Planting Churches Together
Posted by David Rogers in Baptist Life, Bible & Theology
In discussions that have taken place over the past several years regarding “Baptist Identity,” Christian unity, and cooperation in ministry, one of the main “taboos” often expressed from those defending the “BI” side of things is planting churches together with fellow believers who are not “Baptists,” or (from the viewpoint of some) who do not agree on every single point of the Baptist Faith & Message. It has been stated by some that “it is okay to do ‘good works’ ministry together with others, it is okay to pray together with others, and it is okay to evangelize together with others (though some have even voiced their discrepancy on this point), but whatever you do, don’t plant churches together with those who aren’t good dyed-in-the-wool bona fide Baptists.”
Having engaged in various aspects of church planting ministry for over 20 years with various organizations and in various contexts in other countries, I feel I have a bit of experience and insight to speak to this question. That is not to say that my opinion is infallible. I can certainly stand to learn a lot more about practically any topic, including that of planting churches together overseas. However, I think my personal experience helps me to understand some things that many without similar experience may often overlook.
I will come out up front and say I agree there are certain church planting contexts and situations in which it is neither advisable nor productive to try to work together with those of different beliefs, philosophies, and practices. This is many times a matter of plain common sense. Sometimes, there are personality clashes and questions of style and preference that get in the way of fruitful church planting cooperation. Some people have strong convictions on this point or that point that tend to get in the way of working too closely with those who don’t have the same convictions. (I have written about this previously here and here.) However, I think that if we make a flat out, incontestable prohibition of planting churches together with believers from other backgrounds and beliefs, we will be making a big strategic error that can end up getting in the way of what God is doing in many places around the world.
From my perspective, a big part of the problem leading to conflicting opinions on this question is different presuppositions regarding what church planting ministry, especially in the context of the IMB, actually involves. I believe that many people who have never had in-depth first-hand experience on the international mission field tend to conflate the positions of missionary church planter and local church pastor. From what I have observed, most “church planters” in the States are also the de facto founding pastors of the churches they are planting. In many, if not most, church planting contexts in which the IMB is presently involved, however, missionaries are discouraged from taking on pastoral responsibilities in local congregations, whether they be new church plants or not. The emphasis is on catalytic or apostolic as opposed to pastoral church planting. (See here and here for some interesting, though not entirely consistent definitions of these terms). In such contexts, planting churches together with someone else may mean many different things.
Also, I believe an artificial division is often made between “church planting ministry” and other aspects of missionary ministry. From my experience, “church planting ministry” is a composite of prayer, “good works” ministry, evangelism, discipleship, and leadership training. Thus, to say it is okay to pray, do “good works,” evangelize, disciple, or train leaders together with so-and-so, but not plant a church together with them, is a red herring. It is a false dichotomy. Admittedly, there is prayer, “good works” ministry, evangelism, discipleship, and leadership training that doesn’t directly tie in to church planting. But, there is no authentic biblical church planting that is not composed, at the core, of prayer, “good works” ministry, evangelism, discipleship, and leadership training. And in practice, on the “mission field,” it has been my experience that almost all prayer, “good works” ministry, evangelism, discipleship, and leadership training is done more effectively in cooperation with other believers.
I, for example, have been involved in numerous joint prayer meetings in which believers from different churches and backgrounds were praying for new churches to be planted, and waging spiritual warfare in unity before the Lord, against the spiritual forces that were keeping that from happening. I have sponsored prayer-walking teams in which we visited pastors and church planters from various backgrounds and prayed together with them for spiritual breakthrough in the specific area in which they were working. I have sent out prayer letters and prayer information to prayer partners around the world who joined together with us in the task of prayer for spiritual breakthrough specifically in the area of church planting. Personally, I believe that, in an important sense, all of these were involved in planting churches together with me.
I have also participated in evangelistic campaigns in which believers from different places, churches, and backgrounds worked together to proclaim the gospel for a week, two weeks, or several months. I have invited others to come in and participate with me in similar ventures. From my perspective of church planting, I would say we were all planting churches together in each of these different instances.
The same can be said for “good works” ministry, discipleship, and various aspects of leadership training.
I can give you many examples where planting churches together, even on a longer-term basis, was the only thing that made sense. In one town of 8,000 people in southern Spain, there was one evangelical family (who happened to be Baptists) and one evangelical single lady (who happened to be Pentecostal). They had previously been saved at churches of their own denominations in other places in Spain, and came to live in this town due to work considerations. They were thrilled to meet each other, and began to meet together to pray, study the Bible, and worship God in their homes. I, as the local Baptist missionary in the region, met together with them once or twice a month in order to encourage them, and teach them the Word of God. We felt God was leading us to plant a church together in this town. In a sense, I would say that, from the first day they began to meet together to pray, study the Bible, and worship God, they already were the church in that town, and were already planting the church together. Perhaps it would be more correct to say we were watering together what had already been planted.
In any case, the idea I get from some is that, as an IMB missionary, I should have told this Baptist couple that, if they wanted me to visit, encourage, and help them to evangelize and plant God’s church in the town in which they were living, they would first of all have to stop meeting together with this Pentecostal sister, and/or tell her, if she wanted to be involved in planting a church there, she would either have to change her denominational status and beliefs, or plant a separate Pentecostal church. Imagine that! 8,000 people, 3 believers, and 2 different evangelical churches! Does that make any sense? I can tell you that, in this staunchly Roman Catholic town, with many prejudices against anything not Roman Catholic, it would have been the worst thing possible for the testimony of the gospel!
Now, it would not be honest of me, if I were to tell you this situation never caused any difficulties or problems. There were doctrinal differences to be discussed. There were questions of who was “in charge” and who made decisions about “church budget,” and so forth. But these matters were talked through, and God’s work went forward. And today a small congregation exists in that town that is able to be a spiritual lighthouse to the lost majority.
Many may be tempted to think that this situation is unique, or a rare exception to the rule. I don’t know about some places around the world. But I can tell you that in the areas of Spain in which I have worked, it is not unusual at all. I could tell various stories, some in which I have been personally involved, and others I know about from talking to others, in which very similar circumstances have existed.
Another project in which I have had the privilege to participate was working together with several others on the founding of an interdenominational church planting training program, based on the Omega Course materials. This project (which, unfortunately, has still not been brought to fruition) was to involve bringing people together weekly, biweekly, or monthly, from various churches who were involved in various individual church plants, to go over a basic church planting curriculum, share experiences, encourage, and mentor one another, in the task of church planting. In this program, individual church planting teams were to cooperate together with those from their own church or denomination on a local level, and work out doctrinal matters not treated in the generally evangelical Omega Course materials, amongst themselves, under the supervision of a local pastor or church planting coach.
Other efforts in which I have been involved, such as the DAWN (Discipling a Whole Nation) Movement, regional Evangelical Councils, etc. promote setting joint goals for planting churches, and strategizing together to see to it that church planting efforts are taking place in every locality and among every people group segment.
It has been a big blessing in my life to plant churches together in various aspects and through various approaches with brothers and sisters in Christ from different denominational (or non-denominational) backgrounds. I believe God blesses when his people work together in unity. Sometimes, it is more practical to work on certain projects separately, though side by side, blessing one another. But sometimes, it makes more sense to work together.
In some places, the only alternative to planting churches together with those who differ with us on this or that is working all by ourselves. In some places, local Baptists are less compatible doctrinally with us than some of those from other evangelical groups. In some places, there are no other “Baptists” with which to cooperate.
As Baptists, we can decide that it is more important to keep our ecclesiology pure, and not mix at all with believers who dot their ‘i’s or cross their ‘t’s differently from us on this or that. We can decide to do things on our own, even if there are sincere, Bible-believing, born-again brothers and sisters in Christ down the street in otherwise unevangelized places who would love to work together with us.
But I don’t believe that is the wisest, most strategic, nor most Christ-glorifying way to work. It doesn’t necessarily mean we have to back down on our own beliefs or convictions. In all my experiences planting churches together with believers from other backgrounds, I have never been asked to change my beliefs. Yes, things can get messy at times. But, isn’t that what life and ministry are about, anyway? I believe it is good to talk openly and think strategically and practically about these questions. It is good to study what the Bible teaches about ecclesiology and doctrine, and know why we believe what we believe and why we do things the way we choose do them. There are many different situations, though, and what works in one situation may not necessarily work the best in another. I also believe that, in the vast majority of the cases, IMB missionaries are doctrinally sound enough, and spiritually discerning enough, to sort things like this out for themselves whenever they come up on the “mission field.”



David,
SB missionaries should be starting Baptist Churches…not some fuzzy, evangelical, whatever Churches. We should start Churches that are distinctively Baptist(Biblical). Why would we want to start anything else? Why would we want to start a tongue speaking, Arminian, Pentecostal Church? Why would we want to start a baby baptising Church that doesnt believe in missions? Why would we want to start a Church that emphasized on faith healings and positive thinking and psychological help? Why would we want to start any other Church besides a Church that believes in the Bible, soul winning, missions, salvation by grace thru faith, eternal security, baptism by immersion, the Lord’s Supper being a remembrance to be shared by baptised Believers, Church autonomy, etc.?
Now, with the example you gave about the couple in Spain and the Pentecostal woman, it still should have been understood that a Baptist Church was being started. And, if the Pentecostal woman wanted to worship with them…fine. If she wanted to visit and attend this new Church start…wonderful. But, it was still going to be a Baptist Church, and not some warm, fuzzy, evangelical, whatever Church that allows speaking in tongues; for the members to not believe in the Trinity; to believe that Christians can be lost again; and whatever else unsound doctrine and error that Pentecostals believe.
David, I just cant go along with you on what it seems that you’re saying here. I just dont see anyway that a Church can be started along with people who believe so differently than we do concerning very important doctrines in the Bible.
David
Bro. David,
The first thing that I want to say is that the Lord changed my life through a few hours with your father. Adjectives are too small, and all glaring understatements in description of my opinion of your father. So much so, that I named my last child after him. I wept the morning that he went to glory. He taught me much, and I still listen to him every day.
That being said, I am one that believes the “Landmarks” as generally described by Graves in his book “Old Landmarkism”. Not because of Graves, but because I do believe that the Biblical case is made in their favor. I am not in the Convention. However I am thankful that there is some landmark conviction beginning to rise. I understand your “fear” because many “Landmarkers” have an isolationist spirit, and view spreading Landmarkism as equivalent to spreading the gospel. I do know some that believe Landmarkism IS the gospel. I am not of that mindset. However, I believe that the issue of the right authority of baptism is required in order for any one to recognize the validity of one’s immersion.
It is my understanding that the right “authority” for baptism is as much a distinguishing mark for authentic baptism as is the right method.
I would never call into question a “non baptists” salvation, (as long as it is by grace alone, faith alone, Christ alone), but I think we cannot call “baptism” what the Bible does not call baptism, and in order for any one to be correct in their obedience to the Lord, we must insist that they be baptized the Bible way.
To paraphrase something from your dad, (which I do all the time) We cannot use God’s words and our own dictionary. In order for us to recognize baptism as valid it must rise to the level of Biblical baptism.
I have no doubt that you agree that everything must rise to the level of Biblical in order for it to be valid and recognizable. I am sure that differences rest in the question, “what is Biblical?” For that matter, I am convinced that the Founding Fathers of the Landmarks rightly divided the Word on this one.
All of that being said, I am thankful for you and your family. My wife and I have prayed for you all since your father’s illness. We hope and wish you all of God’s best and look forward to the glory ahead.
2 Cor 4:5
jh
David R.,
Great thoughts, hopefully our prejudices and presuppositions don’t get in the way of following Christ through the denominational wilderness that we seem to be lost in.
God Speed.
Lew
Brother David,
A very sobering post,
As David (Volfan) has brought up, it is important to know what is being taught , which I think you do outline very well in your article as essential when praying, discipling and knowing the people involved with planting churches together. There are “Baptist” churches (many I might add) that are clearly Arminian in their teaching, where Baptist’s that simply cooperative because of the “logo” would be deceived in believing poor theology. So, “Baptist Trademark” is never a good indicator of cooperation. In fact, you have Pastor’s of Baptist “logo” congregations that find it difficult to get along with each other in the community (odd, but true).
Our call and mission as a church body in Nashville is to minister back into the city…. Not move out with the growth of the city as for now. There are about 85% of the community unchurched as you move back into the downtown areas. We are planting two churches right now,…these church plants clearly immerse those that fellowship and choose to minister within these bodies, and these churches are clearly more baptistic than many “Baptist Trademarked” churches I have personally experienced in the past 35 years.
So,…I like the article, because it goes deeper than the surface façade of participation and tends to extend more the core biblical doctrines and how unity is achieved through prayer, discipleship and love….not lists, policies and programs.
Good stuff,
Blessings,
Chris
Just wondering, did you happen to count that church that you planted with the Baptist lady and the Pentecostal lady in your annual statistical report to Richmond?
Funny how many “churches” get counted as “churches”, then reported on the floor of the SBC as “churches”. All the while Southern Baptists gave funds to plant said “churches” & that are actually a variety of different things, many of which are not New Testament Baptist Churches!
Gadfly,
I’ve never heard of a New Testament Baptist Church… are there New Testament Pentecostal Churches or New Testament Catholic Churches? If so, are those okay to work with?
Lew
David
This post gets down to where our differences originate. Most everything you advocate stems from your own “experiences.” IOWs this is what has worked for you and since it worked, it must be okay with God. While you have not said this directly, your emphasis on your experiences promotes a relativistic and pragmatic approach to doing missions that is void of any biblical backing. This is the major issue I have with your post, the absence of any scriptural support that states for the sake of unity, the commands of Christ may be ignored. It is “experience” that trumps scripture in this post.
Again, I will work with others in various ways to promote Christ and the gospel, but when it comes to planting churches, there are some serious scriptural differences between Southern Baptists and others.
Lew,
What is it about the concept of a Baptist Church that causes you to wonder if it is New Testament? Additionally, what is it about a Pentecostal or Roman Catholic Church that would make you think that they are New Testament?
VolFan and Robin,
If I understand what you are saying, you are pretty much saying what I suggest some might say in paragraph 10 of my post. In other words, better not to plant churches at all than to plant something that is not truly “Baptist.” I would be interested to hear if you have another alternative to propose for the particular case study I mention here. Whenever I have had the opportunity to speak into a situation, or teach the Bible, I have always taught according to what I understand to be so-called “Baptist distinctives.” However, that for me doesn’t necessarily mean that every one cooperating with me has to accept all the same distinctives as a sine qua non for working together.
VolFan, as I understand it, United Pentecostals don’t believe in the Trinity, but most other branches of Pentecostals do. The particular lady I mention in the post was Trinitarian in her beliefs. I agree that disagreement on something so central to our faith as the Trinity would be a very important barrier to cooperation. Also, as long as I had the prerogative to teach, I would never teach it was possible to lose your salvation, or that tongues were a sign of the new birth, or the sign of Spirit baptism. And, whenever those issues came up in the natural course of things, I would teach the perseverance of the saints, and God’s sovereign distribution of spiritual gifts, different gifts to different members of the Body. But I was not in a position to single-handedly determine what each member of this group must believe on these issues in order to continue as full-fledged members of this group. I perhaps could have demanded that type of authority. But I felt it was more appropriate to teach what I could, explain Scripture the best I understood it, and then leave it to the believers themselves to take or leave what I had to offer. Perhaps this is a bit of a different approach to church planting. But I think it has a lot to do with the difference between catalytic, apostolic, and pastoral models, as I mentioned in my post. Another way to say it is I was perhaps occupying the role of church planting facilitator, rather than planting the church myself.
Robin, yes, it is true I don’t get much into the biblical basis of what I am arguing for on this post. I believe, however, that I have done that on previous posts on ecclesiology, both here at sbc IMPACT! and on Love Each Stone. I am open to going back and discussing some of those specific issues from Scripture. And I believe it is important to do so. But I believe it is a bit unfair to critique what I am saying here as lacking biblical basis. This post is more about real life application of some of the biblical principals I have written about elsewhere.
JH,
Thanks for the testimony on how your life was touched by my father’s ministry. That is always a blessing to me.
I can see how much of what I am saying here is incompatible with traditional Landmark interpretation. As you correctly ascertain, we apparently disagree on our interpretation of Scripture on these matters. That doesn’t mean that I am not doing my best to base my beliefs and practice on Scripture, though. I believe the same is true for you.
Maybe we can have an opportunity to discuss some of these issues directly from Scripture sometime. In the meantime, I would recommend fellow IMPACT contributor Dave Miller’s series of posts on baptism and authority of the baptizer over at his blog, starting with this post:
http://thistentsjustright.blogspot.com/2008/05/what-is-biblical-baptism.html
I believe it would be hard to say, after reading through Dave’s entire series that he doesn’t do a thorough biblical exegesis of these questions.
Gadfly,
I don’t believe that everything every Baptist church does is Scriptural (or New Testament), nor do I believe that everything every Pentecostal or Roman Catholic church does is un-Scriptural.
So, please clarify, which Baptists and which Baptist practices? Which Pentecostals and which Pentecostal practices? Which Roman Catholics and which Roman Catholic practices?
And please feel free to answer my original questions, are there New Testament Pentecostal Churches or New Testament Catholic Churches? If so, are those okay to work with?
God Speed,
Lew
Lew and Chris,
Thanks for the encouragement.
Gadfly,
As I intimate in my post, I would not say that “I planted this church.” I did do a bit of watering along the way, though. If I remember correctly, I think I have at one time reported this as a “preaching point” or “Bible study group” in which I was involved, not as an actual “church planted,” though. In my opinion, it is a bit hard at times to define exactly when you cross the line from one thing to another. Some would say upon officially “constituting” as a church. Biblically, I have a hard time seeing where this artificial line is spelled out. That makes the whole statistical report process a difficult thing to get ahold of sometimes for me. I always struggle with it.
VolFan,
I just re-read your comment, and maybe the following explanation will help explain my position a little better.
I don’t see “church planting” as beginning with a pre-determined organization or structure, and then looking for people to plug into that organization or structure. Rather I see the church being planted as the people themselves. When they come to Christ, they become the church in that locality. I may have a part in planting the church, if I participate in leading them to Christ, or if I teach them, or disciple them on this or that. But they themselves are the church, and it is up to them to set up the structure or organization that best helps them to operate as the Body of Christ in their locality. I can advise them, and teach them about some details of this. But it is up to them to decide among themselves on matters of organization and structure.
In this sense, I don’t see there as being such a thing as an Arminian, tongue-speaking, or Pentecostal church, or even a Baptist church, for that matter. I know we use that language, and talk that way, and for sake of communication, I often accomodate to that language. However, I prefer to say, in more precise language, that there is the church, which may be made up of people holding to a certain view on these particular doctrines, which, in turn, will influence certain practices and customs related to the way they do things together. In other words, the church is people, not a structure or an organization.
I think Robin is right that your post exposes the fundamental disagreement that has been at the heart of a lot of blogging.
My question is why some are so willing to sacrifice what is clearly the heart-cry of our savior in John 17 – the unity of the body of Christ?
Should not those commands be honored as well? I am convinced that we can be both distinctively and convictionally Baptist without disrupting the blessed unity of the body of Christ.
David R.,
When you said,” In other words, better not to plant churches at all than to plant something that is not truly “Baptist.” What? I’m all for planting Churches…sound Churches that love the Lord. And, if you’re using SB CP dollars, then they ought to be SB Churches…thus, sound, good, Churches that love the Lord.
And, David, even though you dont like using the labels of Arminian, or Pentecostal, or tongue speaking; they are still true, and they still happen. A Church will come down on some “side” in their doctrine. I want my SB missionaries to be starting Baptist Churches that are sound in doctrine.
David
Bro. David
Thanks for your graciousness in your reply, and I would welcome Biblical dialogue. I do believe you to be a man of the scriptures.
In one of your responses you said, “In other words, better not to plant churches at all than to plant something that is not truly “Baptist.”
I don’t have to say this for you to know it, but one of the cruxes of disagreement that would rise between yourself and the Landmarkers would be this thought,”if it’s not baptistic, then it doesn’t rise to the biblical level of a New Testament church, hence nothing would be truly ‘planted.’
Yes, that sounds extremely arrogant.
To express my own opinion, I would say it in this way, that “any ‘church’ that does not fit the new testament standard in form and function, faith and order is not a church.” I believe that, that is the case regardless of whether it is called Baptist, Methodist, Democrat or Republican.
I may be a little off here, and I recognize that, but I’m not convinced that Paul’s purpose in missions was to start “churches.” I believe that Paul’s primary purpose was to evangelize the lost, and then out of those he won, he ordered, organized, and ordained them, into what we believe to be the Biblical standard for a church.
I am always glad to hear of the gospel being proclaimed around the world, even in places where Baptists fear to tread. I am thankful for every witness that the Lord has in every place, and I am grateful for your work and efforts to bring the gospel to a lost people in a foreign land. I would encourage you and pray for your every blessing in that effort, as I would hope that every Christian would.
Ecclesiastically, we might have some good dialogue.
(Not to make this about your dad but . . .I have most of his books, and I may be missing something in them, but I can’t find anything he wrote pertaining to anything that has been discussed here. Did he publish anything about Mission Work, Ecclesiology etc? He didn’t mention any of it in What Every Christian Ought to Know. I would like to read anything that he wrote if you could point me in the right direction.)
Recently I did an brief interview with Byron Tyler, he said he knew you fairly well. He seemed like a great guy.
I will gladly visit the link that you posted. God bless.
2 Cor 4:5
JH
I think the problem is ambiguity as to who are the members of the “church plant”
(1) In one case the members were previously non-Christians so they didn’t come with “baggage” from any particular tradition such as Roman Catholic, Baptist, Pentecostal, etc.
(2) In another case the members are already Christians, or at least they think they are Christians. Thus, for better or worse, they are not blank-slates in terms of how they understand various church practices.
Whenever a new church springs up in a community the people that are in it are not necessarily either: (a) from a blank background, or (b) a Baptist background. So I don’t think the group is necessarily going to adopt Baptist polity. I guess IMB missionaries generally are instructed to not be involved in starting a church or working in an existing church unless it has a Baptist polity.
Baptists don’t mind sending chaplins into military situations because that does not involving setting up a “church”. However, they don’t practice starting “non-Baptist” churches.
I’m a member of a church now that many years ago was a “mission” of a large Baptist Church here in OKC. It was not a result of a new church plant by the Catholics or the Methodists.
In NT times there was only one church in a given town or locality. They had to reach some sort of consensus. The consensus was facilitated by leadership. Paul didn’t tell the Judiazers to start their own church. He instead tried to turn around their wrong ways and then integrate them into the fellowship.
Today we have so many granularities of polity that Paul’s head would spin. Here in Oklahoma there is a church on every corner. Many of them are evangelical but they may hold to various nuanced views.
I admit I don’t have the question to this dilemma: given that in the NT there is only a single church congregation per geographic area, to what extent should Christians band together in a common congregation in the 21st Century and abandon their pet doctrinal and/or confessional distinctives and/or method of church government? I would say that our current model of having tons of denominations is the most tenable in that a person is free to chose the one that is “correct”. He doesn’t have to put up with one state church which has serious defects.
I think the history of Baptists is replete with the idea that Baptists have broken off from the mother church rather than staying with it and trying to reform it. They may have tried for a while to turn around the established “church” but sooner or later they left and started their own congregations. I think being a Baptist and being a “separatist” are concepts that are joined at the hip. I don’t see ecumenical movements making much progress in SBC life.
Personally, I’m not in the Baptist Identity camp since unlike Dr. Yarnell I don’t think all doctrines are of equal importance. However, that doesn’t mean that I don’t agree with them or expect my chruch to practice them. If I didn’t agree with SBC practice then I guess I’d go to some non-SBC church. After all, all I’d have to do is “walk across the street” (almost literally here in OKLA) to find a church of my choosing.
Here in the USA we see people leaving a given congregation over “worship styles”. If this is the case, how can we possibly expect to stay joined together if some “doctinal point” (even tertiary) is at issue?
Bottom line, I say we as Baptists should “put up our product”, showing why it is the “right one” and support it.
David (VolFan),
I’m sure you don’t mean to literally say we should plant SB churches, as the SB only technically exists in the US. I would even say we shouldn’t plant “SB churches” in the US. We plant churches, teach them the Word, and perhaps lead them to affiliate with the SBC. Maybe this is nit-picking over words, but I prefer to say it that way. Our denominational affiliation is something different than our essence as a church.
In any case, I agree that missionaries sent with SB CP dollars should be accountable to the expectations of those giving those dollars. They should be teaching sound doctrine, which should be in accordance with the expectations of those sending them out.
I would say that, within a particular congregation, there are different people. The majority position on one doctrinal issue or another may be one way or another. The doctrinal position of the pastor(s) may also be one way or another. We can, as missionaries, seek to influence toward one direction or another. But, at the bottom line, the church is made up of the people who are in it, regardless of the degree they end up agreeing with all the doctrinal positions we teach. Some of these people may be more “Arminian” and some may be more “Calvinist” in their personal beliefs. Does that mean some are welcome as members and others are persona non grata? I don’t think so. But, if the majority are at the point of naming a heretic to be one of their pastors, I will do everything I can to try to influence them not to do so. But the choice is theirs.
Because of all of this, as SB missionaries, I would say we are to faithfully evangelize, disciple and teach, according to the doctrinal expectations placed upon us. But planting “Baptist” churches, or “Arminian” churches, etc. is beyond our control. The church that is planted will be made up of all those people God brings to be a part of it. Each one of these people will have their own views on doctrinal distinctives. The policies and practices of the church will normally be reflective of those of the majority and indigenous leadership.
JH,
Thanks for the additional dialogue on these points. I think I agree with you that Paul’s purpose in missions, per se, was not to “start churches.” However, I am not so sure that I have the same authority as Paul to order, organize, and ordain people into the biblical standard for a church. I do believe I should teach them what the Bible says about all of these things. But, as I told VolFan above, ultimately, the choice will be theirs. I am not sure to what degree Paul himself had this view. If seems to me he taught, and sometimes pleaded, but left the ultimate decision with the local believers, though he does talk at times about coming in and making use of his authority.
I don’t know that my father wrote anything in any of his books specifically about ecclesiology or missions strategy. In the texts of his sermons, undoubtedly some of these issues may surface from time to time, though. If I come across something like this, I will try to remember to let you know.
And yes, I know Byron. He is a close friend of mine I have known since my high school days, and a wonderful brother in the Lord.
I would love to hear your response to Dave Miller’s entire series. If you post a comment there, let me know, so I will know to go back and read it, though.
Roger,
You make some very interesting (and for the most part, good) observations here.
I would say, however, that whether people come to a congregation with a “blank slate” or denominational background “x,” they are still thinking human beings with a free will (but not in an Arminian sense of the word
). I can teach them. But, in the end, they will still decide to accept what I teach or not.
Also, a different church for every nuance seems more logical in the US than many place overseas. For instance, in the town I mention in my illustration, I can’t imagine 30 different evangelical churches, each with its own denominational slant. I dont’ think that’s what the biblical ideal is either.
I do not know that this post gets at the heart of our disagreements, but I think that it certainly bespeaks of our differences in a profound way. The nature of this site and the core convictions that underlie it are clearly discernable, and this is a good thing and should be true of every such convocation.
I believe each and every local Southern Baptist congregation should be entirely free to plant churches however and with whomever it wishes. The question before us is whether all local Southern Baptist congregations should be obligated to participate in church planting beyond the bounds of our mutually held beliefs. My only questions in response to this post are these:
1. Why (other than reasons of personality or tradition) should a Southern Baptist church that wishes to plant churches with a broad range of evangelicals bother with such a thing as a Southern Baptist Convention? Why not simply fund any or all of the multitude of evangelical missionary organizations that are out there?
2. If we would PLANT churches with people, what possible reason could there be that we could not JOIN churches with people? In other words, is this not necessarily your advocacy of open membership? Previously you have asserted that pragmatic reasons of reaching agreement over the necessary decisions of running a church are all that prevent you from being an open membership Baptist. Yet it seems to me that any challenge inherent to maintaining a church would necessarily inhere as well to the founding of a church. If we are open communion and open church planting, isn’t it some form of schizophrenia worthy of medication to be closed membership?
David, your trajectory is so clear to me. I greatly respect you, and it is out of that respect that I feel certain that you will be consistent to your beliefs and go all the way where you are headed (unless I or someone can convince you otherwise!).
Bro. David
When I have an opportune time I will post concerning Dave Miller’s link.
Just a point of clarification on my part.
When I stated that Paul, “ordered, organized, and ordained them” I was speaking strictly from a “homiletical” point of view.
I did not intend for it to sound as though Paul “ordered” them in the sense of a military directive.
I meant that in the sense that he taught them how to have an “ordered” assembly, taught them about how to have a “organized” structure, (doctrine and policy included) and instructed them about the ordaining of the pastors and deacons.
If I sounded a little “high church, court appointed directiveish” that was not my intent.
It was merely to say that after he won a group of people to the Lord, he gave them instructions concerning the “local assembly.”
Sometimes I get my tangue tongled, and things come out wrong.
2 Cor 4:5
JH
Please Help!
Perhaps I’m missing something here? How does one go about planting a “baptist” church? Does the missionary/planter make the church “baptist?” If so, we have a huge problem. I’m under the impression (as I read in the Scriptures) that Christ is the Establisher of churches.
Perhaps my logic is incorrect.
1) An unbeliever recognizes God’s authority and the need for salvation in Jesus Christ. Simply put: to be a part of God’s KINGdom, one must submit to the KING (Jesus Christ).
2) The Follower of Christ now belongs to the Body of Christ (the Church).
3) The outflow of being a Follower of Christ is the desire for obedience. I would place baptism here. Surely one would not say that baptism is prerequisite to “church.” I would agree that a Follower of Christ will be obedient in baptism. (And yes, I’m referring to “believer’s baptism by immersion” as we baptists so eloquently describe.) At this point, assimilation into a local expression of the Church is necessary. A Baptist Church? Is this truly our greatest concern? My hope is the believer desires the spiritual (growth) over the physical. (What “brand” of church must I attend?)
4) The Follower of Christ begins to read the Word, glean from the Word, apply the Word, share the Word, all while trusting the leading and guiding of the Holy Spirit. I seem to discern from Scripture that the Holy Spirit’s teaching trumps that of any missionary, baptist or otherwise. I will agree, however, to the importance of the teaching of correct or “sound” doctrine by the missionary/planter/pastor. (No, I’m not intending to use these terms interchangeably.)
5) The Follower of Christ, through God’s leading, replicates the process. I believe we place too much emphasis on the position of missionary/planter/pastor and not enough on the responsibility of every believer to serve, share, train, and go; whether local (USA) of global (international).
6) God’s Kingdom expands as churches are planted.
Since when did God’s Kingdom become baptist?
Thanks in advance,
Clay
Clay,
You rightly note that any church, once planted, is autonomous and will direct its own fortunes. Many examples abound. The first Baptist church planted in Little Rock, Arkansas, became within a few years a Church of Christ church. One of the earliest Baptist churches planted in Cuba by Southern Baptists soon parted doctrinal company with sound doctrine and became something else.
The question is not whether churches planted by Southern Baptists will ever depart sound doctrine and cease to be Baptist (and yes, I am unapologetically equating those two concepts). They will, and that is beyond our control. The question is whether, when such a thing happens, we regard it as a success or as a failure.
I thought that David worded the original post pretty well. He didn’t speak so much of the planting of Baptist churches as he did of the intentional effort of SBC funded missionaries to join with people who disagree with our distinctive beliefs in the planting of churches that, by design, will not necessarily agree with our distinctive beliefs.
So it is not really a matter of whether missionaries can ever force planted churches to be what we believe they ought to be, but whether we as Southern Baptists actually have something distinctive that we believe these churches ought to be in the first place.
And if we do not, then why are we here?
David R,
Thanks for sharing your Heart for Jesus Christ and this article.
Alan Cross and Michael Spencer (iMonk) have excellent Posts on their Blogs that the BI Pastor’s should read and adhere to, Instead of attacking the Messengers for Jesus Christ.
Wayne
Bart,
As I see it, through the CP and IMB, we obligate some churches and people to participate in church planting differently than they would do it if they were to do it by themselves, any way we do it. Are you suggesting the more narrow-minded among us dictate, by default, the type of church planting that will be done when we cooperate together?
Yes, it is true that there exists the option of working through the various interdenominational mission agencies out there. Are you suggesting, though, that churches should necessarily do one or the other, but not both? I’m sure you are aware that many, many churches in the SBC presently opt to do both. My guess is this is because many churches are open to “planting churches together” on an interdenominational level, but also, at the same time, like the cooperative project that the SBC through the IMB offers. That certainly describes my own position.
Regarding open membership, up to now, if I remember correctly, we have always discussed this issue specifically related to the practice of believers baptism. I agree that planting churches together with paedobaptists presents some particular problems. It is not entirely impossible, but quite awkward to practice believers baptism as a conviction and paedobaptism at the same time in the same congregation. However, to exclude someone from membership because of a different view on spiritual gifts or Arminian-Calvinist issues is a different matter. Are you suggesting we should exclude potential members due to issues like these? That may work in the States where we can recommend they just go to the church down the street that has a doctrinal stance similar to theirs. But what if your church is the only evangelical church in town? Should we exclude someone from fellowship because they have a PPL, for instance?
JH,
I look forward to your comments on Dave’s posts.
And thanks for the clarification on ordering, organizing and ordaining. It appears we are not far apart on this, though, if you are truly landmarkist, we do have some signficant differences in our ecclesiology.
Clay,
Good word. I think your comment gets at the gist of what I am trying to say pretty well.
Bart,
You say to Clay, regarding me:
“He didn’t speak so much of the planting of Baptist churches as he did of the intentional effort of SBC funded missionaries to join with people who disagree with our distinctive beliefs in the planting of churches that, by design, will not necessarily agree with our distinctive beliefs.”
I could agree that you represent my position accurately, only if we stress the word NECESSARILY. I have beliefs, convictions, and preferences I would ideally like to see adopted by all groups of believers with whom I cooperate in ministry. But I am willing to cede on this or that, if it means the work of the kingdom can progress further as a result.
Wayne,
Thanks for the encouragement and the heads up on Alan’s and Michael’s posts. I will try to check them out.
Bart,
One more comment regarding your comment to Clay…
I don’t think our efforts are always either pure success or pure failure. In fact, there is usually a mixture of both in everything we do. If a church I helped plant ended up becoming Unitarian, I would have to consider it mostly a failure, though. However, if it ended up a gospel-preaching Pentecostal church, although I might have preferred Baptist, I still would not consider it to be more failure than success.
Oh, and by the way, for anyone who may be wondering, the church in the town in Spain I mentioned in my post ended up affiliating with the Baptist Union, and today considers itself to be a “Baptist church.” As far as I am aware, though, the Pentecostal lady is still there, is an active member of the church, and has not changed her views on Pentecostal doctrine.
David R,
The article Alan Cross points to on Michael Spencer Imonk’s blog is at
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/imonk-101-jesus-joel-and-the-hard-parts-of-the-gospel
Wayne
Administrator,
Help with my comment, Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Wayne
Brother Bart,
You do make some good points my friend, but being Baptist is a result of men’s organizing and planning, while being a Christian and member of Christ’s church is a result of God’s doing alone and then tended by shepherds, many of which may be Baptist. There is a huge difference. I have personally never thought it bad to be a Baptist, …at least I hope not since I’ve been in that persuasion for quite some time. Yet being Baptist is out of convenience for anyone, not out of conviction. A believer’s confidence is in Christ alone, not in some organized group of convenient storefronts and slogans. A conviction is deep only if it is in Christ alone.
So, building unity with other brothers and sisters in Christ that are just as baptistic as any of us, but choose not to participate in the SBC…. happens to be a good and Godly thing. I believe that is the root of what David has brought to light in this post.
For instance, since our church does not have a place to baptize because we do not have a building, we held a baptism tonight in the building of another congregation. They were gracious to join with us in baptizing our dear brother Luis, even though we stood waiting in the baptistry for about an hour and interrupted their business meeting for the baptism, ….then they finished the business meeting as we exited the baptistry. Interesting!…and we still love them.
We are working a church plant with another assembly downtown Nashville this month that is not part of the SBC. They are wonderful brothers and sisters in Christ and are more baptistic than the church where we held the baptism tonight, even though the former church is a multi-campus Baptist church participating in the SBC. I am very pleased that the multi-campus ministry was willing to cooperate with us and we hope to do more with them in the near future.
It is time that we begin to learn how to cooperate beyond policies. But I do think you are right in what you have put forth. There will be many churches that are too immature to know how to build unity. And this is generally because of poor and prideful leadership. And many of those are SBC churches that play the status quo game. I pray God will teach the leadership and servants in those churches to trust Him and not cower to peer pressure and policy that restricts unity of the Spirit.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother David R,
I do not work for an SBC entity but do cooperate with “other” evangelicals and absolutely agree with what you have written in this article. Great job!
Further, I have not read all of the comments, but have skimmed them. In doing so, I think a few things are being overlooked.
First, cross-cultural “missionaries” (particularly from the IMB) plant churches. We are not pastors, but planters. You made mention of this in the article, but I still believe this is a difficult paradigm shift for many who hold a view of missionaries that is not necessarily valid today.
Second, “missionaries” (particularly from the IMB) plant autonomous churches. And, in spite of a planter’s best efforts in teaching “baptist” doctrine, an autonomous church may exercise its autonomy and follow a different path (charismatic, paedobaptistic, etc).
Third, it is a good thing that our new brothers and sisters are exposed to more than one understanding of a particular doctrine. This allows them to struggle with God and depend upon the Spirit to guide them into all truth. If one is certain of the truth, I do not understand why he would not be willing to see that truth be victorious over error.
Fourth, no church is perfect. Thus, in a way, all are failures. Certainly Paul planted a few failures! But, in another way, they are all a success… when unbelievers believe and have fellowship around Jesus, that is success! I do believe that Charismatic churches, Presbyterian churches, etc are legitimate churches, though we might disagree with some of their beliefs. So, even if a church is planted that leans more towards Presbyterian doctrine, it is a success.
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
Chris & FTME,
Amen.
Wayne,
I was able to see your comment, but not approve it for some reason. I think I can post the text here though. Here goes…
David R, The article Alan Cross points to on Michael Spencer Imonk’s blog is at http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/imonk-101-jesus-joel-and-the-hard-parts-of-the-gospel Wayne
Chris Johnson,
Here we have the heart of our disagreement, and an area in which I do not foresee movement on my part.
You wrote: “Yet being Baptist is out of convenience for anyone, not out of conviction. A believer’s confidence is in Christ alone, not in some organized group of convenient storefronts and slogans. A conviction is deep only if it is in Christ alone.”
Being a Baptist for me is a matter of conviction, not convenience. I believe that the core matters of Baptist theology are nothing more nor less than the commandments of God as revealed in the Bible. To be something other than Baptist would be to sin. To sprinkle the unconverted would be sin. To abdicate the regenerate church would be sin. To abandon biblical church discipline would be sin. To deny the gathered congregation its right to find agreement as described in Matthew 18:19-20 would be sin. These are matters of deep conviction in Christ alone, and they are also what it is to be a Baptist.
David Rogers (#26):
I have already affirmed my belief that individual local churches can and do participate in both methods. Which necessarily means that no church’s liberty is infringed by the SBC sticking with efforts by Southern Baptists to plant Baptist churches. If, on the other hand, the SBC become yet another belief-less conglomeration of “evangelicals” (as word which neither of us will easily define), then those who wish to partner in an effort by Southern Baptists to plant Baptist churches have nowhere to go to do that.
In other words, if the International Mission Board is not the place to go to partner in an effort by Southern Baptists to plant Baptist churches, then where is that place?
David Rogers (28 & 30) & FTME:
The word “necessarily” was not inserted on a lark. You can rightly infer that I placed it there to mean precisely what it means.
As to the “failure” question, I’ve never suggested that failure or success in the planting of churches is often absolute. Success is never absolute and failure only sometimes is. The question, as I have tried to suggest before, is not as to how often we fail or succeed, but as to whether we’re actually trying to do the same thing. It is the occasion where the planting of a Baptist church is not the goal (which it necessarily is not, at least for some involved, when we’re planting a church with people who are not Baptists), that is at the heart of this question. In such a case, we cannot shrug our shoulders and suggest that we tried to put these biblical principles before these folks, but they demurred and we didn’t succeed to the degree that we had hoped. No, we must concede that the resultant church did not become a Baptist church at least partially because that wasn’t what we were trying to do.
Brother Bart,
I do realize that you feel that way….and I am in no position to direct your movement. Only God can work and direct His work in and through each of us. I also realize that many Baptist’s have elevated their planning and organizing to an equivalent level of their conviction in Christ. That of course, is to pull Christ down, because there is nothing equal to the commandments of God as revealed in scripture, all of which Christ fulfilled, not us. Not even our own convictions, because our faith is informed by Christ alone, it is not by our own persuasions which are continually mixed with sin.
Romans 12:3 For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith.
So we can have sound judgment, because God alone has allotted the faith, so that He maintains the glory that is due Him alone.
To be something other than “in Christ” would be to sin. To be Baptist falls way short of that standard.
Romans 6:10-11 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. (11) Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
Philippians 1:21 For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain.
Sprinkling is sprinkling…and bad teaching. Sprinkling infants is not baptism….so we teach those that have experienced sprinkling that believer’s baptize by immersion and lead them to understand Christ’s commands through discipleship.
The church is regenerate…it can’t be any other way.
A church that loves rightly will restore his or her brother by Christ’s command daily.
I believe that Baptist’s do hold to these things…and some are more or less convicted to hold them. But that conviction is miles away from the reality that is wrote by Christ alone in the heart of the believer. We all have convictions, but being convinced of Christ is not a fair comparison on those convictions…. The convictions do not stand much of a chance in that arena.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
The falsity of your comparisons lies in the unnatural separation that you make between being in Christ and having Christ as Lord. They may not be precisely the same thing, but neither are they so unrelated as to make one thing spiritual and the other mundane…to make one a matter of conviction and the other a matter of convenience. Please count me as one uninterested in such antinominanism.
Bart,
http://loveeachstone.blogspot.com/2006/03/under-what-banner.html
Bart,
There is 18 inches between the head and the heart for Jesus Christ, We must be filled with the Holy Spirit and Heart Knowledge over Head Knowledge.
Wayne
For me the bigger issue in David’s post was not whether the church was to be Baptist or Pentecostal, or whether it was the goal of this church to make Baptists or Pentecostals, but to make a witness for Christ in an area that doesn’t know Christ, to make believers..not Baptists or Pentecostals.
In mission work, in particular, you work with what you have; and the people could care less about becoming Baptist or whatever, when the real issue is about them becoming a Christian. If they are being taught the Scriptures correctly they should become a Baptist by conviction.
It is obvious that many of the responders to this post have done neither mission work abroad, nor have been involved in church planting. The issue is having a heart for the lost…something that I only saw in David’s post.
A lot of the differences in opinion and conviction in this issues stem, I believe, from a fundamental misunderstanding of catalytic church planting in a cross-cultural, international setting.
We in North America have a skewed understanding of what church planters do on the international mission field. Here in the states, a church planter is the equivalent of a founding pastor. (That’s me … planted a church, and remain as its pastor.) Some plant, stay two or three years, then plant again. But their role is the same … leading a local congregation into becoming a fully functional, autonomous church.
But on the international field this just doesn’t happen. Our missionaries are CP strategists. They are not church planters.
Here’s the big shocker for all of you who bask in the great numbers at the SBC each year. We, as Southern Baptists, are not planting churches internationally.
That really needs to sink in … Southern Baptists need to get it … the numbers of new churches, baptisms, etc… are not the fruit of our missionaries’ work – they are the fruits of the work of indigenous Christians. And many, many, many of those believers are not Baptists.
We are not planting churches. We are simply training local, indigenous believers to reproduce themselves and plant churches. We do not “own” any churches on the international field. We merely come along side indigenous believers and assist them. On the occasion when we may enter a completely unreached area, we may have the opportunity to plant distinctly Baptist congregations. But those occurrences may be more rare than you would suspect.
As I have written about before, my church is in a four-year engagement of a (statistically) unreached people group in the Andes Mountains of Peru. But we have found five small congregations there that we are working with. None of them are Baptist. Two are CMA, one is Peruvian Evangelical, one is an Assembly of God, and one is a Church of God of Prophecy. We are not planting churches with these people. We are not planting churches at all. But we are training them and encouraging them to plant churches. Next month I will be training 25-30 Quechua leaders, from across denominational boundaries, in Christian Doctrine and a Survey of the Bible. It is all part of an indigenous church planting training school.
Yes, I am a Baptist. And yes, I would prefer to be a part of planting Baptist churches. But in true “Experiencing God” fashion, we found the “stream” where God was already flowing and we jumped into it.
I cannot look into the faces of these dear believers, precious saints … my friends … and condemn them because they do not agree with me in all of my Baptist convictions. We have the single, most important, unifying factor among us all … we trust in Jesus Christ alone for salvation. For now that is enough.
Simply said, I would rather see lost souls in the Kingdom even more than I desire to see them in a Baptist church. I daresay our Lord would, as well.
Brother Bart,
I pooped out last night…and had to get to bed…. So after looking at your last post to me…
I am convinced that we are both uninterested in having faith without works, since that was not the faith once for all delivered to the Saints. I think you continue to miss an important fact about unity. You and I do not choose to build unity together as if we are the architects of it. We are though, architects of our own planning and policy. Unity is already established by the Holy Spirit and we work toward that unity as we live in Christ. That is not antinomianism, … in fact it is working toward something that is established as Paul would rightly say…
Romans 7:24-8:4 “Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? (25) Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin. (8:1) Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. (2) For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. (3) For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, (4) so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”
Paul would offer you the same thing as you have thrown back at my feet,…Christ alone. To the Jews that didn’t look like enough as well. Christ may not be enough for some without being mingled with their own works. God did something quite unacquainted with their and our convictions. He sent His own Son to fulfill the requirement of the Law…. So we run to him, not to some policy. Some may believe that sanctification is pulling ourselves up by the bootstraps with Christ in our back pocket…but that is a false assumption made by a pride filled man. So to live, really is Christ.
As you have said well and I agree…. “count me as one uninterested in Antinomianism”.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Geoff,
AMEN to every word you wrote!
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
Morris Brooks,
I’ve done church planting abroad with the IMB and am currently doing church planting in Tennessee. I think you are unfair in saying that only one side of this issue has a heart for the lost. I know men on both sides, and I know that they all have a heart for the lost.
The church planter has an enormous responsibility for doctrinal integrity in the group that is being formed. I believe that as a church planter, I should plant the most biblical church possible. That is simply a matter of good stewardship. In my opinion, the most biblical church is a Baptist church. Therefore, I will only plant Baptist churches.
Morris Brooks & Mike (BT) Morris,
While I obviously agree with the overall direction of Morris Brooks’s comment, I think Mike has a valid point. Indeed, the great majority of those on both sides of this discussion are motivated, at the heart, by a love for the Lord and a love for the lost. I also agree with Mike that, in many ways, we are talking about a question of stewardship. In some contexts, it may well be better stewardship to work together on a more narrow basis with only those who agree with every minor point of our doctrinal stance. But, in many other contexts, it is my contention that it is better stewardship to be more flexible. Even in those contexts where it may be better stewardship to only work on planting churches with fellow Baptists, though, I do think we have an important responsibility to do what we can to promote unity and love among all the Body of Christ, especially in the particular locality in which we are working.
Geoff,
Thanks for chiming in on this. For the most part, what you say here is accurate. A big part of this has to do with semantics. There are some situations in which IMB missionaries still have more direct leadership responsibilities in individual church plants, but that is not the general strategic thrust at present. In many places around the world, we used to work pretty much exclusively within the bounds of the local Baptist Unions, wherever these existed. Since New Directions, we have taken more of an “Experiencing God” approach, looking to see where God is at work, and contributing our “grain of sand” to come alongside, support, and encourage (primarily) national believers in the path towards self-reproducing Church Planting Movements. Extensive studies demonstrated that keeping everything within the confines of denominational administrative structures tended to squelch the spontaneity and reproducibility present in almost all true CPMs. Personally, I think at times we have let the pendulum swing too far to the other side, and have left our old Baptist partners high and dry. I think the pendulum may be moving back toward the center, though. There are many good Baptist partners with whom we can strategically cooperate. However, the number of Baptists around the world that would sign off on every detail of the BF&M is not as big as many might think. A lot of times, for instance, other evangelical groups may be more in agreement with the BF&M stance on women in ministry than the national Baptist Unions. These are all factors that must be taken into consideration.
I believe it is best to allow IMB missionaries on location to become knowledgeable of these factors, and exercise discernment about how to best deal with them. I have been generally impressed, in my years of service, by the ability of the great majority of our missionaries to do this in a God-honoring, doctrinally sound, and strategic manner.
I think that many people in this comment thread are just not getting it. Amen to what Baptist Theologue said. And, Bart, as usual, you say what I wish I could say. But alas, I’m just an ole, rough, corncob from TN. My words are not as eloquent and intellectual as yours. I thank God for men like you, Bart, and others who are more sophisticated and intellectual than I am. Sincerely, I thank God for you.
I think that Bart and Mike Morris are hitting the nail on the head. Are we intentionally trying to start doctrinally sound, Jesus loving, missions minded, soul winning Churches(Baptist)? And, David R., when I said that we should be starting SB Churches, I was referring to our doctrine. I know that we dont have SB Churches in India, or in Guatemala. I was talking about them being intentionally started as doctrinally sound(Bapitst) churches. I would hope to God that the Guatemala Baptist Convention would be filled with indigenous Churches that are sound in thier theology. I would hope that the Guatemalan Baptist Convention would not be filled with paedo-baptist Churches, nor with tongue speaking, Arminian Churches. I would hope that everything was done to help those Churches be sound in thier theology.
Now, of course every Church is autonomous. Of course! And, they can do whatever they want to do. If they want to include dancing monkies in their worship service….well, that’s up to them. If they want to start Pentecostal, Benny Hinn, Joel Osteen type Churches…that’s up to them. But, please dont expect SB’s to spend precious CP dollars, given to win souls and start sound, Biblical Churches, to support monkey dancing, tongue speaking, Benny Hinn type Churches!!!! Dont expect us to start paedo-baptism Churches that believe soul winning is a sin against a Sovereign God!!!! Now, of course, if we try to start a sound, Biblical Church(Baptist), and that Church then goes off into errors…then we cant help that. We can pray for them. But, they have every right to go off into extremes and tangents and errors if they so choose. But, once again, we shouldnt be intentionally trying to start unsound, doctrinally errorneous Churches. Why should we? Why should we want to start something that is unsound, and will lead people into errors, and maybe even into hell???
Geoff, I hope that you can lead those Peruvian Churches that you mentioned into becoming sound, Biblical Churches. I really dont care if they call themselves Baptist, or not….as long as they hold to sound doctrine…which is Baptistic.
And, Morris Brooks, how insulting of you and Wayne to insinuate that the so-called “BI” people dont want to win souls, or they we do not have a heart for God, or that we Good grief, Charlie Brown! How insulting! And, the ignorance and audacity and arrogance of those statements are simply astounding. Unbelievable!
David
VolFan,
Maybe we may be talking past each other, but I think most of the people commenting are getting it.
In the examples you give – “dancing monkies in their worship service,” “Pentecostal, Benny Hinn, Joel Osteen type Churches,” “paedo-baptism Churches that believe soul winning is a sin against a Sovereign God,” – you are using extreme, hypothetical examples that don’t match up with what is really going in the vast majority of the situations in which our missionaries are working. You are making it all out to be black and white, bad guys v. good guys, doctrinally pure Baptists v. heretical everyone else. The reality is there is a lot more gray out there, and not all “Baptists” out there are on board with what God is doing around the world, or the most evangelistically minded, or missionary minded. Praise God, many of them are! But not all. Sometimes, many times, the folks that are most aligned with us in our heart to win souls, make disciples, and plant churches may not necessarily dot every “i” and cross every “t” like us. But they are not monkey dancers, or Benny Hinn types. If we can get the whole package – evangelistic fervor, mission-mindedness, etc., and dot ‘i’s and cross ‘t’s like us, even better. But if I have to choose, I sometimes am going to go with the ones with a heart for God, evangelistic fervor, mission-mindedness, etc.
I would say that we (including me) are intentionally trying to start doctrinally sound baptistic churches. It’s just I am willing to work with a broader spectrum of people in order to get to the ultimate goal. Some of them may become more baptistic along the journey. Some may not. In either case, though, the work of God’s kingdom is moving forward. We are being obedient, teaching the truth of God’s Word as best as we know how, and leaving the results in His hands.
Also, I think we need to be careful about reading too much into the comments of Morris and Wayne. I think we all know that all of us are concerned about souls and have a heart for God.
To all: Let’s try to discuss strategy, and different perspectives on our understanding of God’s Word, without at the same time calling into question the motives and spiritual integrity of our brothers and sisters in Christ.
David R.,
I used extreme examples to just drive the point home. I was not saying that you, nor anyone else, was for monkies dancing in the worship service.
But, the point still remains. Are we intentionally trying to start sound Churches(Baptist)? Or, are we out there just trying to start evangelical, whatever Churches? Which are we doing? What do we want our CP dollars to go towards? And, if you start a Church with a Pentecostal man being the leader of that Church….guess what that Church is gonna end up being like? If you start a Church, and the main, influential family in that Church believes in paedo-baptism, and that missions is unnecessary, if one believes in the sovereignty of God; then guess what that Church is gonna be? And, do we want our precious CP dollars going to Church starts like that?
I dont. And, I beleive that there’s a whole lot of other SB’s out there who dont.
Now, if you’re starting a Church in a certain town, or village; and a Pentecostal family wants to meet with you for worship and Bible study; then wonderful. Teach them sound doctrine. Help them find their way to sound, Biblical teaching. I would encourage that new Church to not let them be charter members, if they’re gonna be Pentecostal. I wouldnt want to support that Church financially if they made that man the Pastor of the Church, if he’s gonna still be Pentecostal. I would encourage the new Church to not go that way… to be Pentecostal.
I also would not want to support an Assembly of God Church Planter in Brazil. I wouldnt want the SBC to support a Methodist Church Planter start a Church in Mongolia. Why should we? Why would we not want to start Baptist Churches? Where we know that they’re gonna preach the sound doctrine of the Bible? Where the true Gospel is going to be preached? Why would we want to start Churches that teach things that we believe is error? and that will lead people astray? that may even cause people to miss Heaven?
You see, David, I just dont think that there’s no way this side of Heaven that you can start a Church with Pentecostals, and them not wanting the whole Church to be Pentecostal with them. I think that people, who beleive in paedo-baptism, will want the Church to accept this as a valid practice. Arminians in the Church will cringe and get upset when eternal security is preached. They will not want that taught. And, would you want a SS teacher, who was teaching the children that people can be lost again if they dont live right, to be a member of your new Church plant…who is “ok” to teach SS?
David
David
Brother Bart,
One other thing you reminded me of when you brought up the word antinomian.
I want to be very clear, as I explain a certain man in our community’s delima, that I am not implicating you my brother, because I have set under your teaching at the Baptist Distinctive’s conference, and I would do it again without any reservation. You have great zeal for God, and if anyone doubts your sincerity, then they are just wrong. So I am honored to be under your teaching.
With that said, there is a Pastor about 6 miles down the road from where I live that is in leadership in a Baptist church. He has been successful at scattering the flock of God about twice over the last nine years and working on a third. He is articulate, and uses the antinomian card at certain opportunities to protect his turf. I’ll give you an analogy of his problem.
He is like a man that is on the beach always about the task of building the best looking sand castle that he can build along side other castles in the community. It is a magnificent sand castle and has all the right intricate details, drawbridge, etc. It is fantastic and people will come to view it often and are enamored with how it looks and sounds. Yet, about every two or three years or so, God comes along and causes the sea to swell and wash the castle away. This man immediately turns to his flock and begins to blame other folks in the community for the disaster and begins to blame the church that has left for knocking down his sand castle. He uses phrases like, “if they were of us, they would not do these things…so they must not be of us”… or he plays the “antinomian card” if he really wants to get the attention of those that are still coming and looking at the ruins of the castle as they start to rebuild it again, but this time he puts guards on more corners of the castle to protect the message inside.
What this man does not understand is that the folks that are praising God and working toward the unity of the Spirit in the community are not trying to get into his castle at all, and had nothing to do with his previous washouts….in fact they soon become weary of his accusations and his reputation in the sand castle community is suspect. Yet at the same time this man pats himself on the back for his convictions and continues building his magnificent sand castle once again. It is a pitiful prideful mess, but the sand castle looks and smells distinctly Baptist. That is where pride leads a man. We pray for him and hope that he begins to understand why the sea swells,…and other castles remain intact to praise our Holy God.
Revelation 2:1-5 “To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: The One who holds the seven stars in His right hand, the One who walks among the seven golden lampstands, says this: (2) ‘I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false; (3) and you have perseverance and have endured for My name’s sake, and have not grown weary. (4) ‘But I have this against you, that you have left your first love. (5) ‘Therefore remember from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first; or else I am coming to you and will remove your lampstand out of its place–unless you repent.”
Christ gives all of us who work hard a sobering reminder….
Blessings,
Chris
VolFan,
We could go back and forth ad nauseum on this. It seems we are pretty much rehashing the same arguments over and over at this point.
In any case, it seems to me that your position is based on an overly defined, neatly packaged concept of realities on the mission field based on a denominational paradigm that has come into vogue as a consequence of specific cultural and historical antecedents, primarily in the last 200 years or so in the United States. I am arguing for, to the degree possible, putting that historical cultural paradigm out of our minds, and trying to work from a more biblical and transcultural paradigm.
In other words, instead of pigeon-holing everyone and every group into this denominational category or that one, we should deal with people more as individuals, who are all, together with us, progressing on the way of discipleship toward a more perfect understanding of and submission to the teachings and commands of Christ.
David,
Good #55.
Lew
paradigm – an example serving as a model; pattern.
David, you said,
I would argue that this is indeed the challenge. Most of us (and I include myself in “us”) see the American “church” paradigm as equivalent to the New Testament paradigm. Even our language – our descriptions and definitions of “church” – reflect this mindset. In his book, Organic Leadership, Neil Cole uses the term institutionalized. He references the movie Shawshank Redemption and says, “the organized church has become an institution and its leaders are much like Brooks [character in the movie who has become institutionalized]. He then says, “such leaders invest years into the furtherance of the institution…” He then identifies two problems with this mindset. “One, Christ did not come to establish an institution. His Kingdom and His Church are meant to be relational and spontaneous movements, not organizations [or institutions]. Two, we limit God to working within the institution. This is by far the worst consequence of institutionalization.”
Part of the paradigm shift must be a casting off this idea that the church as an institution under our control. I’m fine letting the Holy Spirit work out the details of “denominational affiliation.”
Also, I would argue that no one in this discussion thread would agree to VolFan’s strawman of
Even the dancing monkey can see through this argument!
However, what I find even more disturbing is VolFan’s assertion that baptist churches hold a monopoly of correct theology, doctrine, and practice. He says,
Whew! Good thing I’m baptist! Else I would have doubts about my salvation! As I said earlier in this thread, since when did God’s Kingdom become baptist?
Finally, in regards to Bart Barber’s earlier response. I’m certainly aware of Alexander Campbell’s negative impact on early baptists. However, I would also argue that the Landmark movement of Graves and Carroll were (and continue to be) just as detrimental to the cooperative work of Southern Baptists.
With that, I’m sure this thread has just about run its course!
Thanks,
Clay
Chris,
If Christ has commanded it, then it is not my “policy” of which I am the “architect.”
Clay,
Whether it was a failure of my writing or a failure of your reading I do not know, but you appear to have missed entirely the point of my comment toward you. The fact that I used Campbell’s movement to illustrate something did not mean that I was invoking it as some sort of important point in my argument. Indeed, I was AGREEING with something that you had stated when I used Campbell as an example.
Did you misunderstand my comment, or was that tangential example simply the only part of my comment that stirred your interest to comment further?
Brother Bart,
#58,..now I like that kind of logic…. it rings true!
Romans 2:11-13 For there is no partiality with God. (12) For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; (13) for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.
Our understanding of doing the Law is borne from the logic you suggest.
Blessings,
Chris
Bart,
I’ll take responsibility for the failure of communication. Critiquing the content of a particular comment/response while reading and thinking about another comment/response often leads to this type of mental breakdown. (My attempt to further cloud the issue! A smile and subtle laugh would be appropriate here.)
As often the case in this forum, misunderstandings abound! I will confess that I interpreted your comment as saying that “baptist” doctrine (and by your own admission “correct” doctrine) will keep a church from falling into heresy. If this is indeed the case, my question again would be, “do baptist have a monopoly on correct doctrine?”
I’m certainly confident in my “baptist” ecclesiology and conviction, and would affirm its veracity as compared to other mainline denominations in our country. However, I am not comfortable drawing the conclusion that “baptist” and “biblical” are synonymous, interchangeable terms.
Thanks for seeking to clarify. If I’m still missing the point, chalk it up to cabin fever! Too much snow out here in Wyoming!
Thanks,
Clay
The irony, at least to me, in all of this is that the IMBoT has a set of guidelines that define the levels of partnership to which our personnel may engage with other non-captial-B-Baptist “Great Commission” partners.
Thankfully, they’re neither as loose nor as rigid as some here would prefer.
Stuart,
If you are not aware, you may be interested to read the post I linked to with the words “stated by some” in the first paragraph of my post. It is my take on the IMB guidelines that I wrote back in 2006, and which I still stand by.
Clay,
You know what concerns me about what you said above? It’s not that you took the extreme examples I gave to make a point, and seemed to focus in on those, instead of on the point I was making. I felt a lot like Bart on that one.
But, what concerns me the most is that you are apparently a Baptist Pastor who would say that Baptist does not equal Biblical. Brother, why are you a Baptist then? I’m Baptist because I believe that the way that Baptist believe and practice is the closest thing to the Bible that’s around today. If I thought that there was some other group of Churches that held more closely to the Scripture, then I’d join them. I used to be a Methodist. I grew up Methodist. We left the Methodist Church due to it’s liberalism…it left the Bible. We became Southern Baptists due to their Bible believing preaching. I do think that what the Baptists believe is true to the Bible. I do see Baptist doctrine as simply being Bible doctrine. And, if you are the Pastor of a Baptist Church, then that’s concerning to me.
Also, I have preached in your state. I loved the time I was out there. I have preached in Rock Springs and Pinedale. Pinedale… wow, what a beautiful spot on God’s Earth.
David
VolFan,
I am not Clay, but I would like to respond to your comment to him.
Over the past several years, I have read on various occasions where various ones are sseming to get hung up on this “Baptist” = “Biblical” thing. In this case, I truly think we may be talking past each other.
Clay very clearly said: “I’m certainly confident in my ‘baptist’ ecclesiology and conviction, and would affirm its veracity as compared to other mainline denominations in our country.” Are you asking him to go beyond this and declare that, as Baptists, we have “arrived” at perfection, and set the gold standard for biblical interpretation and doctrine?
If so, it seems to me you would be going against the following phrase in the Preamble to the BF&M: “(2) That we do not regard them as complete statements of our faith, having any quality of finality or infallibility. As in the past so in the future, Baptists should hold themselves free to revise their statements of faith as may seem to them wise and expedient at any time.”
It also seems like you would be going against the principle of “semper reformanda.” As evangelicals in general, and especially as Baptists, as I understand it, we are on a search for truth. The Bible, and the Holy Spirit, are our infallible guides on this search. But there are always new nooks and crannies along the way in the pathway of our search where new treasures may potentially be discovered. And it is entirely possible that some of the first ones to discover them may not identify themselves by the label “Baptist.” That is what I understood Clay to say when he asked, “do baptists have a monopoly on correct doctrine?”
I think we all would agree that, if we found another group we felt to be more faithful to our understanding of Scripture, we would choose to align ourselves with it. The point is, there is no group this side of heaven that has it all figured out. We are all doing the best we can. Perhaps God has given us more light on this or that. But our ultimate standard is not the light He may have given us, as opposed to the light other groups may feel He has given them. Our ultimate standard is His Word. And we are all still disciples. We are all still learners. We should all say, together with Paul in Phil 3:12: “Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me.”
David,
I’d read that before. Thanks for pointing us back to it. Your questions therein are thoughtful. Perhaps there is some ambiguity. I would contend that the missionary knows if he or she is within the “spirit” of the guidelines. I’m fearful that too much ongoing discussion as to the “letter” of the guidelines could ultimatley lead to a set of “further claried” (read, “stricter”) guidelines and hinder much good Kingdom work.
I believe that the levels, as ammended in 2005, coupled with the adopted “definition of church” are sufficient to guide our personnel, and to prevent CP dollars from being used to plant “Benny Hinn” churches (whatever that means).
I believe our missionaries, yourself included, are people of character and conscience who know if they’re working within the spirit of the prescribed perameters.
David R.,
I believe that the Bible very clearly teaches that baptism is for Believers only by immersion only. I do not think that I will ever change my thinking on that. It is just too clear in the Bible.
I believe that salvation is by grace thru faith. And, that once we’re saved, we are always saved. I know that I will never be changing my mind on that one. It’s just too clearly spelled out in the Scriptures.
I believe that God’s heart is reach the world. I believe in missions. I do not think that I will ever change my mind on that one. It’s just too clearly spelled out in the Bible.
I believe in the Trinity….and this list could go on and on and on about major, clear, black and white doctrines in the Bible that I will never change my mind about…because the Bible teaches these doctrines so clearly. And, we Baptists, Southern Baptists, hold to these clearly taught doctrines because they are Bible doctrines.
David
Brother Vol,
It seems that the men here are agreeing with you.
When you said “I’m Baptist because I believe that the way that Baptist believe and practice is the closest thing to the Bible that’s around today”…. That is what most all say.
I think we all move in that direction…and it is the reason that we cooperate together. Moving toward truth (biblical) though is not the same as being absolute biblical. The fact is,…that will never occur in this life. So if someone believes that Baptist = Biblical, then that person is deceived. That’s not to say that Baptist’s are not convinced and committed to moving toward “biblical”,…because we do press in that direction,… cooperating within what has been established as the SBC since the mid 1800’s.
To serve as an example,…I like to discuss leadership models within the SBC,…because leadership these days is not taught, organized, or lived out in the obvious biblical model as set forth throughout scripture within the SBC, yet it does not get me upset to the extent of leaving…I in turn try to disciple with gentleness and patience in hopes that the biblical model can be recovered and will be followed in years to come. Just because it is not followed to the “T” doesn’t mean that I pick up my toys and find another camp.
That is the spirit that I think David and others would like to work toward. But, it seems that there are those in the SBC camp that have been deceived into believing that SBC = Biblical by redefining conviction, thus making it easy then to ultimately say if you don’t like what you see then leave,..or what is holding you here. To think like that is simply to demonstrate, insecurity, immaturity, and naivety.
I would hope that we all should do better than that….
Blessings,
Chris
VolFan,
Perhaps the easiest thing to do at this juncture is to simply say that I affirm my earlier statements. One, the Kingdom of God is not baptist. Two, baptists do not hold a monopoly on “sound” doctrine. You may read into them as much or little as you want.
However, I will address the following comment,
Why I’m baptist? Because I believe (in a nutshell)…
1) The inspiration, veracity, authority, and infallibility of the Scriptures.
2) Sovereignty of God; including His existence as Father, Son, & Holy Spirit.
3) Sinfulness of mankind. We are indeed sinners in need of a Savior.
4) Christ’s “once for all sacrifice” for the sin of mankind. He lived a perfect life, willingly gave that life for me thus covering my sin, and rose again on the third day.
5) Salvation in Christ alone, by grace alone, through faith alone.
6) Existence and expression of His Church as the representatives of His Kingdom. As the Church, “we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works.”
7) Christ will return. His Kingdom will come in fullness and completion.
.
Secondarily to these I believe and affirm believer’s baptism by immersion and maintain an “open” view of communion (“open” to those who have trusted Christ for salvation).
As for being a Southern Baptist, I would affirm my support for the Cooperative Program and our desire to see all peoples bow before the King of Kings.
My assumption is our disagreements stem from methodology and interpretation in which case I see debate as a healthy part of the process of learning, growing, and cooperating.
And yes, Wyoming is a beautiful state. We serve in the northeastern part of the state, or as I like to say the “greenie” zone. Thirty percent of all the coal mined in the United States comes from Campbell County. We’re a bunch of coal miners and gas explorers out here! The environmental “greenies” writhe and go into convulsions when they come through this part of the state! We call that entertainment!
Thanks,
Clay
Chris Johnson,
You said,
Have you read Neil Cole’s books Organic Church and Organic Leadership? I found them to be very challenging!
Thanks,
Clay
Brother Clay,
No, I have not read that one…I’ll have to get a copy. When did is come out and do you know who published it?
Thanks for letting me know.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Clay,
I have read some of Cole’s blog work and he seems to have read the scriptures and understands how leadership is called and serves the church. I’ll have to get this book to see what his latest theme is….
thx again,
Chris
Clay,
I thought your comment #69 was fantastic, one of the most succinct statements of the errors of the BI view.
Clay and Dave,
One…I know that the Kingdom of God is not Baptist. Have I, or any of the so-called “BI” said this? If so, when and where?
Two…Baptists may not hold a monopoly on sound doctrine, but all that I know that Baptists(Southern Baptists) believe is true to the Scriptures. Is it not? Or, do you think that the Assembly of God may be right about a person losing his salvation? Or, is there a chance that Pentecostals may be right about tongue speaking, and everyone should be healed due to the death of Jesus on the cross… that healing is in the atonement?
Third…I agree wholeheartedly with your list of 7 statements of belief. Amen! I agree with you. So does the BFM2K. Those are clearly Baptist beliefs.
Fourth…I’m glad that you believe that baptism is by immersion and for Believers only. So, I guess you wouldnt consider a paedo-baptism a true baptism? I wouldnt either. Also, I will have to disagree with you on the Lord’s Supper, but that’s ok. I’m more of a close communion guy, who refuses to be the Lord’s Supper police kind of view. So, as an open communion guy, do you also believe in open membership to your Church?
Fifth…I amen your missions statement. Amen, Brother! That’s my hearts desire as well. That’s also the heart of the SBC.
Last of all, it sounds like you’re Baptist. I’m glad…due to the fact that I believe that Baptists due hold to a more accurate view of the Scriptures than any other group that I know of. That’s one of the reasons…the main reason…that I’m a Southern Baptist. I also love SB’s heart for missions and evangelism. I also love the CP approach to missions…it seems to be the most effective way to do the most work.
So, Clay and Dave, why would you not say that Baptist=Biblical? I really dont understand that…especially coming from Baptist Pastors.
David
VolFan,
Maybe you just want to hear it from Clay and Dave, but I thought my comment #65 gave a pretty good answer to your question.
David R.,
No, I dont think that your comment #65 answers my comments #67 and #74. Not at all.
David
Brother Vol,
The Apostle answers your questions,..all of them.
Phippians 3:12-17 Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. (13) Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, (14) I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. (15) Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, have this attitude; and if in anything you have a different attitude, God will reveal that also to you; (16) however, let us keep living by that same standard to which we have attained. (17) Brethren, join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us.
Paul doesn’t even regard himself as laying hold of it. What is it? It is not equality with God, as if that can be obtained. It is not equality with Jesus Christ, who is God, now living in us. But! We press on toward the goal, understanding that only Christ is perfect in us…we are never perfect like He is. But the it is the pressing on, laying hold of because I have been laid hold of by what I am not equal to in the remotest sense. But, I have been shown mercy.
You have your answer from the Apostle and from God….what more do you need?
Now if you say I am pressing on as hard as I know how by the faith that has been allotted to me…. And that “your understanding” equals Baptist, then you may be on to something…. And that is something I can agree with you on…. But it is clear, Biblical does not equal Baptist, … why, because it is impossible.
Blessings,
Chris
Hey VolFan,
IF Baptist Doctrine is equal to Biblical(TRUE) Doctrine, THEN all non-baptist doctrine must be Unbiblical(FALSE) doctrine? Is this a fair assessment of your viewpoint?
I will admit to our “baptist distinctives” as being a benchmark of what it means to be “baptist.” Certainly believer’s baptism by immersion and the security of believers would fall into this category. And yes, I would argue these are indeed biblical doctrines. As such, we are in agreement. However, to go so far as saying Bapitst equals Biblical seems to imply (at least in my mind) that non-baptists have completely missed the boat.
Perhaps another way to ease the tension would be to say that the “baptist distinctives” of… 1)sole authority and veracity of Scripture; 2)believers baptism by immersion; 3)eternal security of believers; and 4)local church autonomy would be in my mind A Hill on Which to Die. (A good read by the way!)
As for the issues of open/closed communion, elder/congregational leadership, election/free-will, pre/mid/post tribulational, open church membership, cessationist/continuation of tongues, church/individual authority to baptize, and even abstinence/moderation of alcoholic beverages; these issues can be discussed and debated without calling into question one’s commitment to “baptist distinctives.”
Thanks for your input!
Clay
Chris,
Brother, I agree that I’m growing in my faith, and I have much to learn and grow in, in order to become more like Jesus. That’s not even the arguement here. But, I would guarantee you that the Apostle Paul would also tell you that there are some things…some doctrines…that he would never change in….because they are clear, Bible doctrines. Do you honestly think that Paul would say,”Well, right now, I hold to the doctrine of the Trinity, but I’m open to changing my mind later on.” Or, would he say,”Well, I hold to eternal security of the Believer right now, but I realize that later on…as I grow in my faith…that I could be wrong. I might believe that a Christian can be lost again someday.” Do you think that? I dont. There are some doctrines that we can be crystal clear about, and we can be dogmatic about…why? because they’re taught crystal clear in the Bible. Now, if you want to argue dispensational vs. covenant beliefs, or pre-trib. vs. mid-trib. views; then we can disagree on these things and still serve together as Baptists in the SBC. If you want to argue about contemporary worship vs. traditional worship, then, again, we can disagree on these tertiary doctrines and be SB together….yes! But, there are some things that we, as Baptists, hold to that we believe are important enough to divide with others, who call themselves Christians. I may beleive that they’re still saved…yes…like I’d look at Assembly of God Believers, but our doctrinaly differences on secondary issues are important enough to divide over. Because, I believe that Baptists beleive the clearly spelled out truth of the Bible on eternal security. Dont you?
David
Clay,
Are Methodists correct in their doctrine of baptism(sprinkling)?
I would say no. They are incorrect and in error about this. Are Assembly of God Pastors teaching correct doctrine when they preach that a person can lose thier salvation? I would say no. They are incorrect and in error about this. So, yea, that’s my viewpoint. That some Churches are preaching errors. And, Baptists are holding to the truth on these doctrines. Is that arroagance, or is it just fact?
Clay, if you believe that Baptists does not equal Biblical, then where are we wrong? Where are we unBiblical?
And, Brother, I would also say that we can disagree on tertiary doctrines all day long and still be SB’s, and serve together, and worship together, and start Churches and Seminaries together; but, baptism by immersion, eternal security of the Believer, Lord’s Supper being a symbollic act, and local, Church autonomy, and men being the leaders of their homes and Churches are certainly secondary doctrines that would divide us. They are very important doctrines to hold to…..why?….because the Bible is very clear on these things.
Now, if you’re a Mid-Trib. person, and I’m a Pre-Trib. person, then we can disagree on this tertiary doctrine all day long, and we can still serve together as SB’s. Amen! If you believe in having adult worship and youth worship and childrens worship all being separate on a Sunday morning, but I believe that they should all be together in worship on Sunday am; then fine and dandy. We can still be SB’s together. Or, if you believe that the offering should be taken up during worhsip, and I believe that we should have boxes in the foyer to take up the offering…then fine. We can disagree on these truly unclear things that the Bible does not spell out, which is what tertiary doctrines are.
But, if someone claims to be a SB, and yet they accept open membership…that Methodists that were sprinkled can join thier Church, or Presbyterians that were sprinkled on top of the head as babies can join their Church, etc.; then that would/should cause us to say that that Church is no longer a SB Church. Now, we wouldnt be saying that they’re not Christians. No. But, are they SB? I would say no.
Does this better explain where I’m coming from? And, do you agree with me?
David
dave
only a Buffoon would not understand what has been said to volfan007
wally
Brother Vol,
As always, we are so often saying the same thing and I don’t disagree with anything that you have placed in your last post to me.
Again, I don’t see anyone disagreeing with what you have say borne out by these analogies….
“But, I would guarantee you that the Apostle Paul would also tell you that there are some things…some doctrines…that he would never change in….because they are clear, Bible doctrines. Do you honestly think that Paul would say,”Well, right now, I hold to the doctrine of the Trinity, but I’m open to changing my mind later on.” Or, would he say,”Well, I hold to eternal security of the Believer right now, but I realize that later on…as I grow in my faith…that I could be wrong.”
The Apostle never did preach as you have rightly applied above. He was clearly writing the word of God,…literally and without error. Our effort is to take these translations of the discovered Greek and Hebrew texts and through our best efforts of prayer and study, rightly divide this scripture so that God is not confusing to the hearer, because after all it is the Spiritual gift of preaching and teaching (by act of the Holy Spirit) that changes lives, and I should tremble at the opportunity to share the truth and light of Christ . Paul put it this way to the Corinthian church in how he would boast…….
2 Corinthian 10:11-18 Let such a person consider this, that what we are in word by letters when absent, such persons we are also in deed when present. (12) For we are not bold to class or compare ourselves with some of those who commend themselves; but when they measure themselves by themselves and compare themselves with themselves, they are without understanding. (13) But we will not boast beyond our measure, but within the measure of the sphere which God apportioned to us as a measure, to reach even as far as you. (14) For we are not overextending ourselves, as if we did not reach to you, for we were the first to come even as far as you in the gospel of Christ; (15) not boasting beyond our measure, that is, in other men’s labors, but with the hope that as your faith grows, we will be, within our sphere, enlarged even more by you, (16) so as to preach the gospel even to the regions beyond you, and not to boast in what has been accomplished in the sphere of another. (17) But HE WHO BOASTS IS TO BOAST IN THE LORD. (18) For it is not he who commends himself that is approved, but he whom the Lord commends.
Jeremiah 9:23-24 Thus says the LORD, “Let not a wise man boast of his wisdom, and let not the mighty man boast of his might, let not a rich man boast of his riches; (24) but let him who boasts boast of this, that he understands and knows Me, that I am the LORD who exercises lovingkindness, justice and righteousness on earth; for I delight in these things,” declares the LORD.
I do agree with you that there are doctrines that are very clear and will need to continued to be taught clearly or they will slide into different definitions even in the best of church settings. So we must remain diligent! The Apostle John was approaching the same issues late in the first century as he delivered his three letters pinning the Gnostics to the canvas,…so we can expect this to occur in our churches today.
I hope your having a blessed Lord’s Day!
-Chris
Chris,
You’d better watch out agreeing with me. Wally may call you a buffoon!
David
Brother Vol,
Yes I think we agree more than we disagree. Our approaches may be a bit different….but that is quite alright with me. For instance,..I do know and I am confident that there are Assembly of God brothers and sisters that believe in eternal security and are certainly baptized to identify with Christ… so I may want to “lead’ in the planting of churches so as to build a strong biblical foundation and Godly leaders in every church,..but I will not divide with those brothers and sisters. In fact,..there are many other non SBC denominational brothers and sisters that I am privileged to serve and plant churches with…that is what I am doing now. In other words,..just because someone is affiliated with a certain “denomination” is not the signal for me…I need to know them more intimately before I blame them for doctrine they may or may not hold.
That goes for the SBC as well. There are some SBC churches that I would not have the desire to plant with, due to their lack of biblical doctrine.
Blessings,
Chris