1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Ark. messengers reject amendment

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by gb93433, Nov 10, 2007.

  1. StefanM

    StefanM Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,333
    Likes Received:
    210
    Faith:
    Baptist
    If a local church can't even get it right, how on earth will an association or convention?
     
  2. saturneptune

    saturneptune New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    2
    The statement "why do so many get it wrong" is your opinion of which ones get it wrong. Your opinion of baptism and the Lord's Supper do not make it correct one way or the other.

    My guess is that the collective decision of one congregation is more accurate than the opinion of one person.
     
  3. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    That may be true most of the time but it is not always true. Simply compare Moses and those who were supposed otofollow him.

    Many a local church has been ruined due to the expert opinion of a few and the many who follow.
     
  4. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    For example look at the history of the SBC and you will see some wrongs along the way and many who supported them in their wrongs.
     
  5. saturneptune

    saturneptune New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    2
    It is hard to follow where you are coming from or going with this thread. You have said many times that churches make wrong decisions. The subject of the vote was alien baptism and the Lord's Supper. It would be easier to know how to respond if I knew how you felt about both issues.
     
  6. StefanM

    StefanM Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,333
    Likes Received:
    210
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The SBC's flaws are legion.
     
  7. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    2
    Let me see if I can shed some light on the relationships among churches, associations, state conventions and the SBC.

    First, Southern Baptist churches are and have always been autonomous. They voluntarily associate with other churches to form associations. The articles of incorporation will usually outline the bases for their cooperation. It will usually include common doctrines, common ecclesiology and common common goals of missions and evangelism.

    The same applies to state conventions and to the SBC. The two bases for cooperation at the SBC level are the Baptist Faith and Message and the Cooperative Program. For many, the primary focus is not the BF & M; it is the CP.

    Neither the association, the state convention nor the SBC can dictate to local churches. Churches are free to voluntarily accept or ignore anything done at any level of cooperation.

    Even in the Arkansas convention, I guarantee you that there are Baptist churches who practice both open communion and alien immersion. The Arkansas Baptist Convention is powerless to force them to change the practice.

    The statement in question was agreed upon at some point by the messengers. But it has zero effect on the autonomy of the local churches affiliated with the ArkBC.

    The recourse open to both a church, association or convention is to withdraw fellowship. This has happened in my area of Western Kentucky, where some churches who have accepted alien immersion have separated from the association--or the association has separated from them.

    The fact that alien immersion and open communion has become an issue, and that 61 per cent of the messengers voted to eliminate the statement should be as warning for the rest of us. It's coming to an association or convention near you sooner or later. More than Calvinism, this is the issue which will be the center of conflict over the next few years.
     
    #27 Tom Butler, Nov 12, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 12, 2007
  8. StefanM

    StefanM Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,333
    Likes Received:
    210
    Faith:
    Baptist
    1) You are quite correct. They openly admit to it as well. In the sixties, when this statement was adopted, the ABSC voted to remove some churches from fellowship, but no one is doing anything about it now.

    2) What I question is the number of those who actually favor open communion and "alien" immersion. The issue was presented in terms of local church autonomy, presumably to gain more votes. I wonder if the result might have been different had the issue been couched in terms of open vs. closed or accepting vs. rejecting "alien" immersion. Even Landmarkers might agree that a convention has no authority to tell a local church how the BFM is to be interpreted, even if they agree with the ecclesiology behind the statement.
     
  9. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    I was baptized by a IFB pastor who was pastoring a non-denominational Bible church at the time. My wife was baptized by an EFCA pastor in front of many beach goers in February in the Pacific Ocean. Both of us joined a church years later that did not accept a baptism by a non-Baptist church but did accept people by letter from another Baptist church. We became members by letter.

    I believe that believers should be baptized by immersion.

    The first Baptist could not have possibly been baptized by another Baptist.

    Any believer living for Christ is my brother and I can fellowship with him.
     
  10. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    2
    You're obviously quite familiar with the Arkansas situation. Wonder why the ABSC quit doing anything about such departures from traditional Baptist practice? I'm guessing the same reason local churches quit exercising church discipline.

    I'd be curious about the numbers as well. But any issue couched in local church autonomy raises warning flags with me, rightly or wrongly. Doing so seems designed to insulate from criticism, when a church is up to mischief.
     
  11. David Lamb

    David Lamb Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    I didn't know doves and ravens had any interest in such things! :laugh:
     
  12. saturneptune

    saturneptune New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    2
    I basically agree. While believing in immersion, I have no problem taking communion with believers in Jesus.

    The connection between baptism and the Lord's Supper is puzzling at times. We as Baptists say that Baptism is a public sign of regeneration or salvation, not the Baptism itself. Yet we turn right around and make it a requirement for Communion. Since Communion is for believers, we are in essence saying Baptism has something to do with salvation. An odd sort of logic to say the least.
     
  13. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    I have never done that. Once I confronted a pastor of a large SBC church and asked him why he did not have a baptismal service immediately before communion. He looked puzzled until I explained it to him. He stopped telling people that they needed to be baptized first.

    In that same church a lady visiting with us came to church with us. She called herself a Christian by the fact she went to church, and was sprinkled (calling that baptism in her own mind). She partook of the grape juice and bread. I told the pastor afterward that there was a non-believer in his presence and he justified her thoughts by his explanation. Later when I explained what a real Christian was, then she thought about it, started studying the Bible, and then became a Christian.

    In too many churches religious jargon is proclaimed each week which is meaningless to non-believers and tickles the ears of the church attenders so it sounds good. People applaud such proclamation while at the same time the non-Christian doesn't have a clue what is being said.
     
    #33 gb93433, Nov 13, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 13, 2007
  14. saturneptune

    saturneptune New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    2
    Another thing that is a thorn in my side, is protecting the Lord's Table for church members who have not darkened the door in decades, while denying it to those who are truly saved and want to fellowship. In most cases, the percentage of those who never attend is well over 50%. While no one knows who is saved, the evidence is certainly there these members are not, therefore, not eligible for communion.
     
  15. StefanM

    StefanM Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,333
    Likes Received:
    210
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Arkansas is a very mixed bag, it seems. We have tremendous amount of missionary Baptists here, and I think there is significant "bleedover" from them. I would question your assertion of "traditional Baptist practice," but that's beside the point here. I think a difference today is that fewer churches accept the tenets of Landmarkism. However, we are seeing a resurgence, most likely due to the departure of more moderate Baptists and the rise in influence of ultra-conservatives.

    Local church autonomy is sacrosanct to me. A local church does not have the right to do whatever it desires (it is under the Lordship of Christ), but a convention has no authority whatsoever to tell it what to do. I honestly don't care one bit about how the ABSC says I am not to interpret the BFM. I will interpret it as I so choose. If they don't want my money, I can send it elsewhere.
     
  16. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    2
    And I agree. The provision in question apparently represented a consensus of at least a majority at one time. And obviously some churches ignored it.

    Since 61% voted to remove it, it's obvious that it's no longer a majority consensus. But the debate was not over the merits of open/closed communion or alien immersion. The majority argument was local church autonomy.

    Since autonomy is not under attack nor up for debate, whenever it's used as an argument, I look for mischief.
     
  17. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    2
    Here is the answer to your puzzlement. The ordinances were given by Christ to his church--the one he established during his earthly ministry. That little band and those which sprang from it were given all his doctrines, teachings and practices. And Paul urged the Church at Corinth to guard them carefully (I Cor 11).

    Every instance inwhich we have the observance of the Lord's supper mentioned in the New Testament, it is done by an assembly of people--the local congregation. When Paul raked the Corinthian church over the coals over an abuse of the Lord's Supper, he raked a local congregation. He instructed a local assembly on the correct observance.

    The Lord's supper is therefore a church ordinance, not a Christian ordinance. It is the local assembly which is charged with protecting the integrity of the ordinances.

    Further, each new believer was baptized and became part of a local assembly. Baptism, in addition to being a public profession of one's salvation, and a picture of the gospel, is the door to local church membership. Since the LS is done in a local assembly, composed of baptized believers, it is obvious that today, we ought to follow the same pattern.

    While I personally prefer members-only LS, at the very least the participants ought to be scripturally immersed. And frankly, if they weren't baptized the way we were, they weren't.
     
  18. StefanM

    StefanM Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,333
    Likes Received:
    210
    Faith:
    Baptist
    IMO, local church autonomy is indeed under attack, even if indirectly.

    However, I do believe that those in favor of the change used the local church autonomy "card," hoping that it would swing some to their side.

    I have a lingering suspicion that the number may have been much lower had it been on the issues themselves.
     
  19. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    2
    Now I know some of you will disagree with me, and will argue that the LS is in fact a Christian ordinance. And that baptism is not the door to anything, since the Holy Spirit has baptized us into the Universal Church.

    There's only one problem. The Universal Church doesn't exist. And if it does, it is the most fractured, dysfunctional and useless entity you'd ever want to find. It has never had fellowship, it has never sent a missionary, never fed the hungry, nor has it ever done anything else contained in the Great Commission.

    Consider I Corinthians 12:27 "Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular." Paul is describing the members of the congregation at Corinth as "the" body of Christ.

    Consider Acts 20:28: "Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."

    Paul was speaking to the elders from the church at Ephesus. He described them overseers of the flock, to feed the church purchased by Jesus with his own blood. So Jesus purchased a particular church--the one at Ephesus.

    Nowhere in the NewTestament are elders counseled to take care of the Universal flock. Nowhere in the NT is Jesus described as purchasing the Universal Church with his blood.

    One other thing to yank a few chains: I Cor 12:13 "For in one spirit were are all baptized into one body..." This is not Spirit baptism, it's water baptism. And it's baptism into the body at Corinth (see 12:26).

    Now you know why Arkansas Baptists passed that provision in the first place.
     
  20. saturneptune

    saturneptune New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    2
    The first point is that whatever Arkansas Baptists do is their business, and none of ours in Kentucky. What the association does, what the state does, what the SBC does, is their business. The local church decides for itself. The others can dance a jig for all I care.

    The verses in Acts and Corinthians can be interpreted as the local church, but that can be looked at from other angles, especially in light of 1 Cor 10. However, the verses are not needed to disprove the fallacy of closed communion. Debating when the church started is immaterial.

    The connection made between baptism and the Lord's Supper suggests regenerated baptism or works salvation as a requirement.

    The connection between church discipline and the Lord's Supper is so blatantly against what was intended, it screams on its own. Any man made system that deliberatly includes those who are lost and excludes those who are saved is a mockery.

    The policies of exclusion, division, and disunity need to be stopped in their tracks, and should have been years ago.
     
Loading...