;)
tagged: Baptist Faith and Message, BF&M 2000, Closed Communion, Communion, Founders Ministries, Geoff Baggett, Lord's Supper, Malcolm Yarnell, Tom AscolDoes it Really Say That?
Posted by Geoff Baggett in Baptist Life, Bible & Theology
The Calvinism discussion is raging (once again) in Southern Baptist life. The Recent John 3:16 Conference seems to have caused a bit of a rumble in the blogosphere.
Dr. Tom Ascol of Founders Ministries recently posted on this event as a significant factor in a widening divide between Calvinists and Non-Calvinists (he calls them anti-Calvinists) in the SBC. The discussion in his thread is vigorous and deep. I recommend it, but you’ll need your theological dictionary and a couple of church history books to keep up.
One of the more vocal participants in that discussion was Dr. Malcolm Yarnell of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. On Friday he offered a response on Peter Lumpkin’s blog to Dr. Ascol’s post and subsequent comments. In that response he made this statement:
As a result of his repeated unwillingness to answer a specific question regarding his church’s communion with a Presbyterian, many will be led to the unfortunate conclusion that Dr. Ascol is not willing to affirm the Baptist Faith and Message in its entirety. Let it be clearly noted that communion with Presbyterians is certainly within the prerogative of Dr. Ascol’s local church as a free church. However, communion with Presbyterians is outside Southern Baptist orthodoxy, at least according to the common confession of the Southern Baptist Convention. A reading of articles 6-7, especially the first paragraph of article 7, of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 will demonstrate how communion with Presbyterians is outside the confessional mainstream of Southern Baptist life.
I must admit that his comment vexed me just a bit. I am quite sure that, in the life of my church, more than one Presbyterian, Methodist, Church of God (member), etc… has celebrated communion under our roof. As we prepare for the Lord’s Supper, we examine the Scriptures regarding self-examination and proper preparation. We have a time of prayer. Then we invite any who have accepted Christ as Savior and Master to partake in the Lord’s Supper. It is always a deep, meaningful, and beautiful celebration.
I just never thought that I stood in danger of “lacking of affirmation” of the BF&M, or that I existed outside the bounds of Southern Baptist “orthodoxy.”
His comment led me to examine the BF&M 2000 for myself (once again), in particular section 7, which includes this reference to the Lord’s Supper:
The Lord’s Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.
As I compare this statement, affirmed by the SBC in 2000, and compare it to the claims of Dr. Yarnell (re – Communion with a Presbyterian being outside the paramaters of the BF&M and, therefore, outside Southern Baptist orthodoxy), I find myself asking the question … “Does it really say that?”
Actually, I’m full of questions. How might this one sentence be understood as a codifying of closed communion throughout the SBC? Do Southern Baptists compose the “one true church?” How are doctrinal credentials checked and enforced at the communion table? Is this the Lord’s Supper, or the church’s supper? Am I on the “outs” with my convention? I have many more questions, but I’ll stop right here.
I look forward to a stimulating, interesting discussion.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
I’m going to go out on a limb here. What I say may be a little off the subject, but I’d really like to hear your input on what I’m thinking.
I’ve grown more in favor of “open” communion as time has gone on–very open. I’m not really sure we should forbid anyone (even non-believers) from partaking in the Lord’s supper.
When I look at the New Testament, it seems to me the Lord’s Supper was actually a meal, not just a crumb of bread and a tiny shot glass of juice. The size of the elements is not the point, but here’s what I’m saying:
I can’t imagine the New Testament church forbidding anyone from eating with them, so long as they did so in a reverent manner. Yes, we should evaluate our spiritual condition before celebrating communion. But it seems Paul’s warnings were more about the manner in which some were eating/drinking.
What do you guys think? Am I in left field theologically?
I think Dr. Yarnell’s statement pretty well sums up, IMO, why Tom Ascol refers to them as “anti-calvinists”. And maybe why the SBC has been referred to as so spiritually egotistical.
Perhaps the BFM needs to be amended, to refer to the “SBC Supper”? If we deny participation to fellow Christians, that’s just what we’ve made it.
Geoff,
For this discussion of the Baptist Faith and Message to be accurate we must consider ALL of the statement regarding Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. In the last sentence of the paragraph discussing baptism, which immediately precedes the one on the Lord’s Supper which you have cited here, we read…
Being a church ordinance, it [baptism] is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.
Given that statement, how is Dr. Yarnell out of line in stating his concern regarding Dr. Ascol and his church?
Bob,
Given that statement, how is Dr. Yarnell…or myself, a FIVE POINT Calvinist, “anti-Calvinist” in registering concern for an open communion position?
Kevin,
Given the statement, how can anyone in a Southern Baptist context ‘prefer’ open communion to the point of inviting non-believers to partake? What of the warnings of Scripture in 1 Corinthians 11:27-32? As I understand Scripture concerning the Lord’s Supper, it is to be partaken of by the church…which consists of born-again, baptized believers…what one might call close communion in our contemporary discussion.
Sola Gratia!
So, the topic of the post is “Does It Really Say That?” Thank you for a good topic and a good opportunity for discussion. The topic statement removes from the table the potentially contentious subject of what it SHOULD or SHOULD NOT say, and limits us to a discussion of what the BF&M DOES say. So here goes a careful examination of Article VII.
“Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” So, if it is not immersion, if the candidate is not a believer, if the medium is not water, or it if is not performed in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, then it is not baptism according to the BF&M. So, the sprinkling of infants is not baptism according to the BF&M.
“It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer’s death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus.” So, whoever has not followed Christ in baptism (so defined) is, according to the BF&M, in disobedience. Also, the BF&M defines the action of baptism as one of symbolizing—baptism is not salvific.
“It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead.” Part of the symbolic action of baptism is an anticipation of the future (in addition to the elements in the prior sentence that celebrate actions of the past and present).
“Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.” OK, Geoff, now here’s the part you should read a bit more carefully. The BF&M clearly asserts that baptism is prerequisite to church membership and participation in the Lord’s Supper. According to the BF&M, participation in the Lord’s Supper is not the prerogative of those who have neglected to be immersed as believers and who, thereby, are walking in disobedience.
“The Lord’s Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.” This sentence outlines the symbolic significances of the Lord’s Supper.
So, that’s what it says. Does it really say that the Lord’s Supper should not be extended to a Presbyterian. Unless that Presbyterian has been immersed as a believer, pretty clearly it does.
It might be fun to see a study of Southern Baptists in regards to the belief that baptism is a prerequisite to the Lord’s Supper. I wonder what Percentage of SBC churches actually practice closed communion in this manner.
Kevin in Manila,
You asked the questions… “What do you guys think? Am I in left field theologically?” I will take the bait. Yes, you are. This statement shows that you are… ” I’m not really sure we should forbid anyone (even non-believers) from partaking in the Lord’s supper.” Are we not to forbid non-believers from partaking in Baptism as well?
Kevin, someone who is not a member of the family of God ought not be partaking in a family meal. Does the BF&M really say that? Yes it does. More importantly, does the Bible really say that? Yes it does.
It concerns me when there is more discussion of the BFM (by its very nature flawed and incomplete)then discussion of the Bible itself.
It concerns me when there is more discussion of the BFM (by its very nature flawed and incomplete)than discussion of the Bible itself.
Scott,
I’m just wondering if Paul’s warning should be more connected to vs. 17-22; which describes the manner in which they were eating the Lord’s supper. Do you believe, for example, that children (not yet old enough to understand the faith) were excluded from the communion meal in the New Testament? Maybe they were, but I’m just wondering. I also wonder how the NT church handled unbelievers who were present during the Lord’s Supper.
Joe,
I said nothing about baptizing unbelievers.
To all,
Sorry if my comment was off the topic. I wasn’t thinking so much about Yarnell’s statement. Instead, this is something I’ve been processing lately in my own mind. I’m still thinking about this and I appreciate your input.
Brother Frank,
You say; It concerns me when there is more discussion of the BFM (by its very nature flawed and incomplete)than discussion of the Bible itself. Ok, let us examine the Bible.
Jesus commanded us in Matthew 28:19 to “Baptize” and make disciples. There is no scholar anywhere that will debate that is not a command. So we have the command to Baptize. There is also, no one any place that will dispute the word itself means to immerse. Thus, we have the command to Baptize by immersion. Then in Acts 2:42 THE BIBLE states that the early church “continued steadfastly” (KJV), or “devoted” (NIV), themselves to the Apostles Teaching. The Greek word means to attend assiduously all the exercises, (Strongs) As you continue reading the verses you will find that it was followed by the “breaking of bread”. Most scholars will agree that it was the Lord’s Supper, which the Bible references. Thus the question remains, What were the exercises the early church gave assiduously practiced before partaking the Lord’s Supper? The reason we go question is the verse presents an order in which they followed.
Thus, when the BF&M, ’25, ’63, & 2K, speak the language as Dr. Barber has presented above, it is in direct reference to THE BIBLE, and mainly to Acts 2:42.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Dave,
I wonder what Percentage of SBC churches actually practice closed communion in this manner.
This is not “closed” communion but “close” communion. I will not venture to speak for Dr. Yarnell, but I believe if he were to weigh in on the subject you may find that he does not believe in “closed” communion.
“Close communion is communion reserved for “baptized believers“. While closed communion is reserved for baptized believers of that local church body.
Dr. Nathan Finn references close communion as consistent communion. You can read a brief article here, but you can read a more in-depth article here.
Maybe this can help you and others understand why we take the stands we do on this issue.
Blessings,
Tim
Dr. Yarnell’s attack on Dr. Ascol regarding communing with Presbyterians seemed to me to be an ad hominem attack. Tom Ascol is the new Baptist bogeyman. Dr. Yarnell in the comment stream went so far to suggest that we should question Calvinist theology because of what happened to Servetus. When Dr. Ascol refused to answer his taunts about communing Presbyterians, he took his comments to another blog and loudly proclaimed that Dr. Ascol does not affirm the BFM2K and that we should be “concerned.”
Like Geoff, we call for a period of examination before partaking. We do not fence the table.
Kevin,
I definitely believe that children not having professed faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord and not having been baptized as a believer would have been (and should be) forbidden to partake of the communion elements.
Bill,
We do not fence the table…Correct, the Bible fences the table for us.
I also call for a time of examination giving explicit instructions that those who are not believers should abstain from participation. We invite ALL believers who have been baptized as an act of faithful obedience after conversion to partake of the communion elements with us (thus the close [not closed] communion I mentioned in #3).
Sola Gratia!
I have not yet taken the time to read through all the background posts on this from Ascol, Yarnell, Lumpkins, et al. But, reading what Geoff has to say here, it looks like to me we are back to the “same ole, same ole” of the debates of the last several years.
I agree with those who say it is a mistake to confuse the issue of closed communion with the issue of Calvinism. Although I am probably not a strict Dortian Calvinist, I believe that NT churches ought to open up the participation of the Lord’s Supper to believers who have not had believer’s baptism, and who are sincerely convinced from their study of Scripture that their infant baptism was valid.
I also agree with Bart here that a strict interpretation of the BF&M does favor closed communion. In the long run, after considering the question from all sides, I am not convinced though, in the NT support for such a practice. I have written extensively about this in the past on my own blog. For example, here:
http://loveeachstone.blogspot.com/2006/09/reply-to-nathan-finns-baptism-as.html
The bigger question for me is: Do people like me, and Tom Ascol, and apparently Geoff, and many, many others (perhaps even the majority) have a seat at the table in SBC leadership, and convention-funded ministries? I am convinced that an answer in the negative, as Malcolm Yarnell seems to be giving here, is potentially divisive and disastrous for the future of the SBC. I am especially concerned about enforcing this position on IMB workers, whose work depends, in so many ways, on being able to relate in a biblical, humble, and cooperative way with believers around the world who do not share the views of Dr. Yarnell.
If we want to say that, as Southern Baptists, we will only work with those who dot every “i” and cross every “t” just like us, we are pretty much consigning ourselves to irrelevancy and obscurantism among the larger Body of Christ. And worse yet, I believe we placing a stumbling block in front of what God is doing around the world to unite his Body around the task of fulfilling the Great Commission.
I pray God will give the current leadership of the SBC the wisdom to see what’s at stake here.
In keeping with the theme of, “Does it Really Say That?”, I’ve noticed that under Article II-C. “God the Holy Spirit”, the BF&M states that, “He (The Holy Spirit) convicts men of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment. He calls men to the Savior, and effects regeneration. At the moment of regeneration He BAPTIZES every believer into the Body of Christ” (p9).
Under Article VI. “The Church”, the BF&M states that, “The New Testament speaks also of the CHURCH as the Body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation”.
So according to the BF&M it seems that it is possible to belong to the church, having been baptized by the Holy Spirit and yet not having participated in believer’s baptism by water. We’re perhaps all aware of the thief on the cross who embraced Christ and yet did not participate in water baptism. I would think that this repentant thief is certainly welcome at the heavenly dinner table. As such, I would have no problem inviting him to the earthly dinner table as well. As a matter of actual practice, I wouldn’t think it wise to bar anyone from the Lord’s table that Jesus has, in fact, invited.
I would finally note that the BF&M defines a New Testament church as follows: “A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; OBSERVING THE TWO ORDINANCES OF CHRIST, governed by His laws, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth” (p13). Note that a New Testament church practices two ordinances: baptism and the Lord’s supper. Though I’m not sure what the current number is, in 2002 there were 8000 SBC churches that baptized not one single person. These 8000 churches would therefore not meet the minimal standard that the BF&M uses to define a New Testament Church.
Perhaps we’re ready for a new re-write of the BF&M…
Dave Samples,
According to your logic, FBC Farmersville (the church that I pastor) was a church on November 23 (when we immersed three believers), but not on November 30, when we did not baptize anyone.
Oh…wait…no…we weren’t a church EITHER time, because we didn’t observe the Lord’s Supper on those dates. We’re only a church when we’re simultaneously baptizing people AND observing the Lord’s Supper.
In other words, you’re alleging that the BF&M teaches that churches must observe these ordinances a certain number of times within a certain period of time (i.e. at least once each and every year).
My point: It isn’t that one must observe these ordinances at a certain threshold of chronological frequency, but that these are the ordinances that a New Testament church observes, however frequently. Demonstrate that 8000 churches in the SBC have determined no longer to baptize anyone, and I’ll be in favor of a change, not in the teachings of the Bible nor in the wording of the BF&M, but in the affiliation of those 8000 churches.
Nevertheless, we can join in acknowledging that the complete absence of evangelistic activity among so many SBC churches is a much more grave matter than our grapplings with the wording of our statement of faith. But contra David Rogers, I believe that the two concepts are not unrelated. Is it not possible that the abandonment of church discipline (including the abandonment of the biblical relationship between church discipline and the Lord’s Supper) is among the prominent causes of our evangelistic ineptitude. I, for one, believe that it is.
Brother David,
The bigger question for me is: Do people like me, and Tom Ascol, and apparently Geoff, and many, many others (perhaps even the majority) have a seat at the table in SBC leadership, and convention-funded ministries?
Everyone has a seat at the table. Also, it was your Father that chaired the latest revision of the BF&M and the “close” communion language was retained, under his leadership. One more thing, how. How can you read; Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper as being a strict interpretation of the BF&M.? Would you say For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son… is just a strict interpretation about salvation?
I jokingly say that, but really, your strict interpretation is a little embellished, wouldn’t you agree?
Blessings,
Tim
My concern is that we are hiding or masking the real problem we are facing… Regenerate Church Membership. I fear that our desire to keep everyone happy and ourselves well-liked prevents us from saying that only those who visibly belong to Christ are to partake of the Lord’s Supper. Dave, I appreciate your interpretation of the universal church, but let’s not forget that God has ordained us to live in a community with believers who profess him, and that these communities are called local churches. If in any way we compromise truth for expediency or unity, our light view of communion might indicate a disregard for the purity of the church and a lack of devotion to the Lord and His word.
Bart,
If I am understanding you correctly, it seems like you may be misunderstanding me. I am not advocating for the disappearance or loosening of biblical church discipline in Baptist churches. I have been in agreement with Tom Ascol from the beginning on the question of church discipline. I also believe that church discipline is tied into participation in the Lord’s Supper.
As I wrote on the blogpost I linked to on my comment above:
I support “the view that sincere believers, who have never been baptized as believers by immersion, but who, on the basis of their study of Scripture, have come to the conclusion that infant baptism is biblically justified, may be admitted to participation in the Lord’s Supper, as long as they, on the basis of a self-examination of their conscience, feel they are being obedient to the Lord’s commands. This would not include those who have been specifically excluded, by way of legitimate church discipline, from participation in the Lord’s Supper;” and,
“I would agree, however, that those who are living in a continued state of unrepentant sin and open disobedience to the Lord’s commands should not be considered as legitimate participants in the Lord’s Supper.”
The difference in our positions here appears to be what we consider to be unrepentant sin and open disobedience. As I have argued before, I believe we could just as well argue that those churches who do not practice common loaf communion are living in “unrepentant sin and open disobedience.” But, I choose not to go there. I realize my interpretation on these matters is not infallible, and take the stance of Romans 14:4: “Who [am I] to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls.”
Tim,
It looks like we need to talk now about strict and non-strict interpretations of “a seat at the table.”
I think you know what I mean, and I don’t think it is the same thing you mean here by a “seat at the table.”
Regarding the BF&M, some (like Geoff), for some reason or another, do not see closed communion advocated as clearly as you and I do. That is why I talk about a “strict interpretation.”
We all know that when the 2000 revision of the BF&M was proposed and voted on, the issue of closed communion was not a main item on the agenda. I think it may be time to consider that issue separately. If those who want to enforce the issue are willing to lay it down, there may not be the need, as an open debate on this could prove to be quite divisive. But, if you insist on making an issue of this, there may not be any other option for those who believe like I do than to either push for another revision, or to fold our hand, and quietly walk away from the Convention. I sure hope it doesn’t come to that.
David,
It may be that I have misunderstood you, but if I have, it has not been at the points that you have offered. My assertion was not only that church discipline belongs with the Lord’s Supper, but further that a loss and deterioration of this link is detrimental to our evangelistic efforts. You commented to suggest that a commitment to the BF&M position on the Lord’s Supper would be detrimental to our common mission as Southern Baptists. I was trying to opine that a laissez-faire approach to the Supper is, in my opinion, dangerous as well, and that the evidence of that danger is all around us.
You are alleging that the de facto position of our convention (in your estimation, open communion) is out of line with the de jure position of our convention (the obedient-believers-only, including obedient to be immersed, communion position). I cannot demonstrate that you are not right, but if you are, I can demonstrate, I believe, that we were a much healthier convention evangelistically and otherwise when we believed and practiced what the BF&M teaches. Demonstrating the causality might be a bit tougher, but demonstrating the temporal connection is a piece of cake.
All of this given for one reason alone: You state that there is danger in holding to the BF&M position. I wish to place it on the record that I see danger in the alternative.
Bart, my friend, good to hear from you. We’re not that far apart. You have greatly exaggerated “my logic” (to make a point, of course). I would not want to set the minimum times and dates for communion or baptism as a litmus test but I would rather like to infer that the BF&M clearly states that SBC churches in practice baptize and take communion.
In my opinion, a church’s belief in baptism is overshadowed by their actual practice (or lack thereof). I would go so far as to say that to profess a belief that one does not practice is to make that belief vain.
So, does the BF&M require Baptism as a prerequisite for the Lord’s Supper? YES! Does the Bible require the same? I’m not so sure…
Bart,
Actually, I have no problem agreeing with you that “a loss and deterioration of” the link of church discipline with the Lord’s Supper “is detrimental do our evangelistic efforts.” To say this demands the support and practice of closed communion is one step beyond this, though, in my opinion.
I think it is very well put that open communion (though I would throw in some qualifiers there, as there are various variations of “open communion” positions) is the “de facto” and closed communion the “de jure” position of the convention. I am not sure where the actual percentages break down, as far as the “de facto” part is concerned. But I am quite confident that a significant percentage of churches and leaders who are normally considered as “good guys” within the post-CR SBC are “de facto” open-communionists of one stripe or another.
Would the SBC be a better and more effective convention if all of these were to seek for other pastures in which to graze? I think that is the underlying question behind all of this.
Dave Samples,
I agree that a church’s belief in baptism can be overshadowed by their actual practice. I am merely pointing out that the datum that you have cited (their number of reported baptisms) speaks more about their belief in EVANGELISM than it speaks to their belief in BAPTISM.
Now, if you could demonstrate that these churches had led many people to Christ, but had ceased to baptize new believers, then you’d really have a point. But as it is, you’ve made an excellent point and then mislabeled it. Whomever these churches lead to Christ and bring into the church, they immerse. They practice baptism and they take communion. It’s just that they aren’t leading anybody to Christ.
And, of course, that’s far worse.
David Rogers,
Why couldn’t the underlying question behind all of this be, “Would the SBC be a better and more effective convention if all of these were to employ their skills to lead us back, over time, to regenerate church membership, believer’s baptism, and communion in mutual accountability around the Lord’s Table?”
Does iron necessarily kick iron out, or can’t it grind a bit to sharpen instead?
Joe,
I am simply using the definition of the universal church that the BF&M uses. It is clear in what it says. Believe me, I am much more interested in discussing the scriptures than I am in discussing the BF&M. I agree with you that the Scriptures must not be compromised. I’m wondering if the scriptures teach that “baptism is a prerequisite for the Lord’s Supper”. Furthermore, do most Southern Baptists believe the same thing? And finally, do most SBC churches practice this?
–Dave
Brother David,
Regarding the BF&M, some (like Geoff), for some reason or another, do not see closed communion advocated as clearly as you and I do.
I cannot speak to the “some” but as to Brother Geoff, it appears that he has not completely read the BF&M. The reason I say that concerns his quote to prove his thesis. His quote is a cherry-picked quote that completely neglects the last sentence before the quote. The last sentence presents a connection of Baptism to the Lord’s Table as does the section in which it is covered.
As to the need the 2K committee did not address this issue. I believe it could be stated that those serving on the committee never saw a debate such as this coming. As I heard Dr. Danny Akin state in 2006 during the SEBTS Alumni banquet in Greensboro; “I never dreamed I would see the day Southern Baptist would debate alcohol on the convention floor”. Many things taking place in debates today would shock some of our recently deceased leaders.
Blessings,
Tim
Bart,
I think your question misses the point. I (and, no doubt, the great majority of the “good guys” I referenced in my last comment) am all in favor of regenerate church membership, believer’s baptism, and communion in mutual accountability. Does it necessarily follow, then, that I (and they) should be called to the carpet by people like Malcolm Yarnell for not believing in and practicing closed communion? I don’t think so. If we want to discuss the issues involved with open Bibles, open minds, and open hearts, that is great, as far as I am concerned. But when we say that someone like Tom Ascol, because of their beliefs and practice on closed communion, is “outside the confessional mainstream of Southern Baptist life,” I think that is taking it too far.
Tim,
I agree with you that the BFM 2000 committee members likely never saw a debate like this coming on this issue. But that is not because they were unaware of the widespread acceptance of open communion and/or “modified open communion” among Southern Baptists. It is rather because they did not imagine that convinced closed communionists within the convention would soon be taking such a strong stand against their fellow conservatives in the convention who were not convinced closed communionists.
David,
My question doesn’t miss the point at all—it IS the point. At least it is my point.
Person A says that it is not disobedience to Christ to refuse to be immersed.
Person B says that A‘s statement places him “outside the confessional mainstream of Southern Baptist life.”
In so doing, B may not be seeking to insult A; he may simply be trying to describe him. The “confessional” mainstream of Southern Baptist life does indeed hold that only immersion is baptism, and that being an unbaptized Christian is to be in disobedience. Where we have written out our beliefs about baptism, they have preponderantly said precisely that.
Really, in a quest for clarity, I see that we’re discussing two questions here. They are related, but they are nonetheless different questions.
1. Is it disobedience to refuse to be immersed, and disobedience enough to warrant exclusion from the church? I say that it is. Southern Baptist confessional statements have said that it is. Thus the “confessional mainstream of Southern Baptist life” has said that it is. Now, I’ll grant you that Southern Baptists have had a diverse conversation about whether IMMERSION performed by a Presbyterian or by whomever is valid baptism. But we’ve spoken with a pretty united voice about aspersion and affusion. This question, it seems to me, is the one at which you and I differ.
2. Is disobedience enough to warrant exclusion from the church also disobedience enough to exclude one from the Lord’s Table (and, in a related vein, is there such a thing as disobedience enough that we would actually exclude someone from the church)? Here is the point at which mass SBC practice may not line up with what we preach. All these “good guys” to which you reference: Do their churches not have, right alongside whatever unbaptized folks are receiving the supper, adulterers, practicing homosexuals, dishonest cheats, greedy thieves, unrecovered addicts, you-name-it? Are you claiming with a straight face that our SBC churches practice an accountable supper on all matters EXCEPT for baptism? It seems to me that you and I occupy precisely the same position on question #2.
Thus, your appeal to the de facto position of the SBC, although it argues well against my position, argues just as well against yours. Which is why, regardless of what we all actually are doing, we ought to encourage one another to do what is right.
Bart,
Thank you for relabeling and clarifying my point. I very much appreciate your gracious response. I would continue to insist that a church that fails to baptize (whether due to a lack of evangelism or due to a lack of priority) violates, at the very least, the spirit of the BF&M. Article XI. Evangelism and Missions begins, “It is the duty and privilege of every follower of Christ and of EVERY CHURCH of the Lord Jesus Christ to endeavor to make disciples of all nations” A little further down in the article we find this, “It is the duty of every child of God to seek constantly to win the lost to Christ by verbal witness undergirded by a Christian lifestyle, and by other methods in harmony with the gospel of Christ” (p16). It would appear clear to me that a church that does not evangelize (and consequently baptize) is not affirming in practice the BF&M.
–Dave
Bart,
It seems to me like so much of this comes down to semantics. And, when it does, it comes across as nit-picky to the ones who don’t have the time or energy to discuss at this level. But, as it is such, I offer the following observations:
1. It seems like you and I have a different understanding of the term “disobedience” and the term “refuse.” For me, disobedience is a matter of the heart. In our hearts, are we sincerely striving to submit to and be odedient to what we understand the Word of God to teach, and the Spirit of God to convict? Also, someone can only refuse to do something they have previously been convicted that they ought to do.
2. There is probably some discrepancy between us as well on how we understand the phrase “outside the confessional mainstream of Southern Baptist life.” I will grant that perhaps, in some technical way, Dr. Yarnell was accurate in the use of this phrase. However, given the overall context of the present discussion, it seems to me that the emotional weight of this statement was to disqualify Mr. Ascol, and those who share his views, as a legitimate voice among Southern Baptists.
As to your question #2, it appears that indeed we may have precisely the same opinion. However, I do not believe that a position that allows for open or modified open communion is part and parcel to receiving adulterers, practicing homosexuals, dishonest cheats, greedy thieves, unrecovered addicts, etc. at the Lord’s Supper. The difference, once again, is a matter of the heart. I believe we should receive any sincerely repentant believer in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Interesting discussion.
Can everyone agree with the following?:
1. In the New Testament baptism usually, if not always, immediately followed profession of faith in Christ. So in most cases there would not have been a chance for a saved, unbaptized person to partake of the Lord’s Supper if he wanted to.
2. The natural, logical order in NT times would have been faith in Jesus Christ, baptism, then the Lord’s Supper?
3. That the above order at least should be the usual order today?
Just wondering if this much can be agreed on.
David R. Brumbelow
David Brumbelow,
I agree with all 3 of your points. Unfortunately, however, 2000 years of church history have muddied the water quite a bit so that your point #1 is no longer true. We are, therefore, facing a question that the early church did not have to face.
The church of a couple of centuries later did face some very similar issues, though, in the Donatist controversy. I believe the lesson to be learned from the Donatist controversy is that, when we acrimoniously censure fellow brothers and sisters in Christ because they do not dot every ‘i’ and cross every ‘t’ like us, all sides end up being the losers. Christendom at large has had a hard time recovering ever since.
And now we have THREE Davids. If we had three Henrys, we could have ourselves a war!
Brumbelow, I agree.
Samples, I also agree. Churches not practicing evangelism are in disagreement with the BF&M 2000. However, the solution is not the rewording of the BF&M (your proposed re-write) to match our sorry practice, but the encouragement of our practice to meet the biblical terms given in the BF&M!
Rogers, I was not asserting that the opposite point on #2 is the modified open communion position. I was merely asserting that if your surmises are correct the opposite position on #2 is the mass de facto position of the SBC, not the opposite position on #1.
I further observe that, from my reading of the Bible (fallible as it is), your definition of disobedience is not a valid one, and that your treatment of “refuse” does not hold water either.
With regard to disobedience, we could cite many examples of “innocent” disobedience that is nonetheless disobedience. It is quite possible to be both “disobedient” and “deceived” at the same time—to be disobedient while being convinced that you are not. Consider, for example, Ephesians 5:6, “Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient.” In this passage, addressed to the Ephesian believers, the Bible warns against being deceived, and states that it is “because of such things” (i.e., because of being deceived) that those who are “disobedient” encounter God’s wrath.
Thus, I do not believe that we can define “disobedient” to exclude the sincerely wrong…the sincerely deceived. One can indeed be disobedient and not know it. Those not yet reached with the gospel message are a prime example.
With regard to refusal, unless a church has failed to call upon those who have not been immersed as believers to be immersed as believers, then the people about whom we’re talking have indeed refused to be baptized, haven’t they? The need to be immersed has been presented to them. At that time, was the Holy Spirit occupied elsewhere? Too busy to convince of the truth? Or do you believe that the Holy Spirit tells some to be immersed as believers and tells others that the forced aspersion of unbelieving infants is just fine?
Bart,
If your argument on “disobedience” is true, then that leaves each of us in one of either of the following two conditions:
1. We are 100% correct on all matters of scriptural interpretation, and are living consistently with our beliefs; or
2. We are living in continual disobedience.
Can you think of a 3rd option?
Regarding “refusal,” I see a difference in refusing to submit to the doctrinal position of a particular church, and refusing to obey the command of the Lord Jesus. Whether or not the Holy Spirit is convicting a certain person of a certain position is beyond my ability to know. Which brings us back to Romans 14:4. Each one must answer to his own master. I don’t know if you are being obedient to the conviction of the Holy Spirit in your life. And you don’t know if I am in mine.
David,
I’ll take #2 for $500, Alex.
But it is not “disobedience” that puts us into hot water; it is the COMBINATION of “disobedience” and “refusal” that causes one not to “listen to the church” and thus wind up excluded by church discipline.
I’ll agree with you and join with you in a caution about speaking on behalf of the Holy Spirit. But I have not really asked you to do that. Rather, I’ve asked you whether the Holy Spirit has one position on baptism with one group of people and other position on baptism with another group of people. In other words, is the Holy Spirit divided against Himself? To that question I’ll confidently answer in the negative.
Further, I’ve asked you whether, when a person is confronted with a point of disobedience (if it really is disobedience in fact), the Holy Spirit fails in the job of conviction? And if He does, does that render the person innocent?
The point is that, whatever the state of a hypothetical Presbyterian believer in a Presbyterian church in a Presbyterian country and a Presbyterian family who may never have been asked to receive believer’s immersion, we’re talking about the Presbyterian believer who is attending a Baptist congregation. You suggest that such a person may not be “disobedient” because such a person may not have been “convicted” regarding this manner. I’m retorting that such a person has heard our teaching about believer’s immersion contra the forced sprinkling of unbelieving and unconsenting infants. Either that teaching is the truth, in which case I believe that the Holy Spirit will unfailingly take a stand with it, or we ourselves are in error. I will grant either as a theoretical possibility, but I will not grant that we are true for us and not for them, nor that the Holy Spirit takes all sides of the issue.
So, I take as unassailable fact that, if the forced sprinkling of infants apart from faith and without their consent does not provoke the Holy Spirit to convict against this practice as error toward paedobaptists, then neither does it provoke the Holy Spirit to convict ME on this matter (or, for that matter, you). And why, then, are we Baptists?
And really, David Rogers, it seems to me that your inward struggle is with whether believer’s baptism really is the biblical position. But I usually get in trouble when I try to read someone’s inward struggle.
To clarify further, I’m not suggesting that you want to start to practice infant sprinkling. I just think that you don’t sound that sure that God really cares whether we are baptized as believers or as unbelievers; by immersion or by sprinkling.
Bart,
I can sincerely say that I have no inward struggle with accepting believer’s baptism as the biblical position. If I am lying about this, only the Holy Spirit knows for sure.
Where I do struggle is with how to sincerely and consistently put into practice NT teaching on the unity of the church.
If I followed everything you are saying in comment #37, I would have to ask myself the same questions regarding common loaf communion. And then, after that, doctrine X, Y, and Z. Consistency would oblige me to separate from all believer who don’t see eye to eye with me. How could the Holy Spirit lead me to see Scripture one way, and lead them to see it another way?
Where do I draw the line, and say, from this point on “no more,” on the slippery slope to narrow-mindedness and legalism?
Brother Jeff,
Wow,…A lot of subject lines in this post….
But…Of the accounts that we have the Lord’s Table, whether Luke in his capturing of the disciples in the presence of their Lord in the forming of the Jerusalem church or Paul’s account of the Christians among those in the churches at Corinth, the table was a clear remembrance of the sign of the covenant that God has made with His church.
Jesus and Paul clearly are teaching that the table is significant and that all believers should partake of the Supper. There is not any language of a believer abstaining from the privilege and command of Christ and His Supper. Paul does give clear warning for the believers that take the Supper as just another meal disregarding the proper substance of participating with our Lord (1 Corinthians 10:17-22).
But to assign additional qualification and requirements to the Supper beyond the clear warning of just changing it to any ole meal is dangerous. All Christians should partake of the Lord’s Supper by the command of Christ, and all Leaders in the churches should encourage the consumption of the bread and the fruit of the vine to all believers by the command of Christ. Paul is encouraging the Lord’s Table…in other words he is implying that since it is a command and important in the life of the church, you should do it properly and often.
My fear is that many SBC churches rarely have communion, and then apply additional rules of pseudo-sanctification for the privilege to partake. This was the farthest thing from the Apostles mind…. He was encouraging these sinning Corinthians to get it right and partake as they should. He wasn’t looking for ways to not have them participate in this command of Christ.
Blessings,
Chris
Water baptism pictures one’s receiving Christ’s Death, Burial and Resurrection as His Salvation. It is the first act of obedience of the believer.
He is raised to walk in newness of life.
The Lord’s table is a memorial of Christ’s death for obedient believers.
I do not believe in open, nor in closed communion, but in close communion. All who believe like my local church does concerning The Doctrine of Soteriology. Salvation by grace alone, can partake.
David,
Although your wariness of narrow-mindedness and legalism might be warranted elsewhere, I think not on this question. The biblical witness on the matter of believer’s immersion is clear enough that:
1. Rather than being a private interpretation, it is a conviction shared by millions of believers.
2. After this matter of biblical obedience was advanced forcefully in the seventeenth century, new branches of Christianity (those least fettered by obedience to tradition) have overwhelmingly affirmed believer’s immersion as the biblical teaching.
3. The exegetical foundation of this teaching is sound.
What other doctrine shares such robust biblical support that poses the threat of division? After all, I know that you draw the line somewhere. Why not here? Surely there is some perceptible differentiation between as weighty and biblical a matter as this versus some matter of theological trivium!
Also, although I run the risk of stealing Geoff’s thread by saying so here, I do not know that your “common loaf” illustration is well taken. For one thing, it is not analogous since we are not only talking about the MODE of baptism, but are further talking about the CANDIDATE for baptism. Unless you are siding with Kevin from Manilla, then you ARE making similar scruples regarding the Lord’s Table as those I am making about baptism. For another thing, I remain unconvinced that partaking from a single loaf was the universal practice of the New Testament church. I’d like to see the oven that baked the single loaf for that Jerusalem mega church!
Of course, you make “city church” presumptions that I do not. But unless I make the same assumptions that you do about the nature of the Jerusalem church, then I am hardly compelled to make the same assumptions about the New Testament church having been fed from a single loaf at the Lord’s Supper.
Alas, I am now officially out of time to allot to this. Thanks to all for a robust discussion.
Brother Chris,
I would encourage you to include in your studies not only 1 Corinthians 10, but also 1 Corinthians 5:1-13, especially 6-9.
Dave Samples,
You asked… “I’m wondering if the scriptures teach that “baptism is a prerequisite for the Lord’s Supper’”. Yes, I think they clearly do. The great commission is to evangelize, baptize, and then stabilize. The order then is salvation, baptism, and then everything else. In Acts 2 we see salvation, baptism, then added to the church. This is the pattern. Can you show me in the Scriptures where a saved and non-baptized individual was added to the church or was a partaker of the Lord’s Table?
Bart,
1. Evangelical paedobaptism is also practiced, out of conviction, by millions of sincere believers. Do we go with the majority here? What about a view, perhaps, not shared by millions, but by hundreds of thousands, or by hundreds? At one time, Baptist views on baptism were held by only a tiny minority.
2. I am happy that the biblical doctrine of believer’s baptism is gaining ground, and is now accepted by more and more branches of Christianity. I agree with Spurgeon when he said he wished for the day when the name “Baptist” would become superflous because we all, as evangelical Christians, believed in believer’s baptism (not exact quote, but it captures the gist of it). However, I also long for the day when we all accept and abide by biblical teaching concerning Christian unity.
3. I am also convinced that the exegetical foundation for common loaf communion is sound. The answer to your question about the Jerusalem church is the answer given in Scripture: they broke bread “from house to house.”
I do not agree with Kevin that it might possibly be permissible to allow professed non-believers to partake of the Lord’s Supper. However, I would ask you: Would you be willing to admit someone who was sprinkled as a believer to partake of the Lord’s Supper? If not, then my argument on common-loaf communion still holds.
Brother Bart,
Sorry to butt in on your conversation with Brother David R, but I have one question for you:
Based on your answer in #37 to Brother David R’s question in #36, that we are all in continual disobedience (albeit unwittingly) should we not all abstain from the Lord’s Table?
To all,
A good friend of mine from another tradition would cite this type of dialogue as proof that baptists might say baptism is only symbolic… but really view it as much more than a symbol!
Peace be to each of you,
From the Middle East
Joe,
I have found no descriptions in the sacred text of who was allowed and who may have been excluded from the Lord’s table. It seems that nobody is naming names…
Several issues are, of course, raised in the first letter to the Corinthians but I don’t see that the subject of baptism as a prerequisite to the Lord’s supper is addressed. Can you point me to a text to consider?
The Great Commission of Matthew 28 does not deal specifically with the Lord’s Supper. Besides, why couldn’t someone profess their faith for very first time by receiving the Lord’s supper? Acts 2 describes many activities of the early church including attention to the apostles’ teaching, fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayer. Are you suggesting that one could not pray prior to baptism in the same way that you would suggest that they could not break bread prior to baptism? I just don’t see it. I don’t see that either of these texts require baptism as a prerequisite for the Lord’s supper.
–Dave
Brother Bart,
I think I may be missing your point …. Are you trying to say that someone like a “Ligon Duncan” (Presbyterian) is who Paul is warning us not associate with… 1 Corinthians 5:11 “I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler–not even to eat with such a one.”
Are men and women that have learned the doctrine of baptism poorly, yet love the Lord, considered as such? Even if Ligon may have been convinced over the years by tradition that I believe to be foreign to scripture, I would still not move him into the category that Paul has given us in what we know as chapter 5. The same would go for Dr. Yarnell’s confusion on God’s sovereignty and man’s category of freedom within it. Just because it is not clear what he believes on God’s sovereignty would not make me put him into a category as Paul has described in what we know as chapter 5.
We must be careful not to confuse Love with conviction, nor the gospel with the law. We should invite all to Christ, baptize and enjoy the wonderful Supper of our Lord until we see Him face to face…..and encourage all believers to do the same.
Blessings,
Chris
Interesting discussion. Bart Barber, Tim Rogers, and Scott Gordon, as well as many others who have responded here represent my own position. Chris, I do not consider myself confused whatsoever about the relation of divine sovereignty and human freedom. I just happen not to hold your particular construal of the relation between these important biblical doctrines. Please do not equate my personal disagreement regarding your construal with personal confusion, my friend.
Brother Yarnell,
That is precisely my point. Just because your construal is not like my construal, we should understand how not to place me or you into a category that Paul has clearly depicted for those to disassociate.
Blessings,
Chris
Just as sprinkling is not “Biblical Baptism”… unless you are using “Real Wine”, as did Jesus, the Apostles, and all Christians (Baptist Included) until the temperance movement, you are not observing “Biblical Communion”… so the issue of “close” or “closed” communion is mute. (Why do you think it is acceptable to modify the Biblical example for communion and use Welch’s, yet it is not acceptable to modify the Biblical example for Baptism and sprinkle?)
However, the real issue facing the SBC is the increasing influence of Landmarkism (aka. Dr. Yarnell, Dr. Canner). The Landmark Baptist of the SBC wish to exclude anyone who does not agree with their extreme views of baptism (remember the new IMB policies?), and now they appear to be “cheery picking” what parts of the BFM2000 should be used as a test of Baptist Orthodoxy.
Most of the aggressive Anti-Calvinists in the SBC also are Landmark, and show little to no tolerance for their fellow Baptists who do not agree with their opinions, or who will not be cow towed into submission by their flaming rhetoric… As a lifelong Southern Baptist, and a Baptist Pastor these Landmark Anti-Calvinist are truly “Scary”.
Grace Always,
Brother Yarnell,
I don’t really perceive you as Landmarkist, but I am trying to understand your view of soteriology.
Would you say that Brother Lemke and you share the same soteriological system depicted in his affirmation of what he attributes to most Baptists when he said… “But while Baptists believe that salvation is wholly from God, they also believe that in the economy of God’s salvation He has chosen for human response to be prerequisite to actualizing salvation.”
Is appears that Lemke believes it is the “human response” that actualizes salvation, being its precondition. He may want to reconsider the statement, but is this close to your view as well?
Are there some papers you can point me to, so that I can read to better understand your position or view?
Blessings,
Chris
Geoff,
I believe the majority of Born Again Christians would agree with you.
It would do Dr Malcolm Yarnell well to do an in depth Study of Rom 14:1-12(Do Not Pass Judgment on One Another) and Rom 14: 13-23 (Do Not Cause Another to Stumble). For a Professor in a Seminary Dr. Yarnell has a poor view of God’s Word.
Wayne Smith
Greg Alford,
Why do you insist that the position of seek a Baptist identity are Landmarkists?
The “Landmarker” controversy is much younger than the theological position presented here by individuals such as Malcolm Yarnell and others.
It was people of the same theological position relating to ecclesiology as presently held by Malcolm Yarnell and others in this thread who withstood the efforts of Landmarkers in the time of their greatest strength in SBC life.
How do you now come to the conclusion that these men are promoting Landmarkist theology? What is the primary foundational stone you build this accusation upon?
cb
Greg,
That should be of “those seeking a Baptist identity….”
cb
Wayne,
I really do not think anyone who has posted a comment in this thread has a”poor view of God’s Word.”
The people with a poor view of the Word usually post at another blog. (in flocks they gather)
cb
CB,
Who is allowed to participate in the Lord’s Supper in your Church?
Check your e=mail!
Wayne Smith
Well, you can always set an egg-timer to count down until somebody brings out the tired old bogeyman of Landmarkism.
So tell me, Greg Alford, Wayne Smith, and whoever. With regard to this bit of writing….Landmarkism, or not Landmarkism?
FTME,
Please read again @ 37. Especially read the part including the word “COMBINATION”
If I have been confronted with my sin by the church and I have refused to listen to the church, then I should not sit in communion with the church. If I have conceded my sin in contrition, then though I fall seventy-times-seven, I should enjoy the Table with brothers who are all in the same boat. It is when I defend error and cling to it (whether in thought or in practice) that I find myself out of communion.
Wayne,
I just saw your question in #58.
The Lord’s Supper always takes up the entire worship service when we have it.
This is because I hate and despise it being “tacked” on to the end or the beginning of worship. I believe it should always be a time of worship, corporate and individual examination before our Lord and celebration of His great victory on our behalf.
First, please know that I do not work as the “Lord’s Supper cop” during the worship.
Yet the following things are always stated during the service.
The Lord’s Supper is for believers only.
The Lord’s Supper is for biblically baptized believers only.
The Lord’s Supper should not be entered into by those with unconfessed sin in their lives. We take the time to be clean before God.
The Lord’s Supper should not be entered into by those that are angry with one another for any reason. We take time for any who are in such a state to make things right.
Several other things are also spoken of in prayerful hope and expectation that the body will be in proper fellowship with God and one another during the Lord’s Supper that we may be a fit body to worship God and carry out the Great Commission in power granted of the Spirit as we leave.
(The Lord’s Supper sometimes takes well over an hour, especially in the last year. Thus far, no one who is presently part of our fellowship has complained. Those who did are no longer among us as part of our fellowship.)
Does everything happen as hoped and prayed for every time we take the Lord’s Supper? Sadly, no.
Yet, have we seen God do a great work in the lives of believers during and after the Lord’s Supper at times? To God’s glory, yes.
We have even had occasions wherein people who were not Believers experienced the truth of the gospel during the Lord’s Supper and repented of their sins and came to faith in Christ during the Lord’s Supper. That has happened more than once.
It is my opinion that the fellowship of our local church has strengthened and the commitment to a holy life by individual believers has become more evident in the last three years since we established a biblical observance of the Lord’s Supper.
Are all things perfect? No.
Has there been an evident change in the life of the church and in the lives of many individual Believers? Yes.
cb
Brother Bart,
Thank you for pointing that out. I completely missed it yesterday… long day.
I have, however thought of a another question for you, and anyone else who practices close or closed communion:
How do we determine where to draw the line. What I mean by this is whether or not 5-pointers who refuse to “listen to the church” should participate? What about non 5-pointers who refuse to “listen to the church?” What about continualists who refuse to “listen to the church?” What about cessationists who refuse to “listen to the church?” Are all simply considered to be disobedient (by those holding a different view) to the teachings of Scripture and refused bread, wine & fellowship?
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
Brother Geoff,
Brother Kevin opened this comment stream with a question of “open” communion. I believe that we have seen most everyone agree that at the least the Lord’s Supper should be a “restricted open”(open to only those who have professed Jesus as Savior) communion.
While Spurgeon was cloudy on the subject, he appears to be one that could fall either way. However, if he truly believed the following quote that came from his Sermon Examination Before Communion, then he had a dichotomous practice concerning the Lord’s table. If these ordinances were essential to salvation, then everybody would observe them with the view of being saved by them, but, inasmuch as they do not save, and were never meant to save, but are, in fact, only the privileges of those who are saved, the observance of them becomes a test of a man’s true discipleship, for it makes it clear whether he will obey Christ or not.
For me the key to one taking of the Lord’s Table is not how many of the commands of Christ one follows, but if one follows the first command of being an obedient disciple.
Blessings,
Tim
Dave Samples,
You wrote… “Several issues are, of course, raised in the first letter to the Corinthians but I don’t see that the subject of baptism as a prerequisite to the Lord’s Supper is addressed. Can you point me to a text to consider?”
I would point you to chapter 1. There in the introduction the Apostle clearly “names names”. He is speaking to the “church of God which is at Corinth”. A group that he describes this way, “sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints”. He then goes on to address their division over who had baptized them. Notice the issue is not whether or not they had been baptized, but by who. I think it is clear that Paul is addressing a group of saved, baptized believers. This would make communion a “close” issue.
As for your question regarding prayer in Acts 2. The text indicates that this is not secret prayer in a prayer closet, or prayer at home with one’s family, but rather it is public prayer in church (perhaps even a stated season of prayer). Those who would lead and participate in the actions listed in verse 42, first received the word and were baptized in verse 41.
Most in this comment stream seem to have agreed with David R. Brumbelow’s first point that, “In the New Testament baptism usually, if not always, immediately followed profession of faith in Christ. So in most cases there would not have been a chance for a saved, unbaptized person to partake of the Lord’s Supper if he wanted to.” Do you agree with that statement? Why do you imagine that we have so many saved and unbaptized believers today? Might it be because we have opened up the church and all its activities to accommodate them, thus making baptism inconsequential?
Brother Tim,
Good thoughts,….To follow on to the thoughts you have forward above, the Apostle seems to give us the primary initiative beyond the command of Christ for His disciples in partaking….
1Corinthians 11:26 “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.”
It appears that Paul’s admonition in this section was pointing to the fact the Lord was not being proclaimed because of the actions of the Corinthians. Paul’s encouragement was to “move away” from judgment and “move back” to the “proclamation” of the power of Christ’s blood in salvation.
Hebrews 10:28-29 “Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. (29) How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?”
Paul’s aim was that they would not come together for “judgment”, but for “proclamation”. The effects of judgment are obvious, yet Paul is not aiming the minds of the Corinthians to focus on that point…he is aiming at proclamation, bringing glory to Christ alone.
1 Corinthians 11:34 “If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment. The remaining matters I will arrange when I come.”
Paul was encouraging the church, obvious a dysfunctional bunch at the time, to return to proclamation of Christ and not move away from communion with the Lord, but partake and proclaim their only hope.
Blessings,
Chris
Joe White,
You said in comment #64:
“I would point you to chapter 1. There in the introduction the Apostle clearly “names names”. He is speaking to the “church of God which is at Corinth”. A group that he describes this way, “sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints”. He then goes on to address their division over who had baptized them. Notice the issue is not whether or not they had been baptized, but by who. I think it is clear that Paul is addressing a group of saved, baptized believers. This would make communion a “close” issue.”
I say: That is an excellent observation.
I will probably use this over a thousand times during the remainder of my life, if I continue to live.
Let it be known now, my brother, that this is the first, last and only time will ever give you credit for this observation. I will from this day forth claim it for myself.
Also, today was the first time I have ever read your blog. Let me say, thank you for standing strong as a bi-vocational pastor.
cb
Brothers,
I hesitate to make this comment, but feel I must. Here goes:
Not that baptism is not important, but something seems wrong to me when this thread has over 60 comments and this one has only eight comments (none of which was written by any of the commenters on this thread). Something about swallowing camels, straining gnats and the weightier matters being mercy, justice and faithfulness.
Please note that I am including myself in this. And I am now publicly repenting for neglecting the discussions which directly affect the hearts, souls and lives of many people even though they are difficult subjects to consider and discuss. This does not mean we should not take part in this discussion on baptism, but that we should both tithe on our spices AND not neglect the weightier matters (such as family violence in the church).
Bart,
RE: #43, it is, perhaps, impossible to know the exact practice of the New Testament church, however, we do know that in the church shortly after the NT a common loaf was used and a piece of the loaf from one congregation was broken and taken to another church nearby (and so on) to signify the unity among the churches.
David R.,
I believe your questions and observations are right on in every way. Great contribution to this discussion.
Bart,
Your answer to FTME in comment #60 raises the question for me, what church? I suppose you are referring here to FBC Farmersville. But what if one church is telling me I am in sin because I have not been baptized as a believer, another is telling me I am sin for being “re-baptized,” and a third is telling me I am in sin for not celebrating the Lord’s Supper with a common loaf? I guess I must determine, in accordance with my own conscience, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the Word of God, which one is most correct.
Up to now, my sense, on all accounts, is that, though each of these matters has their relative significance, it is more important not to break fellowship with other believers who share the same faith, and worship the same Lord. I am sure I can find a church that will confront me on that truth as well. And I would have a clear conscience and no qualms about submitting myself to the doctrinal accountability of such a church. I would also have a clear conscience about admitting to the Lord’s Table those from any of the first three churches, provided they otherwise gave clear testimony to a sincere, saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and a consistent walk of consecration.
I believe this is where the principle of “soul competence” kicks in, and differentiates us from those who submit their conscience to the dictates of magisterial hierarchy.
While I am at it, the following question just occurred to me this morning: Do you believe all sin is wicked, vile, and sufficient to damn us to hell? If so, would you include the “refusal” to be baptized among these sins?
CB,
Why do you insist that the position of seek a Baptist identity are Landmarkists?
Because many of those who are associated with the BI movement have strong Landmark leanings. If this is not true, then the BI movement needs to come out and openly state that they are opposed to Landmarkism. I shall await the press release.
The “Landmarker” controversy is much younger?
No, CB the Landmarker controversy is nothing new to the SBC… Lest we forget our history, the Landmarkers/Cambelites have already split the SBC once by insisting that everyone accept their notion of “Baptist Identity”. What makes you think that it will be no different this time around?
It was people of the same theological position relating to ecclesiology as presently held by Malcolm Yarnell and others in this thread who withstood the efforts of Landmarkers in the time of their greatest strength in SBC life.
I am completely lost on this one… are you saying that Malcolm Yarnell does not support Landmark doctrine? Please explain this to me as I am not on the BI mailing list and am perhaps not informed of where his true allegiances lay.
How do you now come to the conclusion that these men are promoting Landmarkist theology? What is the primary foundational stone you build this accusation upon?
Dr. Canner proudly admitted to being Landmark about 3 years ago and Liberty is a Landmark Baptist Institution. Do the majority of Liberty’s students come from Southern Baptist Churches or from Independent, Fundamentalist, and Landmark Churches? It sure would be telling to the SBC to find out the answer to this question. As far as Dr. Yarnell is concerned it is by his promotion of Landmark ideas and doctrine that he has connected himself with the Landmark movement.
Grace Always
Bart, (Comment #59)
I am not sure what that is all about, you will need to spell it out for me as I am a little slow.
The current controversy in the SBC is NOT over infant baptism. To my knowledge no Baptist Churches are Baptizing infants; we just baptize Toddlers under the age of five who full understand the concepts of sin, repentance, and salvation (We have some very gifted Toddlers in the SBC!)
The current controversy in the SBC (as related to the increasing Landmark influence) is over the “Narrowing of the Parameters of Cooperation” as seen in the new IMB Policies, and has nothing whatsoever to do with Presbyterians and Infant baptism.
But seeing you are on the subject of Presbyterians, Bart, and CB you can chime in on this one if you like, you BI guys appear to be saying that “No” Presbyterians are qualified to partake of the Lord’s Supper in a proper Baptist Church. You do know that some Presbyterians (I will admit to knowing a few…gasp!) are baptized by immersion after a credible profession of faith right? Are these also to be bared from taking Communion in a proper Baptist Church?
Grace Always,
Brother Chris,
To whom was the book of 1 Corinthians written? Just a group of people in the city of Corinth, or the Church at Corinth? Also, who was Paul addressing when he said to “examine yourself”? Just a group of people that were sitting at a meeting or the church body there in Corinth? Notice that according to 1 Corinthians 11:18 he is speaking to the church, ie. Baptized believers. Also, notice that he is not speaking about a gathering in one of the many house churches in the city of Corinth. 1 Corinthians 11:20 tells us that the Lord’s Supper was being practiced in the Church worship service not in the house churches.
1 Corinthians 11:28 tells us that each person must examine himself. Whom is he speaking of? Church Members. This is not an examination of salvation, which is something that must be examined, but an examination of oneself to assure there is no divisions, that you are not partaking of the supper to only fill you gut, and to make certain your practice is in remembrance and looking forward to the Lord’s return.
My point is that the Lord’s Table was implemented by Jesus with Baptized believers, and was instructed by Paul to a Church of Baptized Believers.
Brother Greg,
I am completely lost on this one… are you saying that Malcolm Yarnell does not support Landmark doctrine? Please explain this to me as I am not on the BI mailing list… You can find Dr. Yarnell’s position on Landmarkism the same way all of us who know him have found out–ASK HIM!! Oh, there is no BI mailing list, so please stop advocating junk you know nothing about.
Blessings,
Tim
CB,
I just went back and reread my comment #52 and guess what?
I never mentioned anything about “those seeking a Baptist Identity are Landmarkists”.
So why did you make the connection? Logic I suppose… or perhaps a tacit confession on your part?
Grace Always
FTME, My apologies to you and the guest author for not having seen or read the referenced post. A quick look at my calendar for October 18th reveals that there were demands within my church which most likely kept me from the usual reading of blogs, etc. My limited experience with these things is that we tend to “discuss” the topics in which we do not have unity. Those things that bind us together (and there are a great many) do not produce as many comments.
Thanks Joe for the references. I agree whole-heartedly that the Corinthian church was corrected by Paul for their division over the source of their baptism. I absolutely believe that new believers were baptized immediately on the spot following conversion or as soon as possible, hence the diversity of baptizers that Paul references. Philip provides a wonderful example of New Testament baptism in his experience with the Ethiopian Eunich. We see Paul baptized soon after his conversion. Baptism is the command of Christ and should occur quickly and obediently as a symbol of death, burial, and resurrection. We are in agreement in these matters.
As you have well stated, “…in most cases there would not have been a chance for a saved, unbaptized person to partake of the Lord’s Supper if he wanted to.” Today, however, there are a great many who profess Christ and yet have not been baptized. This issue was perhaps not an issue in the New Testament for the reasons you have stated (at least we have no record of any such instance). Since we do have those however who have not yet been baptized in our situation, the question remains for us, “Is baptism a prerequisite for the Lord’s supper?” Does the Scripture command that baptism take place prior to the Lord’s supper? I don’t see it. Both are symbols of our fellowship with Christ and both are symbolic acts of remembrance. One is not necessarily greater than the other and neither are necessary for salvation. Does our Lord ask us to guard His table and keep away those who are unworthy? To say, “yes” would seem to contradict the entire ministry of Jesus that was built upon hanging out and eating with sinners. It was the pharisees that saw the need to guard their tables. Note that Paul asks each one to examine themselves and in so doing to eat and drink. This isn’t me examing you and you examining me. We examine ourselves individually through the light of the Holy Spirit and if we misjudge then according to Paul, that explains why we perhaps get sick and die. God is quite capable of protecting His table form those who would mock or dishonor it. Would it be dishonoring to Christ to serve the symbols of his sacrifice to someone who has not yet entered the waters of baptism? I don’t see how. He desires that all should come and dine with Him. If we are doing it wrong–then God will judge us and Paul defines that judgement precisely as weakness, sickness, and death.
I would remind you that Jesus served communion to Judas knowing all the while that Judas’ heart was not right with God and that he was being used by Satan himself to attempt to thwart God’s divine purpose. Perhaps with Paul’s teaching in mind we would not think it coincidence that having received the Lord’s supper in an unworthy manner, Judas died. Who is worthy to receive the broken body and the shed blood of Jesus? If you think you are–then you’re not!
Tim,
I do not have to ask the man, all one needs to do is “read” what the man writes.
Oh, there is no BI mailing list, so please stop advocating junk you know nothing about. TOUCHEY!
Brother Tim, “We” know much more about your BI movement than you think!
Grace Always,
I don’t think anyone touched Greg’s wine question. I was hoping to see the results. Greg: I think you’ll find that some will insist that Jesus did not make or drink wine and that it was grape juice at the Lord’s Supper. I don’t feel strongly that it must be wine, but I do feel strongly that it could be, even among Baptists.
Tim,
If there’s no BI mailing list, then why do I get all of this mail sent to me?
I just want everyone to know that I agree completely with what CB said in comment #61. CB, that’s good stuff.
We just observed the Lord’s Supper at my Church last Sunday nite. We drank wine….unfermented wine.
Also, it was a very special, moving, worshipful experience.
David
Greg,
A confession? Yes, it is. BI folk are “confessional” people.
Greg I think you may have gotten a wrong idea about Landmark theology being “younger” here. I am saying Baptists held the theology of which Malcolm Yarnell is presenting is “older” than the Landmark controversy.
It is also “older” than was Ole Al Campbell.
In other words; Landmarkers are the guys who “borrowed” some things and then “added” some things of their own.
That of which Malcolm is speaking of was around much earlier.
I am pretty sure I have not forgotten my “history.”
In addition, Greg, you said:
“The current controversy in the SBC is NOT over infant baptism. To my knowledge no Baptist Churches are Baptizing infants; we just baptize Toddlers under the age of five who full understand the concepts of sin, repentance, and salvation (We have some very gifted Toddlers in the SBC!)”
Now, Greg, you cannot have this both ways. I believe, if not mistaken, you are of the position that God elects whom He has and will. Are we agreed upon that issue?
If so, having “some very gifted Toddlers in the SBC” is not the issue at all is it? The issue would be that God has made some very young people aware of their election and they have made it known to others.
Greg, would that not be more in accord with what you believe?
cb
Brother Tim,
Yes,…I guess is all I can say to your post. Not sure the point you are trying to make about the Corinthian church. I don’t think Paul was writing to any ole folks just hanging around the countryside… 1 Corinthians 1:2 “To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours:”
Seems like just the saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of the Lord.
My point was that the Lord’s table is something Paul was emphasizing to be done,…not to be avoided. That was his point…proclamation concerning Christ.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
I would choose different language from Dr. Lemke here. I would argue, and think he would agree, that faith and divine grace are concurrent. If you want to know a snapshot of my soteriology, see http://www.baptisttheology.org/questions.cfm and read the latest Q&A, or read the chapter on Pneumatology in “A Theology for the Church,” edited by Danny Akin. Or, read Bart’s post from yesterday. As for your other statements, I am not sure that I understand some of what you mean.
Greg,
I never have been a Landmarkist and never plan to be one. If you would like a scholarly definition of Landmarkism, see “High-Church Baptists in the South” by James E. Tull, though his work has its own problems. However, after doing the appropriate research in defining Landmark views as opposed to non-Landmark Baptist views, please feel free to read all of my writings on ecclesiology, beginning with the short but comprehensive essay in the Blount and Wooddell book, “The Baptist Faith and Message 2000.” Perhaps then you will see what the differences are, and that I am more in the line of Dagg, Dargan, Dana, and B.H. Carroll than the line of J.R. Graves, as C.B. said. Or, maybe the prolem is that you have confused me with my Turkish friend, the esteemed Dr. Caner.
Wayne,
I will humbly take your rebuke to heart, and try to be a better Bible reader. However, it would help me personally if you let me know how I have personally made you stumble into sin while explaining biblical theology. Please take the time to compose a letter, so that you can spell it all out clearly to your satisfaction.
In Christ,
Malcolm
Chris,
I would choose different language from Dr. Lemke here. I would argue, and think he would agree, that faith and divine grace are concurrent. If you want to know a snapshot of my soteriology, see http://www.baptisttheology.org/questions.cfm and read the latest Q&A, or read the chapter on Pneumatology in “A Theology for the Church,” edited by Danny Akin. Or, read Bart’s post from yesterday. As for your other statements, I am not sure that I understand some of what you mean.
Greg,
I never have been a Landmarkist and never plan to be one. If you would like a scholarly definition of Landmarkism, see “High-Church Baptists in the South” by James E. Tull, though his work has its own problems. However, after doing the appropriate research in defining Landmark views as opposed to non-Landmark Baptist views, please feel free to read all of my writings on ecclesiology, beginning with the short but comprehensive essay in the Blount and Wooddell book, “The Baptist Faith and Message 2000.” Perhaps then you will see what the differences are, and that I am more in the line of Dagg, Dargan, Dana, and B.H. Carroll than the line of J.R. Graves, as C.B. said. Or, maybe the problem is that you have confused me with my Turkish friend, the esteemed Dr. Caner.
Wayne,
I will humbly take your rebuke to heart, and try to be a better Bible reader. However, it would help me personally if you let me know how I have personally made you stumble into sin while explaining biblical theology. Please take the time to compose a letter, so that you can spell it all out clearly to your satisfaction.
In Christ,
Malcolm
Brother Yarnell,
Thank you for the Q & A on Soteriology. As I said to you on another post,…I didn’t think we were as far apart as percieved (as if that really matters). But, it appears you simply combine elements as concurrent when considering an order of salvation as compared to other systems. A kind of middle of the road approach,…none the less a good approach.
How does your definition of “Free Will” enter into your affirmation that all elements of salvation are of God? Or is the “Free Will” part of the mystery as well?
Thanks,
Chris
CB,
You said:
Now, Greg, you cannot have this both ways. I believe, if not mistaken, you are of the position that God elects whom He has and will. Are we agreed upon that issue?
If so, having “some very gifted Toddlers in the SBC” is not the issue at all is it? The issue would be that God has made some very young people aware of their election and they have made it known to others.
Greg, would that not be more in accord with what you believe?
No CB, that is not what I believe at all…
That is you trying to “dodge” the truth about the SBC being just a guilty (probably more so) than the Presbyterian in baptizing unregenerate Toddlers and Babies, and because of this our churches are just as full of unregenerate members who should not be taking communion as any Presbyterian Church.
In other words when it comes to Baptizing the unregenerate, the Southern Baptists are in NO position to lecture the Presbyterians. And when it comes to who is eligible to partake of communion, if Presbyterians are to be excluded because their Baptism is invalid, then by the same standard many Southern Baptist must be excluded from the Lord’s Table as well.
That is what I believe CB.
Grace Always,
Greg,
Do you honestly think that there are people in here…in this thread…who would baptise children who cant understand salvation? I know that I dont. I take great care with children…so much so that some parents get upset with me for being so careful. I’d imagine that most of the people in here…CB, Bart, Dr. Yarnell, Geoff, etc…would also tell you the same. So, I’d imagine that you’re preaching to the choir here.
But, I do agree with you that there are some SB Churches and Pastors out there who are not as careful. They should be ashamed of themselves, but we do believe in the autonomy of the Church…do we not? So, if that Pastor, and that Church, believe that a child is old enough and understands enough, then that’s thier prerogative. You and I may shake and tremble at the thought of a 4, or a 5 year old getting into the baptismal waters…and well we should tremble; but that Church is autonomous.
Now, if they believe in infant baptism, that’s another matter…is it not? I mean, at least the SB Church that baptises 4 year olds is trying to practice believers baptism. They’re not doing a very good job at it, but at least it’s not their belief and practice to baptise babies who cant even say, “Goo goo….gaaa gaaa.” I mean, at least they’re trying to lead people to saving faith before baptism…as unwise as that seems to you and me…but, at least they’re not tearing a baby off it’s mother’s breast to sprinkle some water on top of his/her head!!!!
Now then, you and I agree that children should be old enough to understand sin and faith and repentance….correct?
David
Dr. Yarnell,
It is very hard to argue with someone that they are something when they come right out in public and say that they are not. Are you sure you are not just a little bit… nope, never mind, I am defeated.
I wish all those who keep insisting that us 5-point Calvinist are really “Hyper-Calvinist” would take us at our word when we shout from the mountain tops that we are not “Hyper”, but alas they do not.
Anyway, my apology for confusing you as a Landmarkist… I am glad you are not, that Landmark stuff is scary. I think I may be using a different definition of a Landmakist than you, Someone keeps changing all kinds of theological definitions lately and not telling me about it. (but that is another story) And as I am having a hard time these days identifying who is a Landmarkist and who is just on the BI mailing list (wink to Tim) I will indeed read the works you recommend and “bone up” on the current definition.
Now, about that Caner dude…
Grace Always,
Greg & Bill,
.
You both asked about wine and the Lord’s Supper. No one else has responded probably because that was not the point of the original post and because this issue has been debated before. But that won’t stop me
There are a number of good reasons to use unfermented wine for the Lord’s Supper. I’ll just leave you with a quote from the highly respected Southern Baptist leader, Herschel Hobbs:
“The elements used in this Supper were unleavened bread and ‘the fruit of the vine.’ The word ‘wine’ is not used. Some interpret ‘fruit of the vine’ as wine. However, as the bread was unleavened, free of bacteria, was the cup also not grape juice? Wine is the product of the juice plus fermentation caused by bacteria. Since both elements represented the pure body and blood of Jesus, there is reason to ponder. The writer sees ‘fruit of the vine’ as pure grape juice untainted by fermentation.” -Hobbs, The Baptist Faith & Message, Convention Press; 1971, p. 88.
David R. Brumbelow
Greg,
I agree. I made an absurd statement about “Toddlers.” You also were of the same degree of absurdity by bringing the “Toddler” illustration into this thread.
Both Tom and Malcolm championed Regenerate Church Membership resolutions at the SBC this year. That in itself is evidence neither of them approves of the way some SBC churches and pastors are treating the doctrine of soteriology in particular and the whole of the gospel in general as relating to the baptizing of unregenerate people. And that would include adults as well as children.
I am glad to see you have agreed to take Malcolm at his word that he is not a Landmarker.
Yet, you seem to insist that we enjoin the Presbyterians in all things Baptist.
Why is that?
BTW, there is a list of BI people. I have a copy. The reason Tim does not know about it is because he is not on it.
cb
WOW, Vol,
You are graphic.
“Now, if they believe in infant baptism, that’s another matter…is it not? I mean, at least the SB Church that baptises 4 year olds is trying to practice believers baptism. They’re not doing a very good job at it, but at least it’s not their belief and practice to baptise babies who cant even say, “Goo goo….gaaa gaaa.” I mean, at least they’re trying to lead people to saving faith before baptism…as unwise as that seems to you and me…but, at least they’re not tearing a baby off it’s mother’s breast to sprinkle some water on top of his/her head!!!!”
But you are always well spoken.
cb
Volfan007 (David)
I have been trying (hard) to find something to disagree with you about, and I must be slipping because I can find nothing. Hey, if we can find common ground perhaps there is hope for the SBC after all?
David R. Brumbelow,
Thanks for being one of the brave ones who is not afraid to talk about this issue. However, with all due respect to Dr. Herschel Hobbs (and I do respect him greatly), but Grape Juice in Jerusalem during Passover (Spring) “I really don’t think so”.
CB,
Both Tom and Malcolm championed Regenerate Church Membership resolutions at the SBC this year. So what was Dr. Yarnell making all the fuss over on Dr. Ascol’s Blog about Tom allowing Presbyterians to take communion? Was Dr. Yarnell saying that Tom might be allowing unregenerate Presbyterians that had not been immersed to take communion, or was he saying that all Presbyterians, even those who have been immersed as Adults should not be allowed to take communion in a Baptist Church?
O, I almost forget that Dr. Yarnell is reading this Blog (and giving me the throw down), so if you are still reading Dr. Yarnell and you would like to answer the above question, I would truly like to know what it was really all about… if not, CB will have to answer.
Grace Always,
Frankly, I am absolutely amazed that Dr. Yarnell and others are willing to defend the idea of closed communion in this day and age in which we live.
The last thing the Church in America needs is the separatist mindset closed communion represents. I haven’t had time to read the entire comment thread or even all of the discussion between Allen, Ascol, White, Yarnell, and others but anyone worth his theological salt knows that the Bible doesn’t teach closed communion the way many Southern Baptist churches have practiced it over the last hundred years. It’s only been in the midst of a predominantly Christian Southern culture that such a belief ever made any sort of pastoral sense (if it ever did at all).
I’m not discounting the need for legitimate church discipline or arguing that Baptism isn’t required before communion generally speaking, but the idea that it is somehow pastorally wise to practice it today or to hold Tom Ascol’s feet to the fire until he admits he’s not in league with the BFM on this extremely minor point (like what…10000 other SBC churches and pastors?) because he’s taken the brave step of doing what most every Southern Baptist church does today–take what the Bible says over and above what the BFM may say.
In fact, I find it quite ironic that the ones pressing a quasi-confessional position (as if Baptists were old school Presbyterians) are the anti-Calvinists and the ones who are decidedly Calvinistic are the ones hailing back to the Scriptures in this discussion. David Allen, Malcom Yarnell, and others haven’t bothered to make their case exegetically that is for sure. But all this just shows that neither side is as thoroughly acquainted with their respective traditions as they may claim, sadly. The fact that the debate is supposedly framed between “Calvinists”, “anti-Calvinists”, or “Arminians” means not enough homework has been done on either side about what these terms mean and what the theology is behind them.
I do hope we don’t go back to the day when Southern Baptists could pretend they were the Christian Church like and against their ‘Campbellite’ opponents. We ought to look at that time in Southern Baptist life as an adolescence that is better left fondly remembered but with lessons well-learned.
Today, the Church in America needs to unite against the godless forces of secularism and work together not only in preaching the Gospel but also in living it. Advocating absolute denominational and local fidelity to a rule that was never meant to be a strict confessional standard for churches is a huge step backwards and in my view completely misunderstands the use and existence of something like the Baptist Faith & Message.
True, we ought to strive for biblical orthodoxy but that is not necessarily the same as what some have termed “Southern Baptist orthodoxy”. Christian orthodoxy, yes. Biblical orthodoxy, absolutely. But, Southern Baptist orthodoxy is a nonsensical term that ought to be abandoned. Don’t get me wrong. Southern Baptists are just as orthodox as their Presbyterian brethren but both are Christian and both are most assuredly welcome at the table of our Lord and should be at both churches. Otherwise, the term “Christian” really has no meaning for us anymore.
[...] [Originally posted here, waaaay down in the comment thread] [...]
Dave Samples,
Now I am really confused, and curious. First you acknowledge the references of Paul in chapter 1 of First Corinthians, and then you say… “Does the Scripture command that baptism take place prior to the Lord ’s Supper? I don’t see it.”
I wonder if you use this type of Biblical interpretation for other activities and offices of the church. Would you allow a person who has made a profession of faith, was never baptized, and only comes sporadically to lead your youth group? Or what about your music department? Or what about teach a Sunday School class? After all, there is no command in Scripture that baptism take place prior to these.
For that matter, what about letting the above mentioned person be a Deacon or Pastor? Try as I might, I could not find the command for baptism listed in the qualifications of a Pastor or Deacon. So, do you “fence in” your youth ministry, music ministry, the Pastorate? Why? There is no warning that the person who is in charge of the youth unworthily will get sick or die.
In my theology, whenever Paul is speaking to the church or to men like Timothy and Titus, it is an understood fact that he is addressing saved, baptized, faithful believers.
CB Scott,
Thanks for taking my reference and using it. I pray that you will indeed live to use it over a thousand times. And, thanks for taking a look at my blog and for the encouragement to stand strong. May God add His blessings to you.
Kevin: Amen
Joe,
I’m failing to communicate my point and so I’ll move on after one more try. I agree that we can infer from the text that believers were baptized immediately upon confession of faith and thus it is likely that only baptized believers received communion together. The issue that we are discussing does not appear to have been an issue in the early church (unbaptized believers showing up for communion). Because it was not an issue–it was not addressed. We do not have an instance of someone being denied communion in the Scriptures because they were not baptized. Paul does not ask the church in Corinth to deny communion to those believers who were not baptized. My point is that I don’t see that there is a biblical command to make baptism a prerequisite for communion.
The positions of leadership that you mention are, of course, very different from the Lord’s table. Individuals receive the bread and the cup as a symbol of participation in Christ’s salvation. The table is open for whoever desires to participate in God’s free gift. It is not earned and it is not deserved. Leadership is of course earned and is assigned based on individual qualifications. The church has every right to raise the bar of leadership as high as they can.
My brother, let me thank you for the opportuity to dialogue with you. My prayer is that we would both see our communities impacted with the life-changing gospel of Jesus Christ. May God bless you this week with abundant life and grant you the desires of your heart.
Joe,
Just took a look at your blog–nice! Where in Tennessee do you live? I’m an old Union University grad and I spent some time in East Tennessee as well.
Chris,
Let me muddy the waters further. I don’t find the concept of “free will,” as commonly used, to be explicitly taught in Scripture, though one might make an inference on the basis of other presuppositions. True “freedom” is to be free in Christ and from sin and from the penalties of the law and from death, at least according to Paul in Romans.
Greg,
Glad to have allayed your fears, though I think you should examine why there is a fear there. In answer to your query, let me respond socratically: If a Presbyterian were to change his ways and receive biblical baptism, would he really be a Presbyterian any longer?
Thanks for the interchange, but I must return to grading. Please make sure you share the love of God in Christ (i.e. the gospel) with somebody today.
In Christ,
Malcolm
Greg,
I’ll pursue it a little further. Do you mean there was no ability to have unfermented wine for the Passover, since it was observed in the Spring? Of course, grapes get ripe in the summer or fall. So the obvious question is, “How could they have unfermented wine several months after the grape harvest with no refrigeration?”
They could easily do so in a number of ways.
First, some grapes were “good keepers” and could be stored fresh for months in a cool dry cellar. They could then be directly squeezed into a cup. The Bible even speaks of Pharaoh’s wine being prepared this way (Genesis 40:11). I guarantee that wine was not fermented!
Second, wine could be boiled down and the thick syrup would keep unfermented. By the same principle, honey is so thick that it keeps for long periods of time un-refrigerated and without preservatives. This thick wine would later be mixed with water. There are even ancient accounts of wine being so thick it had to be scraped from the wineskins.
Third, wine could be sealed in a jar with pitch. Preventing air from getting to it kept it from fermenting. In a similar way, modern day country folks sometimes seal jars of preserves with paraffin or wax.
There were also other ways to prevent wine from fermenting. People today often do not give ancient people enough credit for their knowledge and resourcefulness.
As for your assumption that “cup” or “fruit of the vine” is alcoholic – that is at least as much of an interpretation as my interpretation that it is the pure juice of the grapes. If someone said, “fruit of the citrus tree, “ would orange juice be disqualified because it is not rotted and fermented?
David R. Brumbelow
With what we know about the original languages today, it really is somewhat silly to continue the claim that wine in the New Testament (or the rest of the Bible which shouldn’t be forgetted by the way) was non-alcoholic.
Besides, there are numerous passages where wine or other alcoholic beverages are mentioned that speak well against the classic temperance position. We do not read our Bibles closely enough and this is yet another instance where we should see the old position of Southern Baptists as culturally outdated and biblically uninformed.
Psalm 104:15 says that God made wine ‘to make glad the heart of man’. Proverbs 31:7 tells us to give wine to the poor so they can forget their troubles and remember it no more. Deuteronomy 14:26 tells us that after tithing, men could buy “wine or other fermented drink” (NIV). And, this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Once again, there are more important concerns and we fail if we continue to make these tertiary issues central and more important than they really are. We need to be about preaching the Gospel and living it out so that men might believe–this has been the real hallmark of what it means to be Southern Baptist and moving from that center toward any extreme does nothing but distract us from the Great Commission.
forgetted? Heh. No…I mean “forgotten” above in the first paragraph.
David R. Brumbelow,
(John 2:1-11)
1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: 2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. 3 And when they wanted “Grape Juice”, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no “Grape Juice”. 4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. 5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. 6 And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. 7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. 8 And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. 9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made “Grape Juice”, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, 10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good “Grape Juice”; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good “Grape Juice” until now. 11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.
What do you think David, does that sound about right to you?
Grace Always,
Greg,
That sounds right to me.
David B.,
Your knowledge of grape juice, unfermented wine, is incredible. Thanks for sharing those tidbits of info. Very enlightening. And, I really liked the orange juice illustration. That one should open eyes to the truth. Thanks, Bro.
You know, it always amazes me that some people want to quote the story of Cana, and say that Jesus made fermented wine. Usually, these same people agree that it’s sinful to be drunk. So, if it’s sinful to be drunk, and these people had drank a lot of “wine,” taking this arguement out to it’s logical conclusion, then did Jesus make more fermented wine for the people who had “well drunk” to drink??? Was He participating in the drunkeness of this wedding party?????? Would the fermented wine people be actually saying that Jesus was contributing to the drunkeness of the wedding party in Cana? participating in thier sin?????????????? Wow!
Sorry, impact, for getting off topic, but this does pertain to the Lord’s Supper in some degree.
Still Teetotalling,
David
Kevin & Greg,
All of these points have been answered before by me and others (check out Peter Lumpkins’ blog).
Wine was a generic term in Bible times that could refer to: 1. Unfermented wine. 2. Fermented wine, not as strong as common alcoholic drinks of today but, of course, the kind that could get you drunk. 3. Fermented wine greatly watered down.
Why do you “interpret” the wine Jesus made as the kind that affects people’s judgment and make them do things they would never do in their right minds? He doesn’t do that when He makes wine every year in the vineyard, and Scripture commands us to be sober.
Many ancient quotes can be given showing use of the word wine in referring to clearly non-alcoholic drinks. It was even used to refer to grapes still on the vine. The Bible did not have a word for alcohol. How do you know when the Bible is referring to alcoholic wine? By the context.
Do we have any words like this today that can mean either an alcoholic or non-alcoholic drink? Of course. Check out the words: cider, punch, eggnog, liquor.
I know that some are embarrassed by the over 150 year stand the SBC has taken against beverage alcohol. But it is based on sound biblical, scientific, moral, and common sense reasons.
David volfan,
Thanks for the affirmation & backup. Good comments about Cana.
David R. Brumbelow
Brother Yarnell,
Thanks for the reply….I think this string is losing a bit of momentum. Actually your comments were less muddy.
I do like your approach to these philosophical musings (free will, etc.) that have been posited down through the ages. I can’t disagree with you on the current or commonly used explanation of “Free Will” being short of a consistent norm found in the scriptures. I too agree that freedom is the key to understanding how the will is moved to know and confess Christ and the entire spectrum of freedom being effected in Christ.
As Paul declared to Titus…. Titus 3:5-7 “He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, (6) whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, (7) so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.”
What a great and wonderful thing He has done.
Blessings,
Chris
Brumbelow writes: “All of these points have been answered before by me and others (check out Peter Lumpkins’ blog).”
[tongue firmly planted]
Oh. Wow. Case closed then, eh?
So much for discussion about what the Bible says.
We can now receive the truth from the almighty Lumpkins blog – a blog I never even knew about until a week ago – no need to discuss anything.
If you guys don’t mind…I think anybody that opposes these guys should stop commenting at all…that way we can just believe everything these guys are saying and the world will return to a state quite near to that of the pre-fall Garden of Eden.
[/tongue firmly planted]
Mr. Brumbelow,
I would like to suggest that the real problem with your response to what I have written is that it may reflect a low view of those who disagree with you theologically or otherwise. Peter Lumpkins and his blog, while interesting, is not the last word on anything and while I appreciate the somewhat condescending suggestion to go look up the truth of the matter on his blog or elsewhere (in the midst of studiously avoiding what I have already mentioned from the Bible), I also think you and others on the Lumpkins side ought to be taking the word of your disagreeing brothers more seriously and not less. The doctrine of the priesthood of the believer compels us to do so because it reveals for us that everyone’s view is to be considered, weighed, discussed, and shown the light of day even when to us it seems almost nonsensical–given that the Spirit of God inhabits us all.
I am happy to fully discuss this issue or any other but I’m not going to back down from my own well-considered and informed opinion just because you think you and others have fully discussed it enough elsewhere. That’s just not an answer to my arguments or the arguments of others on these points and you’re not going to convince anyone (except the most devoted that already agree with you) that anything I’ve said to this point is somehow unreasonable.
Wow, I guess Kevin’s mind is not made up?
Kevin, what do you say to my comment #102…in light of what David B. told you about wine in the Bible…in it’s historical context?
Not making moonshine today,
David
David,
I think you bring a bunch of assumptions through your questions to the text of Scripture and the wedding at Cana event that simply don’t belong there or at the very least aren’t present in the account itself. I don’t think it’s wise for us to second guess why our Lord would have created the wine He did beyond what the Bible tells us or makes clear either from the context or our overall understanding of what it says.
Secondly, your assertion that somehow it would be irresponsible on the part of Jesus to make wine (that is fermented) because some might drink to excess is like arguing that gun makers are responsible for the crimes committed with the weapons people buy. It just doesn’t wash.
I have found that the vast majority of arguments in our circles about wine and its supposed lack of fermentation in the Bible come from 130 year old+ outdated sources or newer sources that rely on such outdated information. It’s not convincing in my mind to quote works from the 1880s as if they are anything other than the nascent beginnings of scientific research in biblical and other historical studies. No one today uses the Westcott-Hort text in reading Greek but almost everyone uses the UBS or Nestle/Aland text. That’s because we’ve learned a lot about the NT manuscripts in the last 150 years. But, somehow, temperance advocates still rely on these old outdated works to provide them all the ammunition they need to make their case.
Mr. Brumbelow’s assertion that if “wine” in the Bible can be possibly translated as grape juice or unfermented cuts both ways if we allow his assertion to stand for the moment. If it is possible to read “unfermented wine” in the text where it says “wine”, then most assuredly it is also possible to read “fermented wine” in the same places. If we are to go with his line of reasoning, then Mr. Brumbelow must be prepared to show us from the context of the passages in question where it clearly indicates that the text talking about unfermented wine.
I frankly think this strategy is a mistake because it winds up not allowing the text to speak for itself because it forces us to put an interpretive grid on the process that is just not there–in other words, how do we make the text fit a preconceived understanding that wine in all these instances must in fact be grape juice. Case in point…John 2 and the wedding at Cana. Let me just do a little ‘James Jordan’ here to really make you think…
Here we have Jesus presenting us with six waterpots used in Jewish purification. As you know, six is an incomplete number and seven is perfect. Six waterpots filled with water for the ritual purification of the Jews is transcended by the presence of Jesus who makes the imperfect into perfect–six becomes seven and the real purification happens through our Lord Christ–as a result everything is transformed.
But, what is interesting here on the part of the Apostle John is the contrast between New Covenant and Old. The Old Covenant is seen in the water and the New Covenant is seen in the wine. The Old Covenant was a shadow of what was to come and the New Covenant was the substance of all the covenants from Adam until the end of time. What we see partly revealed in the Old Testament comes full force in the New. The water becomes wine–the fullness and substance of such a thing is hardly represented by “grape juice” something I think Greg Alford was capably pointing out. It just doesn’t fit the fuller implications of the story–we kid ourselves to think this story is merely there to show us the first miracle of Jesus. This miracle “manifested His glory” and that is hardly seen in the transformation of water to grape juice.
But, fine, think what you want of such a passage where there is absolutely no textual evidence that grape juice was what they were using. Fine with me.
Let us address at least one text I have already mentioned and one more. Deuteronomy 14:26 makes it clear that it is a moral thing to purchase and consume both wine and other fermented beverages. And, the context is so clear that the NIV even used the word “fermented” in the translation. But, I leave you to explain this passage which is undoubtedly as clear as the last:
This is a staggering passage to consider in light of the wedding at Cana and the coming Marriage Feast of the Lamb. I don’t know about you but I’ve never heard of “aged grape juice” or “refined, aged grape juice”. Just doesn’t make any sense nor does it give the extent and meaning of the atonement and completed work of Christ its due to limit the passage in that way. It just doesn’t preach, in other words.
Yeah…the greatest sacrifice and victory of all time represented by none other than Welch’s grape juice. OK. If that’s how you want to see it. But, please don’t tell me that’s what the Bible says.
Kevin,
When I referred to the issues about drinking being answered before I did not mean that in a condescending way. I was thinking more of the fact that this post did not originate with this subject. Also that these issues have been previously discussed on this blog, including Deuteronomy 14:26. My intended point was that I was not trying to skirt all these issues, they had been covered before, and so I was just covering them very briefly.
If someone wants to pursue this more deeply, they can look up the subject here at SBC Impact, at Peter Lumkins’ site, or order books from amazon.com such as Bible Wines by William Patton or Should Christians Drink? by Peter Masters.
But I can see how you took my comment. Sorry, that was not my intention. I should have worded it better. Also, I in no way intend to convey that the other side is dumb or ignorant. I just believe the other side is wrong.
David R. Brumbelow
David,
Thank you very much, I appreciate the clarification.
For those interested in this subject (which I agree is off topic from the original post), you can also read a couple of books that represent more of what I’ve been saying:
God Gave Wine, by Kenneth Gentry
Drinking With Calvin and Luther: A History of Alcohol in the Church, by Jim West
David,
Thank you very much, I appreciate the clarification.
For those interested in this subject (which I agree is off topic from the original post), you can also read a couple of books that represent more of what I’ve been saying:
God Gave Wine, by Kenneth Gentry
Drinking With Calvin and Luther: A History of Alcohol in the Church, by Jim West
[submitted this time without the links so it doesn't get flagged for moderation--just check for the books at Amazon]
Kevin,
I’ve read Isaiah 29:6 and I cant see that passage at all. Did you mis-type this?
Also, as stated many times, by many people, whether wine should be translated fermented or unfermented wine is left up to the text… just as many Hebrew and Greek words are translated certain ways depending on the context.
Also, in your explanation above about the Wedding at Cana, I still dont see why it would be so important that it’s fermented wine? What would be wrong with grape juice? I dont see the importance of this being fermented wine at all.
Also, Kevin, I do believe my point about the wedding at Cana is a very good point. Because, many of the people who take your view…that Jesus made the water into fermented wine…use the “well drunk” part of this passage to say that the wedding party was drunk… thus, how could they drunk on unfermented wine? I’m saying…do you really think that Jesus would a)stay at a drunken party? and b)contribute to it?
And, Kevin, let me just add this in…I used to be a drunken party person before God saved me and delivered me. Jesus would not have been very comfortable around the drinking parties I was at, and I dont think that He would have made water into wine so that we could get just a little bit higher.
Do you?
David
Ahhh yes…a typo…I meant Isaiah 25:6. More later, perhaps.
Kevin,
Thanks for the sound reasoning… your voice has been a welcome breath of fresh air on this topic. I appreciate the book recommendations and will be sure to read both of them.
David & David
(1 Tim.3:8)
Likewise must the deacons be grave, not double tongued, not given to much “Grape Juice”, not greedy of filthy lucre;
I tell you what, you just got to watch out for those deacons drinking to much of that “Grape Juice”!
(I’m sorry brothers, I really need to stop doing this “Grape Juice” stuff to you guys, as I having just so much fun it must be sin.)
Grace Always,
Dr.Yarnell,
I have many Presbyterian friends and have sat at their teaching of God. Word. We were privileged by being in a church Shepherded by many Professors at Westminster Seminary Escondido for 10 plus years.
Some of these Professors were Baptized by immersion the same as we were. All of these Professors were and are worthy of partaking the Lord’s Supper in any Baptist Church. .
I just can’t believe that a Brother would deny any of them from participating in the Lord’s Supper if visiting their church.
The Lord’s Supper was first given to men that were not baptized before partaking of this special Blessing
Institution of the Lord’s Supper
Matt 26:26 v Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and w after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; x this is my body.” 27 And he took a cup, and when he y had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, 28 for x this is my z blood of the [3] covenant, which is poured out for many, for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.
Wayne,
Greg: Excellent point. You can’t be too careful when it comes to grape juice.
Greg,
Maybe your missing all the points of wine being interpreted in different ways depending on the context? Or, maybe you’re purposely missing the point, because it doesnt go along with what you want to believe?
I guess you believe that Jesus made more fermented wine to help all those wedding goers get more drunk? Yea, right.
David
David (volfan007),
You write: “do you really think that Jesus would a)stay at a drunken party? and b)contribute to it?”
Matthew 11:19 and Luke 7:34 seems to indicate that Jesus would go to places where alcoholic beverages were served, so much so that he himself was called both gluttonous and a drunkard.
I’m not sure that means that he went to the sort of parties you are talking about.
However, I think it’s absurd to think that it’s either a matter of attending a smashing rave-like wilder than all keg’er versus a polite gathering of women at tea where alcohol isn’t anywhere within 50 miles. There are, believe it or not, Christian (and Jewish) people who enjoy alcohol responsibly and gatherings all the way in between.
My guess is that the wedding at Cana was a big party but not the sort of drunken brouhaha others may have supposed to make their point as you imagine. I feel no need to make that same point – the fact that the best wine was served last is proof enough in my mind.
When alcohol is a part of the culture a community becomes practiced at handling it responsibly–especially a Jewish community informed by the morality of the Mosaic Law. We have to be careful not to import our own conception of how alcohol is or is not used into something like the wedding account in John 2.
But, again, I have yet to hear an answer for Deuteronomy 14:26. Did we forget to look up that passage and provide an answer?
I really am interested in hearing what you and others may say about Deuteronomy 14:26.
Yeah, Kevin,
You are right when you say:
“However, I think it’s absurd to think that it’s either a matter of attending a smashing rave-like wilder than all keg’er versus a polite gathering of women at tea where alcohol isn’t anywhere within 50 miles. There are, believe it or not, Christian (and Jewish) people who enjoy alcohol responsibly and gatherings all the way in between.”
And………On their drive home from their “gatherings” from both of the groups you describe above very often (far too often) they have been “responsible” for the deaths of many, many, people. And we need to “responsibly” place them in prison and they can do their “gathering” there and “all the way in between” the times they can think about the lives they have destroyed because they “enjoyed alcohol responsibly.”
cb
Kevin,
I’ve pretty much run out of time for this week.
.
But if Geoff & SBC Impact will continue to put up with us, and if anybody still cares, I’ll be happy to speak to Deuteronomy 14:26 and Isaiah 25:6 sometime next week.
Amazingly, you can still believe those verses and continue to abstain from beverage alcohol
David R. Brumbelow
‘cb’,
Your contention is patently absurd. Driving drunk is not using alcohol responsibly and never has been. And, I agree with harsh penalties for drunk driving.
To say otherwise is to redefine the word “responsible”.
The fact that some people are irresponsible in their actions and often with tragic and permanent consequences is no reason to prohibit the means by which they may become so. If that isn’t true, we’re going to have to outlaw guns and many other things. In fact, your argument taken to its logical conclusion means we shouldn’t even be driving cars since these same people who abuse alcohol wind up abusing the legitimate use of their cars as well. Also, we shouldn’t blame those who *are* drinking responsibly for the actions of others merely because they were present at an occasion that provided the opportunity for someone to imbibe irresponsibly.
I know it is easy to get emotional about this issue (especially if you have in some way been the victim of a drunk driver) but that should not keep us from thinking clearly and logically about these things.
Kevin,
The Bible says that the people at the wedding at Cana had “well drunk.” What do you suppose that means? And, Jesus being at a wedding party and contributing to the drunkeness?
I agree that Jesus went to places where people were drinking fermented wine and gorging themselves….I would and do go to places like this as well. I went to O’Charley’s not too long ago. But, to say that the people are “well drunk” and ran out of wine, and that Jesus made them more fermented wine, would be saying that Jesus contributed to the “keg” party. It’s not a place that I would put Jesus in.
Also, Deut. 14:26 is a verse that does say that they can buy strong drink. For what purpose? Maybe for medicinal purposes? Could that be it? I dont know. I think that’s what they used it for back then, just as Paul told Timothy to drink a little wine for his stomach troubles. And, Granny Clampett drank it for her rheumatiz. They didnt have penicillin and the sulphur drugs back then. They used alcohol for different things. We do the same today. Some Baptists will actually drink a hot toddy when feeling sick..to help them sleep. Others drink a few shots of Jack Daniels when dealing with a head cold. They say that it cures it, or in the least helps you sleep at nite. Others, just drink Baptist Booze….you know, Nyquil.
David
David (volfan),
I think it might be prudent for you to take a step back and define for us what “drunkenness” might mean especially as it pertains to your query regarding the wedding at Cana. It may be, perhaps, that you are attributing more to my position than necessary or you are just used to arguing with others who need that particular crutch to prop up their rather imperfect view of what the Bible says.
I would suggest, also, sticking to a more modern translation of “well drunk” than what the King James affords us (v. 10). The NASB reads “drunk freely” – which really just means that they drank what was available until they ran out of “the good stuff” and does not necessarily imply that they were smashed because they drank all the wine. However, it does mean (as anyone experienced in drinking wine knows) the custom normally of serving the good wine first was done because the more wine you drink, the less discrimination there is concerning taste. This, in my view, is an inherent contextual admission in the text that the wine was like any normal wine we have today and not grape juice. This verse makes no sense if we are only talking about grape juice or–at best given full consideration of your view–the alcoholic rendering is certainly the more natural read of the text.
But, that is not all there is to the story because they were still cognizant enough (read: not drunk) to recognize superior wine from what had come before. But, as I said, this account makes little sense when we’re talking about different varieties of grape juice.
Now, on to Deut. 14:26. I am glad to see the clear admission here that there is a moral use of alcohol and that you admit the text says we are able *morally speaking* to buy and use alcohol according to the Mosaic Law. The quibbling over what that use might be (medicinal, recreational, or otherwise) to me is of little importance. The fact is that the Bible teaches that it is not immoral to buy and consume wine and other fermented drink. In fact, the Bible teaches it as a positive allowance when everything else is in order (such as making sure you are tithing to your church).
Now, you may argue that Deut. 14:26 allows for the medicinal use of alcohol but that must be proven on other grounds since there is nothing in the passage that would provide you with that reason for its use.
I would suggest to you, however, that the context of Deuteronomy 14:26 and the notion of feasting in the presence of the Lord with rejoicing shows us that a moral and primary use of alcohol in that verse is in celebration with others at a meal and for the purpose of glorifying God. Drinking to glorify God? Odd that this would resonate with Paul’s statement, “Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31).
It is a cause of concern to me that whenever a Baptist brother attempts to calmly make the case that some of the wine references in the NT, including wine related to Jesus references…may actually have had some % of alcohol in it, that suddenly somehow, one is supporting the idea of licentious living, immorality, drunkenness and the like… That being said, even if the wine of the NT did contain some measure of alcohol, the wisdom of abstinence should be taught from our pulpits.
However it is also true that here are many of our theologically conservative, evangelical brothers across denominational lines who believe that the idea of Biblical moderation related to alcohol may be left to soul competency. I don’t believe we should be quick to judge or scold.
CB, I agree with you completely until you make the comment: “enjoyed alcohol responsibly.” Change it to “have irresponsibly abused alcohol and should thus face the consequences.” Then I would fully agree.
And………On their drive home from their “gatherings” from both of the groups you describe above very often (far too often) they have been “responsible” for the deaths of many, many, people. And we need to “responsibly” place them in prison and they can do their “gathering” there and “all the way in between” the times they can think about the lives they have destroyed because they “enjoyed alcohol responsibly.”
cb
David: You are still essentially saying that Jesus wouldn’t make something that people could use sinfully. But we know that isn’t the case. Given the opportunity, there is very little of God’s creation that we can’t or won’t use sinfully. People the world over inhale tobacco smoke until their lungs collapse into a soggy brown lump, and yet God continues to send the rain and sunshine down upon the tobacco fields.
Do you really, truly believe that God’s people regularly abstained from alcoholic beverages and only took them for medicinal purposes? Do you think that an accurate picture of what the scriptures are presenting? Do you think that Israel was essentially a nation of teetotallers with medicinal exceptions?
Can I quote myself?
I just have an additional comment to make regarding this assertion:
When we consider once again, the moral basis for consumption of alcohol in the Old Testament or Mosaic Law was for feasting and we look at the wedding feast of Cana (John 2), we realize the fuller implications of going from Old Covenant to New. Now, it should be no surprise that the celebration of the Supper of our Lord is one in which wine is served where we rejoice over the ultimate act of our Lord in being delivered to death and raised again to new life. What was merely a matter of purification on the part of the Old Law now becomes reality and what was rejoiced in figure in the Old Law now becomes the regular image and presentation of real rejoicing in the New Life that God has granted us through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
As a result, it is the most Christian thing in the world to have wine in celebration of the Supper of our Lord and in our rejoicing in the everyday events of our life that God has graciously granted to us. I disagree that abstinence from alcohol is prudent and appropriate though I have no disagreement with brothers who would want to be so ascetic in their understanding and practice of the gospel.
The New Covenant has come, brothers, in all its joy and glory and we see should see it not only in a transformed life of devotion but also in a transformed culture–one that inherently demonstrates the right and joyful use of things like wine and strong drink. The moral basis for such things is provided to us by the Law of God but the joyful and glorious use of them is established by the mighty act of God in resurrecting Christ our Lord.
David, Comment #116
Truth will always bring about a “crises of faith”…
David, your rules of interpretation make the Bible absolutely unknowable. I hope you do not play around with other more important truths found in the Holy Scriptures the way you do with Wine.
Kevin
• I would suggest to you, however, that the context of Deuteronomy 14:26 and the notion of feasting in the presence of the Lord with rejoicing shows us that a moral and primary use of alcohol in that verse is in celebration with others at a meal and for the purpose of glorifying God. Drinking to glorify God? Odd that this would resonate with Paul’s statement, “Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31).
Wow Brother, now that is an insightful comment. I will need to think long and hard about what the implications of that might be.
And don’t forget Kevin that Jesus said to His disciples that he would not partake again of the fruit of the vine until he does so with them in heaven. Unless the disciples were a bunch of children who really loved “Grape Juice” then I hardly think that statement had much meaning for them.
Kevin, if some of our brothers here enjoyed the gift of their wives the way they enjoy the gift of Wine, their wives would all be wearing “Burka’s”.
Grace Always,
Kevin,
Why is it that when someone makes a very strong statement it means they are being “emotional” to the point they are not thinking? That never ceases to amaze me.
It is almost as if intelligent people will only make innocuous, none offensive statements with no certainty or conviction.
If that must be the case, then let me just be a moron for a few more moments.
Kevin, I did not say anything about the use of alcoholic beverage use being or not being a sin. I said people kill other people under its influence. Is that not correct?
It was you who made the pertinent illustrations with some additional information about guns and automobiles also being dangerous.
Let me continue as a moron for a moment longer. You say to drink responsibly. Who gages responsibility? He or she who is drinking? OK. How much can I drink before I might not be so responsible in my thinking much less my drinking?
If one considers Luke 21:34-36 one will find that Jesus states that we should not be unwise in life, but to be alert as we await His coming.
Therefore, Kevin, is it wise or unwise for a Christian, as we await His coming, to use alcohol as a beverage?
BTW, Kevin, this will cover the use of guns and automobiles. We should not be unwise in the use of either of those as we await His coming. Would you not agree?
Darren,
I agree with you totally when you say:
“CB, I agree with you completely until you make the comment: “enjoyed alcohol responsibly.” Change it to “have irresponsibly abused alcohol and should thus face the consequences.” Then I would fully agree.”
I was being cynical about Kevin’s use of “enjoy alcohol responsibly” in my comment.
The truth is that I can kiss a Rattlesnake “responsibly” most everyday. But one day he may bite me in the face if I am “lip locked” with him too long.
I will continue as always to say; It is unwise for a Christian to use alcohol as a beverage. The great preponderance of evidence within our society gives absolute credibility to to my position.
That same evidence gives absolutely no credibility to Kevin’s position.
Of course, these are just “rantings” from an emotional moron.
cb
Greg,
Thank you for the kind words. Please don’t get me started on how some of our brothers treat their wives. We’ll be here even longer for that one.
Lord bless…
‘cb’,
I in no way referred to you (or even thought of you) as an ‘emotional moron’. It does seem incredulous to me, however, to suggest that your original post (#118) and this latest (#127) does not carry a bit of emotional charge. But, what do I know? Perhaps I am the emotional moron? We are all fools for Christ anyway.
In reference to your question about who is to say what is responsible drinking–the New Testament covers this quite well in Romans 14 and in 1 Corinthians and leaves it up to individuals to determine this for themselves (have we forgotten that ‘all things are lawful, but not all things are profitable’?). By extension, I don’t mind including that our churches and societies also provide some measure of judgment and oversight of this question as well–or at least they should (hence DUI laws).
If you cannot see anyone acting responsibly in providing their own judgment of the matter you may want to reconsider the worth you do or don’t attach to their own Christian freedom and dignity in the matter. Perhaps at this juncture it might also be wise to consider the implications of thinking of others more highly than yourself (cf. Phil. 2 ff).
As to whether or not it is wise to drink alcohol to await our Lord’s coming I can only refer you to the Supper of our Lord. Since both in the Passover and in the Supper established by Christ we have wine used, we must be prepared to say at least in that case the answer is yes. Also, given what I have already said and what you have not bothered to rebut concerning Deut. 14:26 and the implications between the passing of the Old Covenant and the advent of the New–the Sunday morning celebration of our Lord’s resurrection and the conquering of death and hell (cf. 1 Cor. 15) sanctifies the rest of our week and provides us with the substance of why we might just be celebrating even though the consummation of the ages has yet to occur through the glorious return of the Son. Unless you can demonstrate how this in fact impedes our watchfulness, I see no basis to exclude feasting and celebration with or without alcoholic beverages from our daily lives in their place and when necessary.
Surely you are not going to argue that celebration cannot occur and should not occur until Christ returns. But, just like the wedding at Cana, our lives are filled with events that are legitimate celebrations (birthday/holiday parties, for example) that are opportunities to show and capably witness that because of Christ’s glorious resurrection we really do have something to celebrate unlike those who have yet to understand or comprehend the freedom and wonder that is the Christian life.
Responsible Christian use of alcohol can in fact be a powerful witness that only adds to the testimony and mention of the Gospel as it is exemplified in our lives.
Vol,
In comment #111 you said:
“And, Kevin, let me just add this in…I used to be a drunken party person before God saved me and delivered me. Jesus would not have been very comfortable around the drinking parties I was at, and I dont think that He would have made water into wine so that we could get just a little bit higher.”
I know what you meant here. But I also know that you know Jesus was there when you were being “unwise” to the degree you were in using alcohol as a beverage. he was longsuffering with you in that just as he was longsuffering with me as He was present when I did the terrible things I did before I was saved.
He is also with us as we do things unwise today in longsuffering that we may be conformed to His image in all things. I know you know that.
I just want to say that so these other brothers will know Jesus is longsuffering with them as they (if they do) unwisely use alcohol as a beverage in a society such as ours rather than to “Watch ye therefore, and pray always that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of God.”
The use of beverage alcohol by a Christian who wants to lead men, women, boys and girls as a shepherd awaiting the coming of the Lord is simply and plainly unwise. There is no other position we can take on the issue if we are serious about our calling as men of God in the time and culture we live and minister.
cb
cb
So, Kevin, if we want to be joyful at our fellowship meals, we should drink moonshine? Is that what you’re saying? Let’s get out the Mogan David, and the Three Sisters, and the Ripple so that we can have a joyous celebration before the Lord?????
Wow!
What ever happened to the joy of the Lord? To the joy of the Holy Spirit?
And, Greg, when you said,”And don’t forget Kevin that Jesus said to His disciples that he would not partake again of the fruit of the vine until he does so with them in heaven. Unless the disciples were a bunch of children who really loved “Grape Juice” then I hardly think that statement had much meaning for them.” Exactly what does that mean? Are you saying that real men drink booze? Are you saying that we’re all gonna get high on fermented wine in Heaven? Wow! I always thought the joy in Heaven would be Spirit inspired, and being totally freed from sin and it’s consequences…I didnt know that we’d be firing up the stills and getting high on alcohol?????
I’m sorry, but you fellas are really taking this places that it just doesnt go.
David
Kevin and Greg,
It would really be unwise to get “me” started on how low-life, lazy, theo-dwarf brothers treat their wives, their children, their neighbors, their assigned flocks, their nation, the unborn, the poor, the afflicted, the rich, the drunken, the whore, the Sodomite, the thief, common ordinary everyday lost person, sermon preparation, etc………and their bulldogs for that matter.
But, if you insist I will be more than glad to join in.
cb
CB,
I agree with you. Drinking fermented wine is unwise. Getting high on unfermented wine…drinking until you’re drunk…is sinful.
And, yes, I know that the Lord saw all that I did, and that there’s no place someone can go that God is not there. I just meant that the drinking that was going on, and the things that went on at those parties, would not have been parties that the Lord Jesus would have continued to hang around with us. I dont think that He would have…unless He was driving us out with a whip and preaching repentance.
Also, Kevin, saying that cultured wine drinkers know that you drink the good stuff first…because it dulls the taste buds, so to speak. Let me ask you, so how many glasses of wine do you reckon it takes before you’re buzzing on the stuff? How many glasses of wine do you have to drink until the bad stuff is brought out, so that it doesnt taste so bad?
I really think that some of you fermented wine fellas are just trying to cover up your unwise, maybe even sinful, actions. It makes you feel better to say that the Lord doesnt condemn drinking a couple of Bud Lites.
David
Kevin,
Your comment #129 reveals the following in relation to my comment #127:
You missed it.
Actually you missed the whole firing range, not even to mention the Ten Ring.
cb
David,
Before your personal admonitions get too much out of hand, I’m sorry but I missed where you dealt at all with the fuller implications of what I’ve already pointed out regarding Deut. 14:26.
I know it is tempting to start to get personal, but I would really appreciate us staying focused and continuing to discuss what the Bible actually says.
By the way, here’s another verse you didn’t address:
What does it mean “which makes man’s heart glad, So that he may make his face glisten with oil?”
When is the last time that happened when you drank a glass of grape juice?
Kevin,
If all you had to drink was water and goat’s milk, dont you think that some grape juice would make your heart glad? Why does this have to be a fella getting a buzz on alcohol?
I mean, I’m drinking a cherry coke from Sonic…it’s half price drinks from 2 to 4 in my town….and this cherry coke is making my heart glad. I like it.
David
Also, Kevin, can you please answer my question in comment #133?
David
‘cb’,
I grant that I’m fully capable of misunderstanding what you are saying.
However, I am interested in discussing what the Bible has to say about these things, how it pastorally applies to our lives, and what we can do better.
I am not interested in continued personal harangues. If that is what the discussion has to devolve into, I will be more than happy to exit it.
I do appreciate your concern and care for your brothers however misguided I think it may be (and the same goes here for both Davids above).
But, as I said, I would really prefer to keep the discussion on the Scriptures and what they say. Please allow us the privilege to continue in that regard.
Vol,
I know what you meant. And I know you know Jesus was giving you much grace as he was me and still does.
My point was and is that Jesus gives these brothers grace in their unwise conduct. it is not a matter of degrees of being unwise. Unwise is unwise.
Kevin,
You should take heed to what Vol is saying here.
Cultured, “tipsy” blood flows onto a highway just as easily as does “drunk out of your mind Alabama redneck” blood from a wreck due to being under the influence of alcohol being used as a beverage.
Kevin, is the use of wisdom far and above the taking of the high road of pastoral commitment?
Would you not rather be wise than unwise as you lead the flock to which God has assigned you?
If so, it should be more than obvious to you that the use of alcohol as a beverage is unwise for a man of God if he takes his calling seriously in the time and culture of which we are called of God to be His watchmen, prophets and pastors.
cb
David,
I am not interested in what my heart might be glad about were I only to have water or goat’s milk to drink.
I am interested in hearing positive and clear exegesis of the text of Scripture from yourself or other temperance advocates in regards to what the passage actually says when the Psalmist puts forward that wine “makes man’s heart glad, So that he may make his face glisten with oil”.
Kevin,
Remember I am not the one who brought the treatment of “wives” into this thread. I just said I would be more than glad to discuss that and more if anyone so desire.
How are my arguments against the unwise use of alcohol as a beverage not related to Scripture and our calling as shepherds to God’s flocks?
Did you consider what I have said in that regard thus far?
cb
Kevin,
I’m still waiting on the answer to comment #133. And, I believe that my exegesis on this subject is more sound than yours.
I have tried to answer everything that you’ve asked of me. Now, please answer my questions.
David
‘cb’,
I believe we need to talk about the meaning of wisdom in reference to your comments.
I certainly believe that there are occasions where abstaining from alcohol makes sense and is wise. No problem there. I do not however believe it to be a universal absolute as you seem to maintain.
The absolutist idea that it is always unwise to drink alcohol is untenable from the Scriptures (for example, see Paul’s admonition to Timothy in drinking wine for his stomach)…but even if we for a moment imbibe (!) in the idea that such is the case then this is not so much a matter of wisdom but one of obedience. Obedience is obviously wise, but it is not wisdom in the sense of choosing between two or more possible alternatives.
Given the realities of the biblical text and what it says about wine, then, we must come to see whether or not a given situation shows us what the wiser alternative is between two or more good moral choices before us. It comes down to what is best among good moral choices and not what is the only choice before us. Obedience ought always to be a given prior to coming to a place where we choose not only what is right but also what is best.
I can think of both good and bad reasons why a pastor might want to abstain from alcohol or why he might need to partake. Some of this may be due to community and cultural standards (say, pastoring in dry counties in Texas vs. a mission church in Germany) but there may also be other good reasons to partake some of which I have outlined above regarding our celebration of Christ’s resurrection and the transformation of everything in it.
In any case, I don’t think it’s wise to immediately assume that the path of wisdom for a pastor is to never ever partake. That in and of itself devolves into legalism very quickly–unless you can show us from the Bible that drinking is absolutely and always wrong. That has yet to be done on this comment thread and my guess is that’s not really your position in the first place.
David V writes:
I’m guessing that this is different for every person because of a variety of factors including things like weight and constitution, etc., and again I leave that sort of judgment as to when enough is enough to each person. It seems we would like to have the freedom to disagree with one another about the Scriptures based on the priesthood of the believer but when it comes to matters like this somehow we want a more absolute standard by which to judge the conduct of others. I’m not sure that’s totally wise and in my view it likely becomes legalism very quickly.
In regards to Psalm 104:15, do you see any physical change mentioned as a result of drinking wine…what is meant by wine making “man’s heart glad, So that he may *make his face glisten with oil*”? Is there some other way to take this other than in the literal sense and if so what exactly does that mean?
If we are to play it safe hermeneutically and interpret the passage with its literal sense intact, how does grape juice make your face glisten with oil?
Isn’t it possible, then, that there is a level of physical effect in drinking wine and other alcoholic beverages that does not equate to being smashed? Is there no physical or other enjoyment being pressed here in the passage beyond the taste?
If this is not the case, then we must have an explanation regarding how grape juice has the same effect as what is outlined in the verse here in Psalm 104:15 (let alone a passage like the one we have in Proverbs 31 about the poor forgetting their troubles–how much alcohol does the poor have to drink before their memory is affected?).
It troubled me that above you mention moonshine and other cheap and bad liquor as if the only purpose in drinking is to be intoxicated. Why not mention the stuff that takes good and that has been perfected over the last two thousand years essentially by the application of a Christian worldview to the making and processing of alcoholic spirits, wine, and beer? Again, it comes down to celebrating the basis for which I’ve already explained in several comments above.
In #144 above:
“Why not mention the stuff that takes good” in the last paragraph should be “Why not mention the stuff that tastes good” …more writing in a hurry. Sorry!
Kevin,
Notice. I put my statement in a certain context.
“Kevin, is the use of wisdom far and above the taking of the high road of pastoral commitment?
Would you not rather be wise than unwise as you lead the flock to which God has assigned you?
If so, it should be more than obvious to you that the use of alcohol as a beverage is unwise for a man of God if he takes his calling seriously in the time and culture of which we are called of God to be His watchmen, prophets and pastors”
Kevin,
You work and minister within the context of which I speak.
You are not in Germany. Most all who take your position have used that country at least once when engaged with me in this dialogue.
What if you were in the Philippines? is usually my response.
Therefore, I will use it here.
Kevin, I asked you a specific and contextual question relating to the time and culture to which you are called as a shepherd of one of God’s flocks.
Is it wise for you to use alcohol as a beverage in the time and culture of which you serve God as a shepherd of one of His flocks?
Is that the high road of commitment? Should we not always seek, as called men of God, to be above reproach?
Should we not do all we can to not offend our weaker brother? Or not to offend, in our culture, a person who is not a brother, but who has heard all of his life it is wrong to use alcohol as a beverage?
BTW, again notice I have consistently used the phrase “use alcohol as a beverage” in this dialogue. Paul’s admonition to Timothy has nothing to do with using alcohol as a beverage. It was, in context, a medical admonition for his “stomachs sake”.
cb
Kevin,
What do you have against moonshine? So, you think that your wine and German beer tastes better than Tennessee Mountain Dew??? Huh? So, your fermented wine and beer is morally better than Tennessee corn squeezin’s? Is that what you’re saying? Listen here, shine will make the heart glad…for a while; but there’s always a payday someday.
Kevin,
The passage in Psalms is talking about different things that make the heart of a man in that day happy….unfermented wine and oil and good food and such will do that. Why does everything have to be intoxicating to you? Why does it take liquor to make you happy? Listen, Brother, the Holy Spirit gives me more joy than any jug of shine ever did. I’d rather be filled with the Holy Spirit, than to be filled with spirits!!!!!
David
‘cb’,
No. I think it is a mistake to see American culture as one big monolithic entity that demands only one type of wise behavior especially as it relates to this issue of wine and other alcholic beverages. America may have been something like that in certain places fifty or sixty years ago but it is not today. I mentioned Germany only because it is an obvious and easy example for most to understand not because it is a desperate reach for some foreign culture. How about seventeenth century Baptists? We must remember that historically speaking the temperance movement is very new to the scene of Christian history.
But the question I have asked earlier, you have failed to answer. Is this merely a case of being wise in the sense that there is nothing particularly wrong with drinking but it’s just not prudent given our cultural mores in this society as you see it, or is avoiding alcohol something that we call wise because it most certainly is wrong? If it is the latter, brother, you have yet to rebut the biblical case that I’ve left above in this comment thread. If it is the former, I can certainly see instances where that may very well be the case but I disagree as to your universal application of it in our society. Universal applications of wisdom tend to turn into legalism and I appreciate that even less than someone’s mistaken idea that it is wrong to partake of alcoholic beverages.
Additionally, I question your invocation of the ‘weaker brother’ argument since Romans 14 is first not about pastoring in a church at all but more about relationships between brothers in general in the Christian community. Beyond that, the passage is clear to state that both weaker and stronger so-called are to avoid offending one another and not merely the weaker rules over the stronger because he has a certain predilection for his point of view that the stronger does not of necessity care about. In other words, we do not live our lives in bondage to one another over these things but as brothers we live together both for the Lord and allow Him to be the judge of our faith and conduct.
Last, the pastor must be working to equip and train the saints to make them more mature and not less. The fact that some society and cultures among certain sectors of Christianity in America still have problems with a biblical and responsible use of alcohol is a sign that pastors are not completely doing their jobs in training the faithful in how to read and apply the biblical text. It is one thing to begin with a congregation about these things in a manner which doesn’t offend, but over the years pastors should be training their flocks to better understand and interpret the Word of God so that these things are not the issues they seem to be in some circles today.
David (volfan), you write:
No. What I’m saying is that we can and should appreciate what Christian society and culture has done to producing and refining alcohol over the last two millenia just like we appreciate how Christianity took Roman law and eventually transformed it and many other things into what we see as our society, jurisprudence, and law in America today. It is merely one more evidence to those who know anything about these things that the Christian worldview is what makes the world go round and better, what makes it glorious and wonderful.
You opine:
Everything doesn’t have to be intoxicating. And, it doesn’t take liquor to make me happy. Verse 15 is obviously part of the whole Psalm and I’m thankful for everything God gives us not just wine.
But why is it when I ask you to interpret and apply a specific verse of the Bible you ask these questions instead of providing us with a reasonable response to what I have already asked? How about answering the question I already asked…Is there a physical change implied in the words “makes his face glisten with oil” (Psalm 104:15) or not? If so, what does that mean? If not, what is the text saying?
Usually, when people stop answering questions like this and start getting personal it means that they don’t have an answer. I trust you just feel strongly about these things and aren’t ignoring what I’m asking on purpose. But, for the record, let’s hear what you have to say about the *actual passage itself* and what it says to you given what I’ve already asked about.
I’m hoping to hear your answer to my question about this (and anyone else’s for that matter).
With respect to all …
The original purpose of the post dealt with the discussion of Calvinism viv-a-vis non-Calvinism within the SBC (John 3:16) and the debate between Dr. Yarnell and Dr. Ascol. While the discussion of over alcohol is interesting, this has divolved from the main topic of the post. Try to thread this together in some way, or let’s save this discussion for another thread.
Rob
Heh. It’s a little late after fifty to sixty comments to notice that we’re a bit off track from the actual subject supposedly under discussion.
But, hey, your wish is my command.
I would like an answer from ‘cb’ and ‘David’ to my latest questions, though. That would be especially helpful and relevant to what I’m going to claim to tie all this in.
I believe this discussion is illustrative of a point I made earlier in comment #90 when commenting on the original subject of this post–and this has been completely ignored by Dr. Yarnell and others. The Calvinist view and use of Scripture in this debate is more consistent, more often, and more likely to dispel notions of cultural conditioning via the Scriptures that are relevant to the history and practice of Southern Baptists. The recent sixty comments or so on alcohol is one example of that, frankly. The defense of closed communion by Dr. Yarnell is another.
On the one hand, we have seen Dr. Yarnell refer to the Baptist Faith and Message like Joseph Smith valued the so-called Golden Plates–almost as if the BFM is the Word of God itself. The next thing you know he’s going to be reading the BFM through his hat letter by letter for us so we can all understand just what it means to be Southern Baptist. He considers the Baptist Faith and Message as central to the identity of Southern Baptists and considers Tom Ascol out of line with it even on very minor points such as closed communion something that on the one hand today even most SBC churches just don’t practice with any level of consistency or seriousness and on the other is not explicitly put forward in the actual BFM statements that we have before us.
The Calvinists on the other hand are ready and able to use the Scriptures to put forward their point of view and the ‘anti-Calvinists’ or ‘Arminians’ like Dr. Yarnell have consistently refused to meet the Calvinists on the most important grounds of all–the Scriptures–the actual Word of God–which doesn’t require a prophet, a secondary ‘confessional’ document, or a seminary professor to cull its meaning out accurately. Instead we are told by Dr. Yarnell and others on that side of the aisle that we must be faithful to the Baptist Faith and Message as if Baptists are the same as old school Presbyterians in their strict subscriptionism.
Never mind that local Southern Baptist churches and their members are and always have been independent and authoritative on their own quite without the help of the Convention itself, her associated organizations, the professors and others employed by them, or even the Baptist Faith and Message.
If Dr. Yarnell is going to advocate closed communion, where is the scriptural support for such a thing? Can we not have the honesty to admit that such a doctrine is actually based on nineteenth century exclusionary ecclesiological luxuries that we no longer enjoy in a society that is teetering on the brink of secular despair thanks to the inability of denominations to rise up as the Church in our society and counter the forces of darkness in this world?
To be frank, I have had my doubts about the Founders Movement in general in the past because I still feel there is a learning curve for them on what it means to be Reformed and how the history of Reformed theology and practice ought to inform our current understanding of these things, but Tom Ascol has performed admirably in this debate in calling for the tolerance of theological diversity and bridge building instead of being so exclusionary like Dr. Yarnell, David Allen, Jerry Vines, and the mess that was the John 3:16 conference. This debate, in other words, has earned my respect for Tom Ascol and his efforts in handling these things as amiably as possible.
Seminary professors and heads of departments should know their place and David Allen and Dr. Yarnell have both spoken out of turn. David Allen himself should apologize to James White for obviously being wrong in calling him a hyper-Calvinist. Dr. Yarnell should apologize to Tom Ascol for trying to make him appear out of line with what it means to be a Southern Baptist by trying to display his supposed infidelity with the Baptist Faith and Message.
But, most of all this debate and the subjects that we are discussing should be and always ought to be a matter of what the Scriptures say. I challenge David Allen, Dr. Yarnell, and those who would advocate a position apart from historic Calvinism to make their view known and plain from the Scriptures and to stop pretending that their view–because it may be the majority view of Southern Baptists around the world–is the correct one and the one that everyone ought to adhere to simply because it is their view. We stand ready to hear Dr. Yarnell and David Allen on the Scriptures but don’t think those of us who are well-practiced in these issues will just sit back and swallow every line that comes to us simply because you can bend and stretch the Baptist Faith and Message to align with your view just like David Allen can bend and stretch what the word “hyper-Calvinist” means.
To the Scriptures, gentlemen.
Or, might I suggest, if folks are still interested in carrying on this conversation, taking it over to the SBC Impact Forum? That, as I understand it, is one of the reasons it exists. It would be great to get this going more consistently.
Kevin,
I have consistently given you answers to your questions…from the Bible….to try to explain the passage. You just do not want to accept what is being said. David B. also gave you very good info on the historical context of wine in Bible times. You shrugged that off faster than a bee stung cat can run under a shed.
Also, it’s very insulting…once again….to hear a five point Calvinist suggests that non-Calvinists and Arminians do not exegete the Bible, nor do they rely on the Scripture. I would suggest that it’s five point Calvinists who rely on thier system rather than the Scriptures.
And, on this matter, for some wild reason, five point Calvinists seem to be the one leading the charge for drinking is ok…but just dont get drunk. Why is a mystery to me…unless they like to look so sophistacated and intellectual to the world that they compromise on this point…in order to look sophisticated and intellectual. You know, the old “smoking a cigar or pipe while sipping on some brandy and discussing heady things” type of thing…kind of like a Christian Dr. Frazier Crain.
Anyway, Kevin, if you want to get into a very scholarly, intellectual view of fermented and unfermented wine….I, too, would suggest that you go to Peter Lumpkins blog and read his series on this very subject. It’s very scholarly and very exegetical with lots of historical context.
So, Kevin, pour yourself a glass of Three Sisters….light up a Cuban cigar….put on your reading jacket and slippers…sit in a crushed leather arm chair with you lap top…and enjoy Peter’s blog.
With that….I’m through SBC Impact Regulators……I will go to other topics now.
David
David,
Thank you, brother, for continuing to prove my point. Your exegesis of Scripture is indeed astounding.
Kevin,
Wow…that’s all I can say….wow!
God bless you,
David
This whole thread is proof positive that the SBC is becoming more and more irrelevant to the unchurched. Inside the walls, we debate who gets the meal; while outside, they’re headed for hell.
I want out.
Johnny,
If that’s the way you feel…then bye. We only hope the best for you. If someone is not interested in sound doctrine, then they dont need to be in the SBC. That’s what these threads are all about. People discussing sound doctrine. What does the Bible teach about certain things, and what it doesnt. What should we stand on, and what should we not. What is important to live for the Lord, and what’s best left to the conscience.
Besides, Johnny, if you dont preach and teach sound doctrine, then the people you preach to are heading for hell anyway. You’ve got to give them sound doctrine….the clear teaching of the Word of God…the true Gospel….or, you’re not giving them anything to be saved with.
But, if you wanna leave, adios, amigo, vaya con Dios.
David
Johnny,
I admit, I’m not the king of tact and there may be times when I say too much–but I want to encourage you to hang in there not out of loyalty to Southern Baptists but because God has providentially placed you where you already are and He’s done so for specific reasons known only to Him. I know from experience that the grass is never greener on the other side.
However, what we do know is that God loves us, gifts us, and puts His Spirit in us. That makes your contribution both to the Church at large and your local body immensely valuable. The Church needs sensitive and careful thinkers like you to balance out those of us who may be too quick to react and all too ready to grant everyone our own opinion in a particular matter.
I would encourage you not to listen to the insensitive and all too coarse ramblings of those who would mention everlasting damnation–while touting the importance of “sound doctrine” as if they have all the answers–and your name in the same sentence only because you’ve pleaded for some amount of common sense in not making these things too important. Sound doctrine is important, don’t get me wrong, but it is not ultimate.
Love is ultimate. Love for God and love for our neighbor–and sometimes these debates don’t display that love. Thanks for reminding me of that.
Johnny,
Dr Malcolm Yarnell is the one who started this mess this time around. Pastor Alan Cross has a great Post on his Blog that always reflects the Love of Jesus Christ Follow this link and you will see Dr Yarnell trying to do Damage Control for his Comments on various Blogs..
http://www.downshoredrift.com/downshoredrift/2008/12/calvinism-the-sbc-and-a-bunch-of-fighting-wheres-jesus.html
Wayne Smith
Kevin,
These Baptist Identity People are always trying to put God in a Box by Assuming More or Less than what Gods Word Says.We are People of the Book.
Wayne Smith
Kevin and Wes,
Again, all I can say is,”Wow!” God bless you both.
David
PS. BTW, Kevin, maybe you noticed that it was Johnny who brought up hell to begin with. Did you notice that? Or, did you conveniently leave that out?
PSS. Wes and Kevin, do you two see the importance of sound teaching? Do you think that we can know absolutes from the Word of God? Do either of you think that we can read the Bible and see the same truth that everyone else ought to see as well? Is truth important to either one of you?
David,
I am glad we are such a source of amazement for you.
I hope it results in rereading what I have already written very carefully. Here is what I wrote already on sound doctrine (comment #158)–I don’t mind repeating it even though it’s off topic–this comment thread needs the reminder anyway:
David/Volfan007,
Don’t Put God in a Box!!!
Colossians 2:6-23
Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence. (Colossians 2:23, niv)
Legalism is attractive, but destructive. To the Colossians, the discipline demanded by the false teachers seemed good, and legalism still attracts many people today. Following a long list of religious rules requires strong self-discipline and can make a person appear moral, but religious rules cannot change a person’s heart. Only the Holy Spirit can do that.
For the Baptist Identity People, this is a recommended read.
I Pray that this will cause you’all to search your Hearts and Not Put God in a Box.
Wayne Smith
So, Biblical truth is unloving and legalistic????
Oooookaaaay.
So, when I preach that people should not commit adultery…what? Is that legalistic? Is that unloving?
When I preach that it’s sinful to be drunk on alcohol…what? legalistic? unloving?
I need Kevin and Wes to help an unloving legalist here….but, dont be unloving and legalistic when you offer your “suggestions” to me, or when you offer your “advice.” Ok?
David
David/Volfan007,
Don’t Put God in a Box!!!
Colossians 2:6-23
READ and DIGEST
Wayne
Wes,
You’re being legalistic.
David
In a recent meeting with some of our associational leadership who made the point that reformed churchs or reformed or even borderline reformed staffers will be excluded from associational events. One leader believes that “John Calvin was a heretic.” I would not consider myself Reformed, but I certainly lean that way. Is this a fellowship issue? I’ve got people saying that the only Calvinism is hyper-Calvinism. Advice?