Lets keep it all in context. It has nothing to do with politics.
I know I'll probably be castigated for drinking the kool-aid, but its not only Dr. Yarnell and Bart Barber that have made bold assertions. Both Bart and Malcolm have suggested the term 'out of God's will'. Is this more conducive to clear discussion? Would anyone not agree with that characterization? By the way in interest of Christian civility these are the marks Dr Yarnell has been branded with on blogs because of his own biblical conviction:
arrogant,
Landmarkist
Church of Christ mindset
di stink tive
Catholic
Islamist
cult-like
Pharisee
Exclusivism
Ichabod
Fundamentalist
Legalist
Hubris
Unteachable Spirit
Absurdity at its evil worst
Theological insanity
I appreciate his spirit in not returning such remarks in kind.
Bart: Many things were done in history by many including Baptists that leaves a tainted past. But scripture does interpret scripture. It doesn't make us doing the same things correct. I do agree with Alan though that the changes are better and the discussion seemingly fruitful. I enjoy history, it just doesn't form my doctrine. Your example among other is why.
Hey Bart.. I know you wont get this till its too late.. but I think some of my slide shows are a form of unrepentant sin that I need to repent of....and I am sure some of you guys have put together some that.. well... :) please smile folks..
the truth is that we all have unrepented sins, many of which we are not aware of. And when the Spirit of God makes us aware of them, we will repent of them.
Its the continuing in known sin that is the issue in 1 John... i can't find the words "unrepented sins" there in 1 John 3. Do I need to repent of using the wrong version?
And yes Les, hallelujah that 1John 1:7 the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.
Please though... our understanding of Baptism must flow from our understanding of the completeness of the atonement and our response of faith to this gospel.
Steve
Brother Les,
I know that you and I have a slight variation on exactly what the application of God's Grace is all about and this statement may be just that. However, I think you may desire to restate what you have written when you write; "Do I grieve over my sin? Absolutely. Do I have or will I ever have any sins that have not been forgiven? Not according to my Bible."
That statement appears to be like a pen knife that cuts our 1 John 1:9-10 along with 2:1-2.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim and all,
Rather than muddy up this thread with more discussion on the forgiveness of sin, I'll start a new post.
Les
I realize I'm late to the party, but for those who are criticizing the terminology "unrepentant sinner," may I ask you three questions that I think would clear away much of the clutter if we would answer them directly:
1. What would you call someone who ignores a clear command of scripture?
2. Do you believe that believer's baptism is clearly taught in scripture?
3. What is the state of a person who continues to ignore a clear command of scripture, even when confronted by it?
If you can come away from those questions without the label "unrepentant sinner" you are not a baptist.
That is not the same as saying they won't be in heaven or we can't cooperate with them in sharing the gospel or fellowship with them as brothers and sisters in Christ.
Thanks,
Brad Guenther
Brad,
Okay, I'll bite.
1. A sinner.
2. Yes, I do, but I have no issue with those who disagree. Number 2 is not a correlation to number 1. Presbyterians are convinced they are following the Great Commission when they do paedobaptism. Matthew 28:19 says "Go and make disciples." Now it could be interpreted that the next part of the passage is "how" to make disciples. How? By baptizing them and teaching them (v19b-20).
My paedobaptist friends would say they are following the scriptures. They baptize newborns as a sign of God's covenant with His people very similar to our baby dedication service. They would also say that infant baptism identifies that this child is part of a covenant family and will be raised to know and love Christ.
They will also say that paedobaptism is NOT salvific. The individual will still have to personally receive Christ as Lord and Savior to be saved. Would you call this perspective "unrepentant sin"? I would not. It's a different understanding than we have, but I'm not going to say they are wrong.
Before you condemn those who practice covenant theology maybe you should read up on it yourself and know a bit more of what you're talking about.
3. An unredeemed sinner.
You say I must agree with you or I am not a baptist, eh? My, my, how narrow is your definition of baptist.
So it seems that the new test of fellowship is that all baptists must agree that all non-baptists are "unrepentant sinners." Sorry, but I'm not buying it.
And I am just as baptist as you are.
Les
And another Amen Les.
Im amazed at the amount of clear teaching.. recognized by some and not so clear to others.
Clear- seems to be in the eye of the beholder
Les,
Perhaps I was not clear in what I said. If you don't believe #2, then you are not a baptist.
I have many Presbyterian friends. I'm not asking what they believe. I'm asking what Baptists have historically believed. I understand covenant theology very well, but thank you for your exhortation. I reject it because it is biblically weak.
In my dealings with those who seek to join our church from a paedobaptistic church, I simply challenge them to examine the scriptures and come back and tell me what they think the Bible teaches about baptism. I've yet to have one come back arguing for paedobaptism. Maybe there's something to that.
Again, I am not saying you must agree with me to be a Baptist. I'm saying you must believe what Baptists believe to be a Baptist, otherwise it is a meaningless label.
I find two things curious about your response: (1) you are not willing to say that a paedobaptist is biblically wrong? Wow. If our baptist fore-fathers had that kind of conviction, there would be no baptists. (2) You refer to anyone who is unrepentant as unredeemed. That is saying a lot more than calling someone an "unrepentant sinner."
Brad Guenther
Let me be more clear. Number 2 should say something more like: You refer to anyone who is unrepentant over a certain area of their life for a period of time as an "unredeemed sinner." Clearly if someone has not repented of their sin, they are unredeemed. However, we all sin daily, requiring repentance, though not for salvation, but for right relationship with God.
Brad
Brad,
Maybe you should read my latest post. BTW, for me to say that paedobaptism is not sinful is not the same as saying I support it.
Les
Les & Alycelee,
I'm amazed at the current mindset in Baptist circles that has filtered in that says if someone has ever or does currently disagree with a biblical teaching, then that teaching must not be clear. My question would be, "Is THIS where the SBC is going?"
Brad
Les,
Saying that you would not call them wrong is the same as saying you do not oppose it.
Brad
Brad,
You finally got something right. You're right, I do not oppose my fellow Christians, such as Presbyterians.
You go fight with them all you want but I prefer to join them as well as all other orthodox Christians in sharing the good news of Jesus Christ.
Thanks for the discussion.
Les
Les,
When Paul encourages the Corinthian church to repent or when Jesus tells the church of Sardis to repent, is he saying that they are unredeemed?
Brad
Now Les,
You know very well that is not what I am saying, but go ahead and beat that drum to avoid the point.
Brad
Les, I haven't had time to post much lately, but I had to stop by and take a look at this. As a non-SBC Baptist, I personally did not understand Bart and Malcolm saying that everyone who is not Southern Baptist is in "unrepentant sin." If they are saying that, they are wrong and even assigning all pre-1845 believers to daily lives of sin of which they could not repent.
Great idea for a blog. Keep it up!! :-)
Finance
Debt Consolidation
Finance Dollar
Get Easy Loan
Post a Comment