Baptists afraid of water!

Elder Hastings...had just returned from the ordination of Mr. Whelpley, a baptist minister, in Sandersfield, Mass. This young man was educated at Providence college, as I heard; studied divinity with Dr. Stillman, of Boston, and was quite in clerical fashion. As he had a college education, and was something like the clergy in Connecticut, several of the presbyterian clergy attended. Elder Hastings stated to us that Elder John Leland was appointed to preach the ordination sermon. He said that when the people came together, the meeting-house would not hold them. The people then went to a grove, near the house; erected a stage that the people might hear. Mr. Leland had not spoken long, before it began to rain a little, so that several people went to the meeting-house for a shelter. As they were going, Elder Leland said to old Elder Thomas Morse, "What shall I do, father Morse?" He replied, "Wait a little while; the rain will soon be over, and the people will return." He sat a while; the cloud passed over, and the people returned. After they were all seated, ready to hear, Mr. Leland rose up, and after looking around, as though surprised, and wishing also to sting the clergy severely on account of their infant sprinkling, he said, "My friends, I am astonished to see baptists afraid of water! But when I come to think, it is sprinkling; and I do not wonder that you flee from it." This was a severe stroke upon the Connecticut clergy, and very mortifying to Mr. Whelpley. Mr. Leland having said this, proceeded in his sermon as he had proposed before the shower.

The Life, Conversion, Preachings, Travels, and Sufferings of Elias Smith, pp. 255-56

Romans 8:28

Romans 8:28 - "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose."

Romans 8:28 is an anchor of hope for the Christian that someone has called "a soft pillow for a tired heart." This verse alone will take a lifetime for us just to begin to comprehend it. Here are four implications about God that must be true in the light of Romans 8:28. I believe the rest of the Bible will bear them out as well.

1. God is immutable (unchanging), for if He were constantly changing how could we "know that all things work together for good."
2. God is sovereign and all-powerful, else He could not work all things together for good.
3. God is compassionate, else He would not work all things together for good.
4. God is determinate (having a definite counsel and purpose), else He would not work all things together for good to them who are the called according to his purpose.

Saints above and saints below

"To live above with saints in love, O that will be the glory. But to live below with saints we know, O that's a different story!" -- author unknown

This day in 1800

On this day, April 25, 1800, William Cowper, a brilliant English poet, passed from the walks of this life. He who wrote lines that move us in many ways. One of his most famous is:

"God moves in a mysterious way
His wonders to perform;"

His mind was oft troubled. He wrote these lines "Damned below Judas; more abhorred than he was", "during a period of insanity".

Though distressed with frequent periods of melancholy, he had a humorous side as well:

"Hair, wax, rouge, honey, teeth, you buy,
A multifarious store!
A mask at once would all supply,
Nor would it cost you more."

Other of his great poems include:

"There is a fountain filled with blood
Drawn from Emmanuel's veins"

"Oh! for a closer walk with GOD,
A calm and heav'nly frame"

On April 24 in 1649

On this day in 1649, the assembly of the province of Maryland passed the Maryland Toleration Act. From our vantage point in 2006, the "Toleration Act" seems pretty intolerant! While this law made it a crime to jeer or ridicule others "in a reproachfull manner relating to matter of Religion", the death penalty could be enforced on anyone who denied the Trinity. Nevertheless, in its day the "Toleration Act" offered more religious freedom to the citizens of Maryland than possessed by those in England.

*Note: Yale's Avalon Project gives the date as September 21st.

Southwest Texas Convention

For more information on the Southwest Texas Sacred Harp Convention, visit Texasfasola.org's notice.

King David goes to Keilah

I Samuel 23:1-14 (excerpts in order to save space) - Then they told David, saying, Behold, the Philistines fight against Keilah...Therefore David inquired of the LORD, saying, Shall I go and smite these Philistines? And the LORD said unto David, Go, and smite the Philistines, and save Keilah. And David's men said unto him, Behold, we be afraid here in Judah: how much more then if we come to Keilah against the armies of the Philistines? Then David enquired of the LORD yet again. And the LORD answered him and said, Arise, go down to Keilah; for I will deliver the Philistines into thine hand. So David and his men went to Keilah, and fought with the Philistines, and brought away their cattle, and smote them with a great slaughter. So David saved the inhabitants of Keilah...And it was told Saul that David was come to Keilah. And Saul said, God hath delivered him into mine hand; for he is shut in, by entering into a town that hath gates and bars...Then said David, O LORD God of Israel, thy servant hath certainly heard that Saul seeketh to come to Keilah, to destroy the city for my sake. Will the men of Keilah deliver me up into his hand? will Saul come down, as thy servant hath heard?...And the LORD said, He will come down...And the LORD said, They will deliver thee up. Then David and his men, which were about six hundred, arose and departed out of Keilah, and went whithersoever they could go...And David abode in the wilderness in strong holds, and remained in a mountain in the wilderness of Ziph. And Saul sought him every day, but God delivered him not into his hand.

During the period in which David was avoiding King Saul, David received a message that the Philistines were attacking the city of Keilah (a city of the tribe of Judah, David's tribe; Josh. 15:44). David inquired of the Lord whether to go up and fight against the Philistines. God gave a definite message that he should go. So it is quite evident that the action of David and his men to go to this city and fight was the will of God. David was doing God's will. The events that follow teach us some lessons about doing God's will.

Verse 3 - Doing God's will does not guarantee fearlessness. Though the men of David knew it was God's will, they were still afraid. They needed reassuring (v. 4).

Verses 3,4 - Doing God's will does not mean we will go where we want to go. Sometimes faith requires us to step out and go places that would not be those of our preference.

Verses 7-13 - Doing God's will does not exempt us from problems and troubles. David and his men had just fulfilled what God told them to do. Then they heard that Saul knew they were shut up in a city and was planning to come after them.

Verse 12 - Doing God's will does not mean we will be appreciated. Though David and his men had just delivered the citizens of Keilah (of his own tribe) from the Philistines, these same citizens would have no qualms about delivering them up to Saul.

Verses 5,14 - Doing God's will DOES promise us ultimate success. David was never captured by Saul and God set him on the throne as He had promised through His prophet Samuel. (cf. I Samuel 16:13; II Kings 2:11; Romans 8:28; et al.).

That Old Time Religion

The following is an excerpt from an article by Mike McInnis in Issue 14 of Volume 4 of the Grace Gazette, found on Grace Chapel of O'brien, Florida web site.

'I heard a song on the radio just the other day which said, "I’d rather be an old time Christian, than anything I know." It reminded me of another song which seems to be popular from time to time among many which says, "Gimme’ that old time religion, gimme’ that old time religion, gimme’ that old time religion, it’s good enough for me". Most people pat their foot and sing along as their mind travels back to some pleasant memory of childhood. Maybe they remember some all day meeting or dinner on the grounds or some such fond reminiscence. Such recollections may be precious but are generally only an exercise of the flesh. Man’s religious mind can be easily stirred by such nostalgic thoughts and his desires for "old time religion" most often are fulfilled by recreating such exercises or revisiting the sites where such memories were given birth...Here in the south, (the Bible belt if you will) religion of one sort or another has always played a big part in people’s lives. Why almost everybody, in past generations, was raised to go to church on Sunday: especially Easter Sunday. It is such a warm tradition that causes the minds of the more mature folk to be drawn back to a simpler place and time. Sadly, many confuse such traditions and memories with the reality of following CHRIST. When they desire "old time religion" they only desire to go back a certain number of years. Some are satisfied with the forties, some the nineteenth century, or some who really desire to go back may define "old time" as coming from the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries. But in reality the basis for the faith once delivered to the saints must go back two thousand years.'

I don't think I've read anyone who puts it exactly this way before. Perhaps it is true that more of our thoughts of "that old time religion" are just good and fond memories of the past rather than a real desire for the faith that is built on the foundation of the Apostles and the Prophets. That's something to think about! To read the entire article click here.

Preach the Word

II Timothy 4:2 "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine."

Preach the word with confidence, because it is inspired. II Timothy 3:16,17
Preach the word with fear, because we must answer to God. II Timothy 4:1
Preach the word with power, because evil times will come. II Timothy 4:3,4

Pine Grove Sacred Harp Singing

When: Sunday, April 23, 2006

Where: Pine Grove Church
County Road 364
Henderson, Texas

Time: 10:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. (Dinner on the ground)

2000 Cooper Revision

For more info: John/Emmie Morris

For a map: click here

A King's Prayer

II Chronicles 14:11 And Asa cried unto the LORD his God, and said, LORD, it is nothing with thee to help, whether with many, or with them that have no power: help us, O LORD our God; for we rest on thee, and in thy name we go against this multitude. O LORD, thou art our God; let not man prevail against thee. [Read verses 9 through 12 for the context.]

Asa's prayer was fervent and sincere, he "cried unto the LORD his God." Asa's prayer was personal, "unto the LORD his God" and not directed somewhere else or to someone else. Asa's prayer was specific, "help us, O LORD." Outnumbered two to one, he didn't beat around the bush. Asa's prayer was believing: "for we rest on thee, and in thy name we go against this multitude. O LORD, thou art our God..." Asa's prayer was answered: "So the LORD smote the Ethiopians before Asa, and before Judah; and the Ethiopians fled (v. 12)."

Jesus is risen. He's alive!

Jesus was killed on a cross, sealed in a tomb, but not stilled! He is alive. He is risen.

Upon the cross Christ hung and died,
And poured on us blood from His side.
He died to save us from our sin,
And make us clean and pure within.

Three hours of darkness veiled the land;
The temple's veil was rent in twain.
Christ died a-shouting victory,
"Tis finished" -- redemption's complete.

They placed Him in a borrowed tomb,
And sealed Him for His final doom.
The stone and guards were but in vain,
For they could not God's Son contain.

Jesus fulfilled three nights and days,
Then He arose and left the grave.
"He is not here," the angel said,
"Why seek ye Him among the dead?"

He's seated now at God's right hand;
Waiting 'til He shall come again.
He's interceding for us there,
And helps us with our feeble prayer.

Long Meter. (1993, by blog author) permission given for free use, with the suggestion of giving proper credit of author and a mention of this site. Thanks.

Inter-church fellowship

The salutations found in the closing verses of several New Testament epistles should inform some of our understanding of inter-church fellowship. I cannot help but be impressed with the Christians' knowledge of one another across the Roman empire (without planes, trains, automobiles or telephones, television, and the internet) -- and beyond that, the affection they had for one another and the esteem in which they held one another. Contrast that with the apparent complacency and indifference in our modern churches, often found within no more distance than one county, when people in "sister" churches across town don't know one another -- sometimes even within a local church if it is a large one.

Romans chapter 16 is filled with greetings. We cannot help being amazed by Paul's acquaintance with all these people. But we might fail to grasp that the persons mentioned must have also been well acquainted with one another. These different ones that Paul, Peter and others saluted and wanted to salute others apparently made connections in person, for they were to greet one another with a holy kiss. Phebe was a servant of the church at Cenchrea, yet she probably missed a lot of her own church's services while carrying a letter to the saints at Rome (Romans 16:1). Certainly she was engaged in the work of the Lord, but she also was "away from her post" at her home church. To me these examples and the practice of the New Testament church do not fit well into the "you must always attend your own church services" model that some strenuously advocate. Surely this is the norm -- service to the Lord through our local assembly. But if we draw up within ourselves -- and many of us have -- we won't look like the New Testament churches and we won't know anyone to greet!

The Gospel of Judas

I had thought to write something on the so-called "Gospel of Judas", but haven't gotten to it. In the mean-time, I found two blogs that seem to give some good information about it.

The Gospel of Judas et al.---Part One

The Gospel of Judas--- Part Two

Inconsistencies

"When we hold to a strict ‘one true church’ principle some inconsistencies arise. We are forced to draw up detailed lists of what is acceptable doctrine and practice and what is not. Obviously some things are clearly un-Biblical and should not be tolerated in the Lord’s house. But many things are not so clear. For example: how do we determine that feet washing is optional and acapella singing is not. How do we decide when to declare non-fellowship with a group of churches and then some time later drop the bars and receive each other again. If we are true to the ‘one true church’ principle many ordinations, constitutions, and baptisms would have to be re-examined..."

I found the above thought-provoking comments on another blog, and am posting here for you all to think on.

I'm posting a link, but I hoping for comments on the part posted above rather than the entire blog: http://halbgewachs.blogspot.com/2005/12/true-church-is-not-limited-to.html

The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown - Myth, Mystery and Madness

According to Harlan Coben, New York Times bestselling author, "Dan Brown is my new must-read. I loved this book. The Da Vinci Code is fascinating and absorbing-perfect for history buffs, conspiracy nuts, puzzle lovers, or anyone who appreciates a great, riveting read." Collin Hansen says that with the Da Vinci Code, Brown "captured the coveted number one sales ranking at Amazon.com, camped out for 32 weeks on the New York Times Best-Seller List and inspired a one-hour ABC news special." A film based on the book, starring Tom Hanks, is scheduled for release in May 2006.

The Wikipedia online encyclopedia states, "The Da Vinci Code is a novel written by American author Dan Brown and published in 2003 by Doubleday Fiction…The plot of the novel involves a conspiracy by the Catholic Church to cover up the true story of Jesus. This implies that the Vatican consciously knows it is living a lie, but does so to keep itself in power. The novel has helped generate popular interest in speculation concerning the Holy Grail legend and the role of Mary Magdalene in the history of Christianity. Fans have lauded the book as creative, action-packed and thought-provoking. Critics have attacked it as inaccurate and poorly written, and decry the many negative implications about the Catholic Church." Michael Gleghorn further enlightens us: "The story begins with the murder of the Louvre's curator. But this curator isn't just interested in art; he's also the Grand Master of a secret society called the Priory of Sion. The Priory guards a secret that, if revealed, would discredit biblical Christianity. Before dying, the curator attempts to pass on the secret to his granddaughter Sophie, a cryptographer, and Harvard professor Robert Langdon, by leaving a number of clues that he hopes will guide them to the truth…in Brown's novel, the [Holy] Grail is not the cup allegedly used by Christ at the Last Supper. It's rather Mary Magdalene, the wife of Jesus, who carried on the royal bloodline of Christ by giving birth to His child! The Priory guards the secret location of Mary's tomb and serves to protect the bloodline of Jesus that has continued to this day!

The book might be riveting as a mystery fiction, but it appears that Dan Brown has also been trying to "sell" it as truth. Some of the things for which Brown seems to claim historicity are: A marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene; The superiority of the Gnostic Gospels over the Canonical Gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke, John); That Jesus' earliest followers did not believe He was divine; The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were changed under the command of Constantine; The deity of Jesus was devised by the Council of Nicea in the fourth-century. Someone said that according to Brown, "almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false!"

Early copies of the Gospels - as much as a hundred years before the council of Nicea - do not show evidence of the supposed embellishment. AND early copies of parts of John's Gospel are available. John's gospel has strong declarations of Jesus as God - significantly before the council of Nicea or before Constantine had an opportunity (supposedly) to tamper with the Gospels. Pre-Nicene church fathers affirm the deity of Christ. For example, Ignatius wrote of "our God, Jesus the Christ." There is also testimony of non-Christians showing that Christians believe Jesus was God. It can be established satisfactorily that early Christians worshipped Jesus Christ as their Lord and God.

Some good reading to get the rest of the story is Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History and Breaking the Da Vinci Code: Answers to the Questions Everyone's Asking by Darrell Bock. Bock believes "Da Vinci" is properly fictitious entertainment rather than factual history of the Christian faith.

I found Redeeming the Da Vinci Code, written by Michael Gleghorn, to be very helpful, and my comments are greatly indebted to his online article.

The Holy Bible

The Bible, as described by an anonymous writer

This Book contains the mind of God, the state of man, the way of salvation, the doom of sinners, and the happiness of believers.

Its doctrines are holy, its precepts are binding, its histories are true, and its decisions immutable. Read it to be wise, believe it to be safe, and practice it to be holy. It contains light to direct you, food to support you, and comfort to cheer you.

It is the traveler's map, the pilgrim's staff, the pilot's compass, the soldier's sword, and the Christian's charter. Christ is its subject, our good its design, and the glory of God its end. It should fill the memory, rule the heart and guide the feet.

Read it slowly, frequently and prayerfully. It is given to you in life, will be open in the judgment, and be remembered forever. It involves the highest responsibility, rewards the greatest labor, and condemns all who trifle with its holy precepts.

Ichabod's thoughts on tunes from 1811

"Much has been said about the style of Musick sung now-a-days, and indeed when we compare the tunes now made use of with those of the good old times of Billings, and a few others since him, I think they stand no test at all... they are miserable, dull, stupifying things, and no more comparable to New-Jerusalem, Montgomery, Edom and All-Saints New, than the slow movement of an ox is to the brisk ambling of a horse. I have heard a great deal said about expression, proper modulation, true portamento, with affetuoso, condolora, and diatonios, with an abundance of more such nonsence, which nobody understands, and none but fools make use of. Now, Sir, away with all such stuff, and other flummery about the Science of musick -- 'Tis all mere chips and porridge! But, Oh, when I listen to the ecstatic strains of Montgomery, I am carried away with rapture, particularly at the treble solo in the words, 'Long for a cooling stream...' -- Here are discovered the wonderful ingenuity of the author together with his delicate and devotional feelings. Again what real lover of harmony can but admire the sweet warbling notes of New-Jerusalem...where every part goes on independent of the rest in ananimating confusion of dellightful sounds which fashionable fools call 'jingle,' but which I call the very criterion of good psalmody. Here is heard none of your disgusting expression, none of your crescendo and diminuendo, but all is most elevating and delightful. Who is not at once entranced at hearing performed! How bewitching, with a gentle squeeze of the voice upon each thrilling slur, terminating in a pensive nasal twang! How often have I been transported when listening to the angelic counter of Edom? -- And again what sort of melancholy possessed when Calvary has been performed to the words of Watts' Funeral Thought! My flesh is gone over with goose-pimples!...let us adopt the old tunes -- place suitable leaders over each Singing Society and keep out every scientific intruder. -- We may then hope to have the true, rational, and genuine music once more heard in our Churches."

-- Ichabod Beetlehead *****from the Columbian Centinel, Boston, 1811 [Also in William Billings of Boston (1975) by McKay & Crawford]

Thanks to Thomas Malone on the fasola listserve for this.

The Sovereign God

Revelation 5:1-14

Keep silence, all created things,
And wait your Maker's nod;
My soul stands trembling while she sings
The honors of her God.
Life, death, and hell, and worlds unknown,
Hang on His firm decree;
He sits on no precarious throne,
Nor borrows leave to be.

Chained to His throne a volume lies,
With all the fates of men,
With every angel's form and size
Drawn by th' eternal pen.
His providence unfolds the book,
And makes His counsels shine;
Each opening leaf, and every stroke,
Fulfils some deep design.

My God, I would not long to see
My fate with curious eyes,
What gloomy lines are writ for me,
Or what bright scenes may rise.
In Thy fair book of life and grace
May I but find my name,
Recorded by Thy sovereign grace
Beneath my Lord, the Lamb!

Isaac Watts-1709

Singing at Madisonville

What: SACRED HARP SINGING
3rd Annual Southeast Texas Singing

Date: Saturday, April 8, 2006, d.v.

Location: Fellowship Primitive Baptist Church
FM 1452 Madisonville, Texas

Time: 10:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m.

Book: 1991 Denson Revision
For more info: Kevin Powell

Faith Promise Giving - Is It Scriptural?

"Faith promise giving" is a modern-day fund raising system. It goes beyond pledging. According to it, a person is supposed to promise on faith to give a sum of money that he does not have (nor expect to have) and have the faith that God will supply it so he can give it (seemingly presuming that if you make such a promise "in faith" that God is obligated to "cough it up" for you). This is more than an apostle required, as Paul said that God would accept according to what a man has (II Cor. 8:12).

The Baptist Bible Fellowship was the first group which I heard promoting "Faith Promise Giving". I do not know if it originated with them, but they have been one of the foremost promoters of the idea among independent Baptists. Here are some quotes from a pamphlet distributed by them - A Faith Promise Offering? by Granville LaForge. "The Faith Promise Offering is a free-will offering collected weekly in your church to provide the finances for worldwide missions (p.1)." "First, It is a promise to God. Observe carefully this is not a pledge to the church...However, may we hasten to say that your promise to God should be as binding if not more binding than a pledge to an organization. Secondly, it is an act of faith. You are promising to give beyond your present ability to give...It is simply trusting and believing God to supply the amount He impresses your heart to promise (p.2)." "WHY SHOULD I GIVE A FAITH PROMISE OFFERING?...First to express loving obedience to His commands. (pp.3,4)." "How can I determine what God wants me to give? Ask God, with a submissive will: 'Lord, what will thou have me to do?' If you are truly willing to do His will, He will impress your mind with the amount He wants you to give. The amount He indicates may be beyond your personal ability, but remember this verse: 'If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.' Mark 9:23 "FOURTH, SUBSCRIBE TO THAT AMOUNT ON YOUR FAITH PROMISE CARD. (p. 8)." "FIFTH, SET THIS AMOUNT ASIDE WEEKLY AND GIVE IT...Knowing that if it is God's will for you to give this amount weekly it then simply becomes a matter of good stewardship to give it as He has led you to promise. NOTE: God never commanded us to do something He will not enable us to do! (p.9)."

Promoters of the Faith Promise usually insist that it is based on Scripture -- "The Faith Promise method of giving is described in detail for us in II Corinthians 8, 9, and 10 (pp. 1-2)." The excerpts from this pamphlet (and many other writings that are available) show that it is a very detailed system, and, for the BBFI at least, "You are promising to do something for an entire year, fifty two weeks without fail (p. 3)." [Most Faith Promise promotions find their scripture base in II Corinthians 8; most want a promise made for a year; most emphasize this as a promise to God rather than a pledge to the church, implying it is not binding, but then turn around and say that a promise to God is even more binding than a pledge to the church.]

Although this may sound good to those unfamiliar with God's Word and its interpretation, the proof texts of the faith promise system are scriptures stretched beyond reason. To begin with, the system is built on a faulty foundation. There is no New Testament teaching of two ways of giving: tithes which are owed to God and offerings over and above the tithe which are not owed but freely given. All we have belongs to God. We are stewards of it all. Even the Old Testament tithing proof text (Mal. 3:8) states that the robbers of God were robbers "in tithes AND offerings." How so, if only the tithe belongs to God?

Faith promise giving might hide behind such shaky use of scripture, since it is between a man and God, if not for a fatal flaw -- it violates scriptural principles of giving.

First of all, it violates the principle of giving "out of that which ye have (II Cor. 8:11)" This principle rules out pledging OR promising what we do not have, and faith promise giving is exactly that -- promising to give what you do not have. God accepts our gifts according to what we have, not according to what we do not have (II Cor. 8:12).

Secondly, faith promises violate I Cor. 16:2, which teaches us to give as God has prospered us. God only asks us give out of that with which He has blessed us. Faith promise giving asks us to give that we hope or expect God to bless us with.

Faith promise giving denies us the prospect of giving sacrificially, as did the Macedonians (II Cor. 8:14). While seemingly calling for sacrificial giving, the faith promise system actually promises that God will supply extra funds to you in order for you to keep your pledge to Him. David said, "Neither will I offer...that which doth cost me nothing (II Sam. 24:24)."

To make a faith promise to perform a certain amount of giving for a year, when we know not what shall be tomorrow (Jas. 4:13,14), seems an act of foolishness rather than an act of faith...

...Let us cheerfully give out of what we have as God has prospered us, and leave off the faith promises.

Note added 10/5/2008: Through recent research on the internet I found Faith Promise giving originated with Oswald J. Smith, a Canadian non-denominational preacher of Presbyterian background. He was also an evangelist, hymn writer and author. Its origin is some 1900 years too late.

"Dr. Oswald J. Smith was the originator of the idea of a Faith Promise offering for missions. For many years he was pastor of The Peoples Church in Toronto, Canada, where he challenged that congregation to raise $1 for missions for every $1 they spent on themselves." -- from A Faith Promise Offering, Oswald J. Smith, p. 2

In Memory: Darrell Mark Burress

Mark Burress died Saturday March 25 as the result of being hit by a drunk driver. He was 48 years old. He was a principal at Peaster High School in Parker County, Texas and a Primitive Baptist preacher. He is survived by his wife Susie, six children and a granddaughter, as well as a host of friends and other family. May God comfort and care for his loved ones.

"Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord..."

Father of six killed on I-30
Peaster Principal Killed In Crash

Jair - a Judge in Israel

"He had thirty sons." - Judges 10:3-5 - If the listing is chronological, Jair's judgeship followed that of Tola, and the nation continued to enjoy the blessings of God and the subsequent peace and quietness resulting from Gideon's decisive defeat of the powerful Midianites. It also suggests that the people had not resorted to their former idolatrous practices, otherwise they would not have been enjoying the blessings of God. Jair "had thirty sons who rode on thirty donkeys." Horses were ill suited to Israel's mountainous terrain, and little used before the days of King Solomon. Anciently, the horse was used in war. God would warned that Israel's king "shall not multiply horses for himself" (Deut 17:16). Israel was to trust God for victory, not horses. Each of Jair's sons had a town named for him, which collectively were called, "Havoth Jair," towns of Jair. All of this suggests that Jair was a man of wealth, and had attained the status of a prince. He probably had several wives, and it was a common practice for a ruler to give his sons towns, or make them judges over the towns. As with Tola, little more is known of Jair. His greatness was not attained in some spectacular military exploit. He rose from obscurity, and wisely followed the godly example of Gideon and Tola who judged Israel before him. He sought no personal notoriety. He served God and Israel in quietness and humility for twenty-two years. At the time Israel was enjoying one of the longest periods of peace in its history. The years that Gideon, Tola, and Jair served Israel total eighty-five years. The tranquility was marred only by the localized three year reign of terror by Abimelech. To rule in times of peace and prosperity may require greater wisdom and patience than in time of war. During peace and material prosperity, the people tend to be more critical of leaders. In time of national danger, they are more united, and have one important goal: defense of the nation. They do not have time to enjoy the luxury to "pick" the leader apart.

Interestingly, the Greek form of Jair is the New Testament Jairus. (Mark 5:22.)

-- by O. H. Griffith, 01/28/03

"Full-time" Christians

A tragedy of modern American Christianity is that Christian service has become so exclusively associated with the church building. The average Christian seems to think that his attendance at and participation in church services comprises the total extent of his service to God. We have also created the unbiblical distinction of "full-time" and "part-time" Christian service.

God ordains that all His people be in "full-time" service, and almost all of that service is performed outside the church building. We have the daily opportunity and responsibility to take up our cross and follow Christ -- on the job, in school, at home -- wherever we are is the place of service!

May God grant that we the reject the notion of "part-time" Christian service and begin to recognize His calling beyond the four walls of the church house.

Christ the Chief Good

Christ the Chief Good (Song of Solomon 5:10)

Compared with Christ, in all beside
No comeliness I see;
The one thing needful, dearest Lord,
Is to be one with Thee.

The sense of Thy expiring love,
Into my soul convey;
Thyself bestow, for Thee alone,
My All in all, I pray.

Less than Thyself will not suffice
My comfort to restore;
More than Thyself I cannot crave,
And Thou canst give no more.

Loved of my God, for Him again
With love intense I’d burn;
Chosen of Thee ere time began,
I choose Thee in return.

Whate’er consists not with Thy love,
Oh, teach me to resign;
I’m rich to all intents of bliss,
If Thou, O God, art mine.

— Augustus M. Toplady (1740-1778)

Brazos River/April Fools Singing

What: SACRED HARP SINGING
15th Annual Brazos River Singing

Date: Saturday, April 1, 2006, d.v.

Location:
Community Hall
101 N. Chappell Hill
Brenham, Texas

Time: 10:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m.

Book: 2000 Cooper Revision

For more info: Gaylon Powell

Things that accompany salvation

Oh, believe me, it is a great mistake to suppose we should be happy in heaven, if God were to save us from hell, and take us there, without a great change wrought upon our spirits. Yet this is one of the delusions of the day. Carnal sinners are asking God to save them; and on their death beds send for a minister to pray for them, whereas if God were even to grant their requests, their salvation would be no boon. ... But if we have got the things that accompany salvation, we are given a new life, as well as a new heart. We are not content with mere doctrine; we want experience—we want the Lord to bring home His promise to our hearts—we want the blood applied, we want to realize more of the new creature within, and are never, never satisfied with ourselves, but always longing after holiness, though feeling we never attain to it. — William Parks (1809-1867)

Tithing

"Biblical Principles of Giving", by John W. Robbins, was posted by Bro. Hoyt Sparks on his e-mail discussion list. I especially liked how Robbins points out that "giving for the sake of giving" is not inherently good. Here is part of what he wrote:

"...there is no particular virtue in giving per se, as many people seem to think. It is only giving to the glory of God that is not sinful. Showing hospitality to false teachers, as John points out, is an evil deed. Furthermore, when the consideration is giving to the poor, rather than to teachers, it is not the giving of a cup of cold water that Christ commends, but the giving of a cup of cold water in his name. Even the simple act of giving a cup of water to a person in need must be done explicitly in the name of Christ. Even charitable giving — giving to the poor — must meet a doctrinal test in Scripture. Giving per se is not a virtue. Only giving to the glory of God is...The thinking of churches and churchgoers has been so corrupted by altruism that they think that giving is good and commendable for its own sake...This altruism, this notion that giving per se is good, is the result of a theological Liberalism that does not recognize the Biblical doctrines of private property, Christian self-interest, and doing everything to the glory of God.

Conclusion
This brief look at the Biblical principles that must guide a Christian's giving has brought several to light:

1. Each person actually owns his own property;
2. No church or religious organization has a claim to the property of others;
3. There is no moral duty to give merely for the sake of giving;
4. All giving, which is commanded by God, is to be done to the glory of God;
5. Only giving done in the name of Christ is commended by Christ; and
6. Giving to persons or organizations that do not teach the doctrines Christ taught is sin.

The entire article may be found here: Biblical Principles of Giving

Can We Change What We Are?

Sin, in all its various forms, is [the soul's] natural element. To make man the direct opposite of what he originally is—to make him love God instead of hating Him—to make him fear God instead of mocking Him—to make him obey God instead of rebelling against Him—to make him to tremble at His dreadful majesty instead of defiantly charging against Him—to do this mighty work, and to effect this wonderful change requires the implantation of a new nature by the immediate hand of God Himself! Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then may you also do good who are accustomed to doing evil. - from the writings of J.C. Philpot (1802-1869)

Washing the Saints’ Feet, John 13

I'm working on a book about the history of feet washing among the Baptists, so with my mind on the subject, I thought I'd post this here. The brief of Matthew Henry's commentary is not meant to imply that he believed in feet washing as a rite. I just thought his comments were good and appropriate. More can be found here:
Matthew Henry Commentary, John chapter 13

Washing the Saints’ Feet, (Common Meter)

Thou, dying Lord, once did descend
Before the saints of old.
By such an act so did commend
That which the saints were told.

From Thy blest lips gave words so true
When Thou hadst took Thy seat,
“If I have done this task for you,
Then wash each other’s feet.”

So when we stoop before a saint
To wash his precious feet,
We with our frames a picture paint -
A message dear and sweet.

A message of our Lord who once
To earth did condescend;
To bear upon a cursed tree
The sins of dying men.

So here within Thy Church, O God,
We would desire a seat;
To eat Thy flesh and drink Thy blood,
And wash each other’s feet.

(© 1994, by author) permission granted for use with proper credit of author and a suggested mention of this site.

According to Matthew Henry, the feet washing was:
1. Sure evidence that Jesus loved them -- "having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end."
2. A demonstration of His humility -- "Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God" yet he "began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded." Cf. Mark 10:45
3. A sign of spiritual washing -- "He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all."
4. An example for His disciples -- "I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you."

Anointing with Oil - James 5

James 5:14-15 - "Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up..."

A quite popular interpretation among Baptists is that the oil here in James 5 refers to using medicine in conjunction with prayer. I see this as a pragmatic and possibly fright-driven interpretation -- because of faith healers and charismatics we flee to the opposite extreme.

I do not believe the oil here is application of medicine because: (1) it would make physicians of the elders; (2) it would recommend oil as a universal remedy for sicknesses; (3) it is the prayer, not the oil, that is credited with healing power; and (4) it is the Lord, not the oil, that raises the sick from his bed.

If so, how would this be practiced? James is not turning the church gathering into a charismatic healing meeting. "Let them call." If a believer calls for the elders, then the elders go and anoint with oil and pray over him/her. The symbolism of oil in the Bible is associated with the Holy Spirit and also setting apart.

What think ye?

Baptists and the Apocrypha

What is the Apocrypha? The books known by most Baptists and Protestants as the Apocrypha are fourteen extra books included in manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate. These are also found in the Greek Septuagint. There is some variation in what Protestants, Roman Catholics the Greek Orthodox consider to be the books of the Apocrypha.

The fourteen books as found in my King James Version 1611 (Thomas Nelson Publishers) are: I Esdras, II Esdras, Tobit, Judith, The Rest of the Chapters of the book of Esther (usually called Additions to Esther), The Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch (the Epistle of Jeremiah appears as Chapter Six of Baruch), The Song of the Three Holy Children, The History of Susanna, The History of the Destruction of Bel and the Dragon, The Prayer of Manasseh King of Judah, I Maccabees, and II Maccabees.

Should we read and study them? Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox accept them as inspired. Since we do not recognize these books as inspired, what should be our relationship to them? On one extreme are those who advocate that we should read them in order to understand the Scriptures, almost making them an interpreter of Scripture. On the other extreme are those who advocate must not read them at all, rather avoiding them like the plague.

The testimony of our forefathers in the 1689 London Confession of Faith (which follows the Westminster 1647) is good advice. They wrote, "The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon or rule of the Scripture, and, therefore, are of no authority to the church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved or made use of than other human writings."

Approach the Apocrypha cautiously, as you would any human writing. These books are not inspired. They contain mixtures of truth and error, historical accounts and fanciful tales. Unless you are willing to swear off reading all human writings (including this blog and whatever you just wrote!), then do not say we cannot read them. On the other hand, do not imply that we must read them in order to understand and interpret the Scriptures. The Scriptures are given by inspiration of God and are profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness and completely furnish us.

1689 London Baptist Confession

A typical Baptist worship service?

"The order of the worship and government of our church is: first, we begin with a prayer, [and] after[ward] read some one or two chapters of the Bible, give the sense thereof, and confer upon the same, that done we lay aside our books, and after a solemn prayer made by the first speaker, he propoundeth some text out of the Scripture, and prophesieth out of the same, by the space of one hour, or three quarters of an hour. After him standeth up a second speaker and prophesieth out of the same text the like time and space, some time more some time less. After him the third, the fourth, the fifth, etc. as the time will give leave. Then the first speaker concludeth with prayer as he began with prayer, with an exhortation to contribute to the poor, which collection being made is also concluded with prayer. This morning exercise begins at eight of the clocke and continueth unto twelve of the clock; the like course of exercise is observed in the afternoon from two of the clock unto five or six of the clock, last of all the execution of the government of the church is handled." -- From Champlin Burrage, The Early English Dissenters in Light of Recent Research, Vol. II, pp. 176-177

This old record is taken from a letter written by Henry and Anne Bromhead in 1609. Some spelling and old letter fonts were changed.

Smith Memorial Singing

The Smith Memorial Sacred Harp Singing will be held Saturday, March 11, 2006, at the New Harmony Community Center in the New Harmony Community northwest of Tyler, Texas.

The singing will begin at 9:30 a.m, and we will sing until 3 p.m.

For more info, and directions see http://singings.texasfasola.org/annual/smith_memorial.html

Sandy Creek Church, North Carolina

The following history was written in 1980 by the church clerk of Sandy Creek Primitive Baptist Church -- originally known as Separate Baptist and "mother" of many Baptist churches in the South.

A Brief History of the Sandy Creek Primitive Baptist Church (1755 till 1980)

Here is a brief history of Old Sandy Creek Primitive Baptist Church, located in the north eastern part of Randolph County, North Carolina, 20 miles southeast of Greensboro, North Carolina, four miles west of Liberty, North Carolina, off of 49-A.

Morgan Edwards, the earliest historian, was at Sandy Creek in 1772, says that the work existing from Elder Shubal Stearns and fifteen other souls, 16 years early (November 22, 1755), spread so rapidly from Sandy Creek that by 1775, the church had spread her branches southward as far as Georgia, eastward to the sea and the Chesapeake Bay, and northward to the water of the Potomac. It, in 17 years, became a mother, grandmother, and great-grandmother to 42 churches, from which sprang 125 ministers. Semple, next in age, 1810, says ... soon after Elder Stearns’ arrival at Sandy Creek November 22, 1755, he and his companions to the number of 16 were constituted into a church called Sandy Creek and to which Elder Stearns was appointed pastor. In this little church in the wilderness, there were, besides the pastor, two other preachers, viz: Joseph Breed and Daniel Marshall, neither of whom was ordained. Thus organized, they began a work, kindling a fire which soon began to burn brightly indeed. Shubal Stearns came into Guilford County, now Randolph, at Sandy Creek and began a work that is almost without parallel. In 1829, Hassell wrote, as of now, more than a thousand churches existing which arose from this beginning.

The first meeting house built in 1762 was 26 x 30. The old log meeting house was built around 1802. The present frame house was built in 1946. The first deed to the property at Sandy Creek was made in 1822 by Wm. Welborn. It consisted of one acre or more of land and was filed for registration on December 29, 1885, before W. J. Teague, Register of Deeds.

On the second Lord’s day in August, 1835, our predecessor protested “against all the new institutions of the day which they do believe is not founded on the scripture, among which were the Baptist State Convention, the Missionary Society, the Sunday School, and other societies which had come into existence. As a result of the declaration, the church withdrew from the Sandy Creek Association and joined the Abbott’s Creek Union Association: the church continued in this association for 124 years. The church now stands independent.

In 1902, membership had dropped to only one member, a Vedelia E. Jones who died in 1909. From about 1904 till 1909, no services were held. It is said, however, that she refused to accept the closing of the church and continued to come and sit on the steps of the old building each meeting day and sang the old hymns she loved so well.

In 1926, services were resumed and, in 1929, the church was reorganized back into a church body and has continued ever since. Elder Gurney E. Nance serves as our pastor.

We were prone to agree with the statement “This is a church where time stands still.”

HISTORY NOTES

In the early part of the church history, our records are lost, but we do have the first original deed. It was not lawful in North Carolina at the time Sandy Creek was organized for churches to own land.

The old Log Meeting house once had a balcony which some say was used for slaves. There are two doors and two windows. The stand or pulpit is pinned together with wooden pegs.

About 1905, the “Original” Head Rock of Elder Shubal Stearns was removed from his grave by a Missionary minister. The present stone is misleading. The Primitive Baptists, at this time, have been unable to find the original stone. Stearns’ original head rock was native stone on which was carved “S.S. 1771”.

In 1951, the Department of Conservation and Development tried to establish Sandy Creek Baptist Church as a historical shrine, but the church refused to turn over to the state the old deed. The Old Baptists believed the old building is to be used for worship of the Lord only.

In July, 1979, the State Professional Review Committee placed for study Old Sandy Creek Primitive Baptist Church for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. We have seventeen members. We hope each reader will pray that our endeavors walk in the old paths may continue.

Hal Younts, Church Clerk
Climax, North Carolina

United Baptist history

Brother David White of Missouri has built a nice United Baptist history site. Stop by and pay a visit if you're interested in the history of Baptists in the United States:

United Baptist Associations - Past and Present

The Church before Pentecost

It is a fairly common opinion that the church began on the day of Pentecost (Acts ch. 2). Below are some of the reasons that I believe that the church was started before Pentecost. These may seem simplistic, but it doesn't take too much to satisfy a simple mind like mine.

1. The church is referred to before Pentecost, both by the word "church" (Matt. 16:18; 18:17) and by its figurative names - flock, bride, house, etc. (Luke 12:32, cf. I Pet. 5:2; John 3:29, cf. Eph. 5:22-31; Mark 13:33-36, cf. I Tim. 3:15).
2. The English word "church" is a translation of the Greek word "ekklesia", which means a called-out assembly. Jesus disciples were both called-out and assembling with Him before the day of Pentecost (e.g. Matt. 4:19; John 1:35ff).
3. The apostles were set in the church (I Cor. 11:28) and this occurred before Pentecost (Matt.10:1,2; Mark 3:13-19; Luke 6:13).
4. The ordinances were instituted and observed before Pentecost (John 4:1,2; Matthew 26:26-30).
5. John the Baptist prepared a people ready for the Lord Jesus Christ (Luke 1:17), not for the day of Pentecost.
6. The church was commissioned before Pentecost: first the limited commission of Matt. 10:1-4 and then the extended commission of Matt. 28:18-20.7. Jesus sang in the church before Pentecost (Heb. 2:12; Matt. 26:30).
8. The last days refer to the church age, and the last days were in existence during Jesus' ministry (Heb. 1:2).
9. There was church discipline before the day of Pentecost (Matt. 18:17).
10. The church had a business meeting before Pentecost (Acts 1:15-26).
11. The Lord added to the church on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:41-27), so there had to exist a church for people to have been added to it.
12. There is no reason to suppose that the church could not exist with her visible Head present.
13. Nothing in scripture indicates the church was or had to be started on Pentecost.

The Rationality of Christianity

The following discussion of the rationality of Christianity is written and was sent by Edwin B. Fountain, an ordained elder and member of Lyons Landmark Baptist Church in Lyons, Georgia.

“…a sound mind.” 2 Tim. 1:7

Christianity has been attacked in every possible way. It has been represented as grounded in mental weakness, and a sure sign of intellectual deficiency. Ted Turner said Christianity is the religion of losers. Where mentality is concerned the very opposite of weakness and deficiency is true. Sin is folly; it is the very essence of folly; it is direct and ruinous folly. Christianity is true wisdom it imparts real dignity and is the sure evidence of a sound mind.

A sound mind condemns all that is vain and trifling; so does Christianity. Pleasures, riches, titles and distinctions of this life are all empty, mere show, uncertain and unsatisfactory. Now, while Christianity sheds the true light on these things it also presents spiritual pleasures, heavenly riches, divine titles and distinctions; and gives real, present, and satisfactory good to the soul.

A sound mind avoids credulity and so does Christianity. The credulous believe without, or on imperfect, evidence. They take all for what it is represented to be, such as evolution.

Christianity is based on full and satisfactory evidence -- evidence arising from fulfillment of prophecy, miracles and morality. There is also the goodness, purity, and holy influence that it exerts on the heart, tongue and lives of men, women and children.

Christianity has been sifted, tried and tested by thousands of malignant foes and still stands just as it was when first given, straight forward, moral and above all spiritually alive.

A sound mind is opposed to superstition and so is Christianity. A superstitious person sees every object through some kind of dark medium. Everything is tinged with the distorted peculiarities of his or her own benighted mind. Every service, ceremony or rite is magnified so as to hold the mind in a state of slavish awe and tormenting dread.

Christianity does not present itself truly in any of these forms. Christianity has principles, not mere vagaries. It is not meat and drink, rather it is righteousness, peace and joy in Christ. It is light in the mind, love in the heart and obedience in the whole of one’s life.

A sound mind is opposed to skepticism and so is true Christianity. A skeptic is one who is never satisfied with evidence and remains unbelieving though surrounded by the clear and palpable truth.

A Christian tries what is revealed by searching the Scriptures to see if these things be true and having found the truth delights in it, abides in it and does not sell it. The infidel displays the unsoundness of his mind to a glaring degree when he professes to believe that the world is here by accident: that it governs itself, regulates and preserves itself, that man is nothing but a refined animal, the soul a shade, Christ an imposter, the Bible full of fables and an after-life a dream.

The sound mind of the Christian appeals to the Word of God and on all these subjects takes God’s Word as his sure and unerring guide.

Threescore and ten

Yesterday, we sang the following Watts' hymn, to the tune "Exit" by P. Sherman. The text is based on part of Psalm 90. The last two stanzas of the second verse drew some curiosity for his unusual wording.

"Death, like an overflowing stream,
Sweeps us away; our life's a dream,
An empty tale, a morning flower,
Cut down and withered in an hour.

Our age to seventy years is set;
How short the time! how frail the state.
And if to eighty we arrive,
We rather sigh and groan that live."
-- Isaac Watts, Psalm 90, pt. 1

Texas State Sacred Harp Convention -- 2006

14th Annual Texas State Convention

Saturday February 25th
Sunday February 26th

Wellborn Community Center, 4119 Greens Prairie Rd. W., College Station, Texas

More info: Kevin Powell
Book: 1991 Revision

Singing begins at 10 a.m. on Saturday and 9:30 a.m. on Sunday

Lunch will be provided.

ALL INIQUITY

"Who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from all iniquity." Titus 2:14

Sins of heart. Sins of lip. Sins of life. There are five things as regards sin, from which our blessed Lord came to redeem us—its guilt, its filth, its power, its love, its practice. By His death, He redeemed us from sin's guilt. By the washing of regeneration, He delivers us from sin's filth. By the power of His resurrection, He liberates us from sin's dominion. By revealing His beauty, He frees us from sin's love. By making the conscience tender in His fear, He preserves us from sin's practice. The blood of Jesus purifies us from all sin.

Riches of J.C. Philpot – 1802-1869
(Thanks to Hoyt Sparks and Wylie Fulton for this)

Presidents' Day - Presidents' Quotes

In honor of Presidents' Day in the U.S. -- miscellaneous quotes from former Presidents of the United States

"Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest may repair; the rest is in the hands of God." - George Washington

"Old minds are like old horses: you must exercise them if you wish to keep them in working order." - John Adams

"It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." - Thomas Jefferson

"Duty is ours; results are God's." - John Quincy Adams

"It must be felt that there is no national security but in the nation's humble, acknowledged dependence upon God and His overruling providence." - Franklin Pierce

"If wrinkles must be written upon our brows, let them not be written upon the heart." - James A. Garfield

"We Americans have no commission from God to police the world." - Benjamin Harrison

"No man is justified in doing evil on the ground of expediency." - Theodore Roosevelt

"A regret for the mistakes of yesterday must not blind us to the tasks of today." - Warren G. Harding

"There is nothing new in the world except the history you do not know." - Harry S. Truman

"It's hard when you're up to your armpits in alligators to remember you came here to drain the swamp." - Ronald Reagan

"We are not the sum of our possessions." - George Herbert W. Bush

On Church Music - Francis Wayland

One of our essential beliefs is that of the spirituality of the church, that is, that the church of Christ is composed exclusively of spiritual or regenerated persons. As God is a spirit, and those that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth, we have always believed that the real worship of God was performed only by believers. To us, worship, either in public or private, is the offering up to God of holy and devout affections. Hence we believe that no one can be a minister of the sanctuary, unless he be a devout and regenerate man. Hence we believe that to sing the praises of God without really lifting up the heart to him, is in no sense Christian worship, and is, in fact, no acceptable service. Hence our belief always has been that singing is a part of worship which belongs, in a peculiar manner, to the disciples of the Saviour. In this service they, with one voice, utter the confessions of penitence, the triumphs of faith, the confidence of hope, and bow down together with one feeling of holy adoration. Hence our singing was a service of the church, in which others united with them only in so far as they could sympathize with them in the sentiments which they uttered. These are, if I mistake not, our beliefs on this subject, and to it our practice, until lately, conformed. A member of the church selected the tunes, led the singing, and the whole church, and the devout portion of the congregation, united with him in this part of religious worship. Their design was to make melody in their hearts to the Lord.

For these reasons, Baptists formerly were universally opposed to the introduction of musical instruments into the house of God. They asked, "How can senseless things speak the praises of God?"... the singing in Baptist churches was formerly what is now denominated congregational. We had neither choirs nor organs. Nothing but the voices of worshipers was heard in hymning the praises of God, and in this service every devout worshiper was expected to unite... I do not pretend that in this singing there was any artistic excellence. This is never needed in popular music, or that music which is intended to move a multitude of people...The tunes employed were perfectly adapted to religious sentiment, and blended the whole audience in one consciousness of solemn worship. To use the language of Burns -- surely a competent authority -- "They chant their artless notes in simple guise, They tune their hearts, by far the noblest aim: Perhaps Dundee's wild warbling notes arise, Or plaintive Martyrs, worthy of the name; Or noble Elgin fans the heavenward flame, The sweetest far of Scotia's holy lays. Compared with these, Italian trills are tame; The tickled ears no heartfelt raptures raise, No unison have they with our Creator's praise."

Men of piety have begun to feel that it is wicked to substitute a mere musical diversion for the solemn worship of God. Men of correct taste, at least, acknowledge that congregational singing, and solemn and devout music, are alone appropriate to the service of the sanctuary. Whenever a return to the old customs has been tried, it has met with unexpected success. May the reform be universal throughout our Baptist churches.

-- Selected from Notes on the Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches, by Francis Wayland, 1857

Baptists baptizing "infants"?

In general children come into churches at much younger ages than in times past. They probably join earlier in progressive churches as opposed to primitivistic churches, and probably earlier in "Arminian" churches as opposed to "Calvinistic" churches. Whether or not this general observation is really true, what do you think about the relationship of children and church?

1. What biblical basis is there for children coming into churches at very young ages?
2. If you use believers' church and believers' baptism as a basis, why do you think the apostolic church did not seem to have any significant outreach to young children?
3. If children are church members on an equal footing with all other members, how do you feel about their equal vote in church business with mature adult members?
4. How much actual difference is there between baptizing 3 and 4 years olds who can answer the right questions (often as prompted by parents or pastors), and baptizing infants whose parents have faith for them?
5. Why is there a trend among the modern Baptist churches to baptize children at younger and younger ages? (were our forefathers unfaithful? are we unscriptural? are children smarter now, or more spiritual?)

From death to life

Today I heard someone say this:
Most religions are about trying to make good men out of bad men, while the Gospel is about God making living men out of dead men.

Four Dimensions of Love

"That ye, being rooted and grounded in love, May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; And to know the love of Christ..." Ephesians 3

The Depth of Love
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

The Breadth of Love
Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

The Length of Love
Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

The Height of Love
And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

I Corinthians 13:1-13

"Landmarkism" and Today's SBC Church

I made a few comments on some factual inaccuracies in Brother Tim Holmes article Landmarkism and Today's Baptist Church. Apparently it is not admissable to disagree on the "Doctrines of Grace" blog -- or else the comments were too long -- and my comments were deleted. So I am posting them here. The italicized items are Bro. Holmes' words, and the unitalicized items are my response.

"The main reason for the creation of the Southern Baptist Convention was due to an attempted escape of Landmark ideas in the church...The greatest reason for the institution of the Southern Baptist Convention was to move away from Landmark views." I am at a loss to understand the above statement. How could the Southern Baptist Convention, which was organized in 1845, been organized to "escape Landmark ideas in the church"? This is neither consistent with Bro. Holmes' sources nor his own contention that "J. R. Graves, a preacher of that time, is responsible for setting this movement adrift during the 1850s and pressed hard to have the SBC support his views." How could the 1845 organization of the Convention been effected to avoid an ecclesiological viewpoint originating in the 1850s with J.. R. Graves, J. M. Pendleton, A. C. Dayton, et al.?

In another paragraph, Bro. Holmes builds a scenario of Baptist and Church of Christ churches across the road from one another, when "A dynamic Baptist preacher comes to town telling the people that unless they become Baptists, they will not see heaven." I have seen this raised as a common charge against Landmark Baptists, but I have never seen solid evidence presented that this could be anything more than a irregularity among them.

"The most distinct doctrine of Landmarkism was that 'the terms church and God's kingdom were used synonymously with each other. The Kingdom embraced the first church, and now it embraces all the churches.' For Landmarkers, this meant that the Kingdom of God is made up of the sum total of Baptist churches." On this item, I am just curious. This position is taken definitely and clearly by J. R. Graves in his writings. In my experience in Texas, this is not a common idea held by Landmark Baptists. Perhaps the strong emphasis on autonomy and 'local church only' leveled it out? Did it survive with any strength among Landmarkers? If so, when and where?

"The largest portion of Landmark influence can be found today in the church ordinances on baptism and communion…Restricted communion is still enforced to this day in the majority of SB churches because Landmarkers taught that only the true church could take part in the service." There is and has been quite a bit of debate on the history of "restricted baptism", alien immersion, etc. But I think there is no reason to connect the presence of restricted communion in Southern Baptist churches with Landmarkism. I believe it is relatively easy to historically demonstrate restricted communion to be the standard and major position of Baptists. Except for Free Will and General Baptists, Baptists until recent years have been almost universally in favor of it (Of course, the decline of restricted communion is much less recent in the UK as opposed to the US). If it is a "Landmark" issue, why is it prevalent in groups not associated with Southern Baptists long before the rise of Graves -- Primitive, United, Regular, Old Regular, etc.? (The same could be said concerning baptism). If Graves/Landmarkism made an unique contribution in the area of restricted communion, it would be his "local church only" restriction, which was not common in his day. Before (and still by many) it was restricted to baptized church members of like faith and order rather than only members of the participating church. The fact that many opponents of Landmarkism, such as R. B. C. Howell, were also restricted communionists, is somewhat telling.

"A very interesting find about Author and Pastor James Marion Frost wrote in 1888 The Consistency of Restricted Communion. This pamphlet supported Landmark views of communion, but he was the same person who helped start the SB Sunday School Board, of which Landmarkism opposed from it's beginnings (Biography). It appears that Frost could have been either ignorant of true Landmark views, or simply out to please who ever he was around in the denomination at that time." I believe this statement, besides possibly misrepresenting Frost, shows lack of information on both communion, as noted above, and Baptist history regarding Landmark ecclesiology. A number of Landmark Baptist leaders (e.g. Ben Bogard, J. N. Hall, J.. A. Scarboro, J. T. Moore), especially around the turn of the 20th century, opposed the Southern Baptist boards and methodologies -- believing these practices inconsistent with their ecclesiology. An evidently greater number of Landmark leaders (e.g. B. H. & J. M. Carroll, J. B. Moody, J. B. Gambrell) saw no inconsistency with their ecclesiology and their Convention methods. So I see no reason to single out Frost as "ignorant of true Landmark views".

In discussing the essence of the church, Bro. Holmes writes, "The definition of church loses its meaning and is no longer an 'assembly' of people of faith, but a building that we go to on Sundays." This seems to imply that is a natural result of Landmarkism. I find it hard to believe that anyone purporting an extensive knowledge of Landmarkism would make such a statement. I have never heard one Landmark-type Baptist equate "the church" with "the building", but have heard the frequently heard them decry such an idea.

Landmarkism is a frequent "whipping-boy" of other Baptists. If one disagrees with this ecclesiology, so be it. But the details of the disagreement need to be correct. I hope this post will further our knowledge of the subject.

“Martinism” -- a Mississippi Controversy

For history lovers: Bits on “Martinism” – a Mississippi Controversy

Martinism was “[a] controversy which arose about 1893 within the bounds of the Mississippi Baptist Association over the doctrinal views of Matthew Thomas Martin...Briefly, his views were: (1) Men are dead in trespasses and sins and ‘made alive’ by the Holy Spirit, which process is generation. (2) Under proper conditions a sinner is enabled by the Spirit to repent and believe (simultaneously) and then is ‘regenerated’ by the engrafted Word of God,’ which process is regeneration. (3) Thus being completely saved by grace...the believer is to submit to believer’s baptism. (4) The Christian has within himself the witness of full assurance, which depends...on God to keep His word. (5) The true Christian never doubts his assurance of full and eternal salvation. (6) If a professed Christian has doubts that his experience of grace was real, he is still is the bonds of sin. (7) If under favorable conditions the professed Christian has a blessed experience, accompanied by the joys of salvation, this is to be regarded as a genuine experience of grace (...regeneration), and the individual should submit to believer’s baptism.” - From the Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists, Vol. II, p. 825.

This controversy was centered in Mississippi, but affected other areas of the deep south where Martin had been influential as a preacher. Part of Martin’s influence outside of Mississippi was due to his living in Texas and Georgia for about twelve years, and being the business manager of the Mississippi Baptist Record, paper of the Mississippi State Convention. According to writers from the Mississippi Baptist Association, both during and after the controversy, Martin was “a man of fine mental attainments...He has a wonderfully logical turn of mind, and when once his premises are admitted, one is led on step by step almost irresistibly to his conclusions...a man of...courageous convictions.” - Abstract History of the Mississippi Baptist Association for One Hundred Years (1806-1906) by T. C. Schilling. The Mississippi Baptist Association was a local association, and should not be confused with the Mississippi Baptist Convention.

1893 Mississippi Baptist Association minutes: “Immediately after the sermon (by M. T. Martin, rlv) forty persons came forward and said that they then had peace with God and full assurance for the first time.” Martin had just preached from the text Romans 1:16, and had preached a day or two before from II Thess. 2:13 and discussed “Election, work of the Spirit in preparing the heart, faith or belief of the truth, and good works as the fruits of faith.” Perhaps the chief conflict came not from the doctrine itself, but from the proliferation of rebaptisms of these Baptists in their own churches. Martin preached before the Association again in 1894, but in 1895, the association would pass this resolution: “Whereas, it has come to the knowledge of this Association that rebaptism is practiced by the Galilee Baptist church (Martin’s church, rlv) to an unlimited extent, unwarranted by the Scriptures, and, Whereas, there is no diminishing of this heresy – on the contrary, a growing increase; therefore, be it Resolved, That this Association enters her solemn protest against any further practice of this heresy within her bounds, and we do solemnly declare our nonfellowship for it.” It should be understood that the Mississippi Baptist Association was landmarkist and did practice “rebaptism,” so the resolution was directed particularly at the “rebaptisms” caused by Martinism.

In 1896, the doctrinal views of Martin were discussed quite extensively, numerous resolutions were offered from varying angles, but most were tabled. Two were passed. First, to ask the editor of The Baptist Record to allow M. T. Martin and a representative brother from the other side to discuss all the points of the doctrines in question. R. A. Venable, of Meridian, MS, was selected to rebut Martin, but the discussion never materialized. The second resolution that passed stated: “Resolved, That, on the question of rebaptism of one who was formerly baptized in unbelief, it is the right of each church to act in her sovereign capacity.” Evidently all were not satisfied, because in 1897, the association resolved that Martin’s teachings were out of line with regular Baptist teaching and withdrew fellowship from him and his church. They also warned that any church that might call him as pastor would forfeit membership in the association. It seems for the most part, at least in Texas, Martinism had died down by the coming of the 20th century.

Have the doctrinal elements of “Martinism” survived among any group of Baptists, or among Baptists in a particular region?

Video Church

At X Baptist Church in Technology, Texas, the "minister of music" had for a number of years provided all musical accompaniment by tape recording, and all special music was pre-recorded in order to edit mistakes and provide necessary enhancement. The pulpit minister, inspired by his example, determined to record a sermon for the big screen to show while he was away on vacation. He eagerly returned the next Sunday, hoping all had gone well. To his surprise, the pews were empty. He walked down the aisle and found the pews filled with CD players. The auditorium's silence was soon broken by a chorus of electronic amens!

I recently read Ray Van Neste's Video Church and Brett Maragni's Franchising Church blogs, which raise some significant questions. Invention and advance in technology have revolutionized our world. We possess technology unknown to our Baptist forebears -- cars, planes, televisions, telephones, computers, satellites. Instant communication, knowledge of world events and rapid transit abound. Few have stepped forward to advise us concerning these advances. Many advocate embracing all that technology has to offer, and in any manner that it can be used. What is lawful and what is expedient?

Very few folks would object to the use of devices to record sermons for the home-bound. Most would probably object to assembling Sunday after Sunday just to hear a pre-recorded sermon. Where is the "happy medium"? What is lawful and what is expedient?

I would suggest that the following questions might be helpful:

1. Will it violate the scriptural concept of the gathered church?
2. Will it hinder or help worship?
3. Will it introduce an element we would otherwise reject (in a non-technological format)?
4. Does it meet standards of propriety?
5. Does it substitute for and exclude something that God commanded?
6. Will it change any element of actual worship?
7. Will it complicate our worship?
8. Will it cause division?
9. Would it be good if applied generally?

Baptist "Name-Tags" - Are They Helpful?

Often the question is asked - "Which Baptist are you?" So someone responds, "I'm a ____ Baptist." Do we then know what that person believes?

How helpful are "name-tags"? It seems that you and the one to whom you are speaking must have the same concept of the meaning of the names in order for them to be helpful. Do the "name-tags" often used by Baptists (conservative, fundamental, historic, independent, landmark, liberal, missionary, moderate, primitive, reformed, regular, unaffiliated, etc.) have a narrow enough definition to convey an accurate meaning of what one really is? For example, to say one is "independent Baptist" among many of my acquaintances will conjure up the Hyles/Rice type of Baptist. Yet a number of "independent" Baptist churches with which I am familiar are "Primitive" Baptists - almost the exact opposite end of the spectrum. Even to say one is SBC, BBF, etc., while identifying with which body one is affiliated, probably does not really tell much about what the individual believes.

"Name-tags" -- What do you all think? Are they helpful? Are they confusing? Are they divisive?

Singing at Baylor

Baylor Sacred Harp Singing

Saturday February 11, 2006

To be held in the Great Hall, Truett Theological Seminary at Baylor University in Waco, Texas.

Singing will be from the 1991 Edition of the Denson Revision of The Sacred Harp

A singing school/orientation will be held from 9:15 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.; the singing will be held from 10:00 a.m. until around 3:00 p.m., with appropriate breaks for lunch, etc.

Worship

"Worship is bowing all that we are before all that God is." - Gary Parrett, Southampton, MA, from Biblical Training.org

"True worship can only be directed to the true God through Jesus Christ the Mediator, in and by God the Holy Spirit." - Brian Schwertley, Haslett, MI Public Worship of God

"Worship is the adoration flowing forth from a heart which is fully assured of the excellency of Him before whom it bows, expressing its profoundest gratitude for His unspeakable Gift." - Arthur W. Pink, (1886-1952) Worship

"God is both the Subject and the Object of our worship." - Gary Parrett

"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." - John 4:24

"How pleasant, how divinely fair,
O Lord of hosts, Thy dwellings are!
With long desire my spirit faints
To meet th’assemblies of Thy saints.

Bless’d are the saints who sit on high
Around Thy throne of majesty;
Thy brightest glories shine above,
And all their work is praise and love.

Bless’d are the souls who find a place
Within the temple of Thy grace;
There they behold Thy gentler rays,
And seek Thy face, and learn Thy praise." Isaac Watts, 1719

Jesus as the criterion

In the year 2000 when the Southern Baptist Convention revised the Baptist Faith and Message, there was quite a controversy over removing "(t)he criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ" (which wasn't in the original 1925 BF&M). The sentence evidently meant different things to different people. It seemed to be "anathema" to the more conservative, while particularly "holy" to those on the liberal end of the spectrum. Some who held "Jesus as the criterion" denied what many Christians would consider the most fundamental of beliefs.

If the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ, does that mean:
(1). Since Jesus said that Jonah was 3 days and 3 nights in the whale's belly, we should believe that he was? 
(2). Since Jesus said that Sodom was destroyed, we should believe that it was?
(3). Since Jesus said that the flood came in the days of Noah, we should believe that it did?
(4). Since Jesus said that Abel's blood was shed, we should believe he was real and that it was? 
(5) Since Jesus said that in the beginning God made male and female, we should that believe he did?

If the creation account and surrounding stories (i.e. Cain & Abel) are myths (um, I mean allegories), then what lesson would we learn from Jesus implying that Abel was just as real as Zacharias the son of Barachias? (Mt. 23:35). That he really was a person? That we shouldn't undermine the faith of people in their fables? That Jesus didn't know that Abel wasn't really a person? Either way, it would appear that some of the loudest proponents of "Jesus as the criterion" have a little problem.

Nevertheless, there is an issue of dealing with these "stories" in relation to Jesus' use of them. It would seem that there are three possibilities: [1] Jesus was aware that the referenced people and/or incidents were historical, [2] Jesus was NOT aware that the referenced people and/or incidents were not historical, [3] Jesus was aware that the referenced people and/or incidents were not historical. If Jesus were not aware that the referenced people and/or incidents were not historical, perhaps we could forgive him for referencing the stories as if they were. But then it would be hard to accept His claims of deity. If Jesus were aware that the referenced people and/or incidents were not historical, and yet referenced them with no disclaimer, it should at least bring in question why any Christian who doesn't accept their historicity doesn't just use them for lessons and not destroy the confidence of the people in them. But isn't it most reasonable that the Lord of glory KNEW the history and told the truth as He knew it?!

Dependence on Christ

Total Dependence on Christ, (Long Meter)

My faith in weak, my knowledge small;
But for Thy grace, O Lord, I fall.
What I should do, that I forget;
What I should not, I do still yet.

Slow to give thanks, quick to complain --
I hate the sun and curse the rain.
When times are hard, then do I faint;
My heart is frail, I start to pant.

I’m falling fast, hope seems to flee;
But still Thy hand is holding me.
You lift me up 'til heaven I see --
Oh, glorious thought! oh, mystery.

The gracious lot that I am thine
Humbles my pride and soothes my mind.
Oh, precious Lord, my God and Friend,
On Thee alone I must depend.

(1992, by blog author) permission given for free use, with the suggestion of giving proper credit of author and a mention of this site. Thanks.