Are we reaping what we celebrate?
Excerpt from "You’d cry too if it happened to you," by Peggy Noonan
We have all had a moment when all of a sudden we looked around and thought: The world is changing, I am seeing it change. This is for me the moment when the new America began: I was at a graduation ceremony at a public high school in New Jersey. It was 1971 or 1972. One by one a stream of black-robed students walked across the stage and received their diplomas. And a pretty young girl with red hair, big under her graduation gown, walked up to receive hers. The auditorium stood up and applauded. I looked at my sister: “She’s going to have a baby.”
The girl was eight months pregnant and had had the courage to go through with her pregnancy and take her finals and finish school despite society’s disapproval.
But: Society wasn’t disapproving. It was applauding. Applause is a right and generous response for a young girl with grit and heart. And yet, in the sound of that applause I heard a wall falling, a thousand-year wall, a wall of sanctions that said: We as a society do not approve of teenaged unwed motherhood because it is not good for the child, not good for the mother and not good for us.
The old America had a delicate sense of the difference between the general (“We disapprove”) and the particular (“Let’s go help her”). We had the moral self-confidence to sustain the paradox, to sustain the distance between “official” disapproval and “unofficial” succor. The old America would not have applauded the girl in the big graduation gown, but some of its individuals would have helped her not only materially but with some measure of emotional support. We don’t so much anymore. For all our tolerance and talk we don’t show much love to what used to be called girls in trouble. As we’ve gotten more open-minded we’ve gotten more closed-hearted.
Message to society: What you applaud, you encourage. And: Watch out what you celebrate.
-- From Forbes Magazine, September 14, 1992
The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the specific posts linked.
- American College of Pediatricians: Gender Ideology Harms Children -- "Facts – not ideology – determine reality."
- Ben Sasse: U.S. deserves better than Trump or Clinton -- "If you are one of those rare souls who genuinely believe Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are honorable people — if they are the role models you want for your kids — then this letter is not for you."
- California Atty. Gen. Eyes Crackdown on Conservatives -- "Just ask the contributors to Proposition 8 who lost their jobs after those “confidential” names were leaked."
- Georgia pastor charged with stealing $250,000 from church -- "A grand jury indicted the Rev. Corey Megill Brown on 85 counts of wire fraud and 12 counts of mail fraud, according to charges filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court."
- Jesus and The Minimum Wage: Why a Baptist and an Atheist Agree on Economics -- "Dr. Walter Block, an economist and an atheist argued against minimum wage laws, while Christian theologian Dr. Boyd Blundell argued in favor of them."
- No, a Vote for a Third Party (or Abstaining from Voting) Is not the Same as a Vote for Hillary -- "The first and most obvious reason is that a vote for Hillary is a vote for Hillary whereas not voting for her is one less vote than she would receive if you did vote for her."
- Protest planned: Middleton School District officials, parents at odds over so-called “Jesus Lunches” -- "Once a week, a group of moms brings food and offers Bible lessons to students in Fireman's Park next to the school."
- Refuting John Calvin's Three Uses of the Law -- "His famous “three uses of the Law” stand on the foundation of a shaky rock that does not hold up when scrutinized under the lens of New Testament teaching."
- Some reflections on a church that has recently embraced egalitarianism -- "It [trajectory hermeneutic] is a hermeneutic that teaches readers to treat their own notions about justice and fairness as more advanced and developed than that of scripture."
- Supreme Court decides for N.J. police officer in free-speech case -- "When an employer demotes an employee out of a desire to prevent the employee from engaging in political activity that the First Amendment protects, the employee is entitled to challenge that unlawful action."
- The Big Bang Blows Atheism Sky High: Even Science May Eventually Catch Up to God’s Word -- "In my experience it is something common among atheists: an inexplicable, incongruent and visceral hatred for the very God they imagine does not exist."
- The GOP’s Catastrophic Choice -- "Presented with the strongest presidential field in 36 years – filled with accomplished conservatives — you have succeeded in nominating a man who...have chosen as the leader of your party a man who has financially supported Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton..."
- When Church Growth Is Bad -- "In the late 1800s, London pastor Charles Spurgeon...confronted his denomination over the fact that many of them had abandoned the Word of God for modern “church growth” techniques."
- When The Devil Got Saved: The Christian Conversion of Nathan Bedford Forrest -- "The final two years of his life seemed to bear out the truth of his confession. Nathan Bedford Forrest the fierce fighter, gambler, racist, and sinner...was a changed man.
The posting of quotes by human authors does not constitute agreement with either the quotes or their sources.
"We are not required by God to confront a person every time he or she offends us." -- Tim Challies
"God's silences are His answers. If we only take as answers those that are visible to our senses, we are in a very elementary condition of grace." -- Oswald Chambers
"If I reach in my pocket and give you money for food, it's charity. But if I reach in someone else's pocket and give you money for food, it's theft." -- copied
"Your greatest idol is the last thing you are willing to let go of for the sake of the living God and His glory." -- Joel Rainey
"A man who is not obedient to the faith has no basis upon which to consider himself elect." -- Mike McInnis
"I have no desire to build the church, since Jesus said He would build the church and I really don’t want to compete with Him. It’s His church." -- John MacArthur
"Be cautious about those who take wisdom from the world, spiritualize it, and apply it to the church." -- Bud Ahlheim
"One should always remember that all that glitters in organized religion is not gold." -- Wade Burleson
"In Christ, there is nothing I could do that could make God love me more; nothing I have done that makes Him love me less." -- J. D. Greear
"If it wasn't for God's preservation there would be no persevering and then those who don't are not saved, which would be us all!" -- Mikal Smith
"There is no togetherness for the gospel when the victim stands alone." -- James Kessler
"People can abuse both autonomy as well as accountability. Autonomy can be used to justify sin. Accountability can be used to subjugate people." -- Jim Pemberton
White family researcher Mike White found D. P. White’s Civil War records, which indicates he was already living in Texas in 1862. He is described on the roll of prisoners of war captured and paroled by the U.S. Forces at Yazoo City, Miss., May 21, 1863 -- he was a Sergeant in Company C Waul’s 2 Texas Infantry Battalion, had hazel eyes and brown hair, and was 5'8" tall. He has the records posted here:
1st Sgt David P White - Co C - Waul’s Texas Legion
Camp Waul -- “Camp Waul, a Confederate training camp, was at Old Gay Hill, seven miles north of Brenham in Washington County.”
A Baptist day of prayer
- A Day Of Fasting And Prayer -- "The (Kehukee) Association, at this time, being oppressed with a sense of coldness and barrenness among the churches, appointed a day of fasting and prayer..."
- A Discourse on Prayer, 1 Corinthians 14:15 -- "Prayer is a part of religious worship, which is due to God only."
- Agreement in Prayer -- "We must be agreed in good motives."
- Christ's Great Prayer -- "What a remarkable proof of the divinity of Christ; to his antecedent deity!"
- Neglect of Fervent Prayer, Complained of -- "That there were none, or but few praying souls among God’s professing people, in the times referred to..."
- On Fasting and Prayer -- "...Christ himself takes it for granted, 'when thou fastest'...
- "Prayer -- "Prayer climbs the ladder Jacob saw..."
- Prayer Better Than Lawsuits -- "I never intend to pay you until you sue me, and, therefore, you may begin your suit as soon as you please."
- The Most High a Prayer-Hearing God -- "Though he is infinitely above all and stands in no need of creatures, yet he is graciously pleased to take a merciful notice of poor worms of the dust."
- What Is Prayer? -- "But we are now led to believe that the most fervent prayers we have ever offered to God, were indicted by groanings which we could not utter."
- 5 benefits of praying the Psalms -- "...prayers without variety eventually become words without meaning."
The Daily Sentinel has "lit up" with an "editorial" debate about creationism and evolution. Dr. Kenneth Price took on creationism and creationists in an Op-Ed piece on the 29th of April, which I reference HERE. Evidently not satisfied with Dr. Price's performance, SFA's Philip Blackburn entered the fray on May 3rd threatening to rip to shreds any letter to the editor submitted by "fundamentalist" Christians. His bark may be worse than his bite.
First, Mr. Blackburn complains of a bait-and-switch routine with one of his own. He deduces that "The writer on April 24 must get her “science” from the Institute for Creation Research" and then remarks that evolutionism is not a scientific theory. This creates a commotion and cozies up his cozenage. From whence someone gets his or her science is not a refutation of that science. (And there are real scientists at ICR.*) He notes that "Evolutionism is a term that is not used in the scientific field of evolution." Misdirection. Again. The author of the April 24 letter is a layperson using lay language. But Mr. Blackburn knows she is talking about origins and avoids taking that head on in deference to whining about terminology.
Next, Mr. Blackburn tells us "that the age of the universe has been measured with several independent methods that have nothing to do with radiometric dating." (I think radiometric dating is pretty much reserved for the age of the earth, right?) He is correct that there other methods, such as looking for the oldest stars; measuring the ages of long-lived dying stars; and measuring the rate of expansion of the Universe and extrapolating backward. The main reason the old age of the universe is widely accepted by the scientific community -- even the scientific community doesn't claim they are universally accepted by the scientific community -- is because it is derived from different lines of evidence. Of course, these lines of evidence are also based on certain assumptions. He does not go on to tell us that even in the scientific community these broad conclusions are subject to inspection, elucidation, and even replacement.
Finally, the gloves come off. He invents an argument not posited by the author of the April 24th letter -- claiming that she charges "the overwhelming majority of Christians have “eliminated God” from their belief system because they advocate theistic evolution."** Mr. Blackburn attacks "fundamentalists" as a religious cult and inerrantists as idolaters. "The fundamentalists practice bibliolatry." He doesn't know whether the fundamentalists can be saved from their idolatrous ways, but he assures us he "will rip their nonsense to shreds with the sword of truth."
We're waiting.
* In an article directly complaining about creation scientists, Ronald H. Pine still had to be honest enough to recognize many have degrees in some field of science and some are employed as science teachers in high schools, accredited colleges and universities. Some (gasp) even have Ph.D. degrees.
** Maybe with this Blackburn is flaming Mr. Roland Muckleroy, who he jabs in his last paragraph.
The posting of quotes by human authors does not constitute agreement with either the quotes or their sources.
"The religionist who is entrenched in his error must be ferreted out of his false refuges with a solid barrage of unshakable truth." -- Conrad Murrell
"It is alarming how much error we have accumulated simply by adopting the language and practice of the Christianity we have inherited without examining it in the light of the Scriptures." -- Conrad Murrell
"The God that rebuked the prophet by the dumb ass and smote repentance into the heart of a Christ-denying disciple by a cock's voice is not bound by the muted mouths of disobedient men." -- Conrad Murrell
"'Praying the sinner's prayer' has become something like a Protestant ritual we have people go through to gain entry into heaven." -- J. D. Greear
"Even our tears of repentance must be washed in the blood of the Lamb." -- Source unknown, sometimes credited to Jerry Bridges. But in his book The Joy of Fearing God, Bridges cited this as something "one old Puritan is reputed to have said."
"We must always be accepted for Christ's sake, or we can never be accepted at all." -- B. B. Warfield
"Sometimes it doesn’t take a whole bunch of discernment to recognize the smell of hermeneutical road kill that’s trying to be passed off as spiritual barbecue." -- Bud Ahlheim
"A great many evangelical Christians are simply not saved." -- Tom Chantry
"I encourage parents, with very few exceptions, to not send their children to so-called Christian universities. Most of them are not so interested in maintaining anything resembling biblical Christianity as they are in gaining respectability in the world." -- Todd Pruitt
"If ever, as we pass through this wilderness, we feel one drop of solid joy, of true happiness, it must flow, it can flow only from one source—the manifestation of Christ to our souls." -- J. C. Philpot
I was surprised and dismayed on Friday April 29. That day I saw Dr. Kenneth Price’s Op-Ed piece "Evolution and Creationism" in the Daily Sentinel newspaper.[1] I was surprised that there was a felt need (by either the newspaper or Dr. Price) to have a PhD rebut a letter to the editor from a layperson. I was dismayed that Dr. Price’s view is highlighted with about five times the space as Ms. Lynette Sanders’s short letter On evolution and creationism. I think the paper ought to invite some other doctor, scientist or theologian to offer an Op-Ed rebuttal to Dr. Price’s piece. Not expecting that to happen; though I am neither doctor, scientist or theologian I offer here some brief commentary on Price’s piece.
Evolution and Creation “faith-based”
Excusing the evolutionary world-view from the charge of being “faith-based”, Dr. Price writes, “It requires that ‘faith’ be synonymous with a belief in the things that we directly observe, a belief in the power of valid logical thinking to reach conclusions that are absolutely true within our set of assumptions, and a willingness, even a duty, to change those assumptions when the conclusions drawn from them do not conform to new observations. These are three elements necessary for the practice of science.” The problem here is that he leaves out the glue which adheres these elements together in an evolutionary world-view -- yes, faith. Faith must fill in the missing pieces of the puzzle that are not within direct observation and prop up the droops in their logical thinking. Furthermore, not faith, but doctrine often keeps the scientific community -- at least at the point of education of the masses -- continuing to put forth assumptions and conclusions that have long been discredited. Shame, shame.
Radiometric dating of the age of the earth
As to the “radiometric dating of the age of the earth,” Dr. Price stumps around the assumptions of it by giving a parable about dice and the laws of probability.[2] All that aside, while many “radiometric measurements can be verified” other radiometric measurements have been proven false. Dr. Tas Walker has pointed out the following truths: “radio-isotope dates are not a scientific fact but are interpretations driven by the [long-age] paradigm,” and “Radiometric dates are only accepted if they agree with what geologists already believe the age should be.” Very interesting! It seems that Ms. Sanders’s conclusion that radiometric dating is unreliable has a ring of truth to it after all.
Creationists believe the infallible God. Educated people believe Newton's Theory of Gravitation. [3]
In his third point, Dr. Price’s true feelings for religion versus science come through loud and clear. He writes, “In these areas humankind has created a truly universal and highly useful, though not eternally immutable, body of knowledge with none of the mayhem, violence and bloodshed that has in the past, and still does characterize, the spread of religious ideas.” Oh, that we could believe such a claim! Religious ideas cause mayhem, violence and bloodshed while science and mathematics are responsible for nothing. Price implies that if people would leave behind their religion the world would be a much more blissful non-violent place. Atheists, evolutionists and humanists very often claim that religion is the number one cause of violence and war throughout history. This claim is still being repeated, even though it has been debunked. Encyclopedia of Wars, by Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod, documents nearly 1800 wars. The authors categorize 123 of those wars as being religious in nature. This is slightly less than 7% of all wars chronicled by Phillips and Axelrod.[4]
[1] You must have a subscription in order to read the Op-Ed piece at the link above. According to the Sentinel, “Kenneth Price has a Ph.D. in mathematics, has done graduate study in physics and the theory of computation and has had a life-long interest in the study of religion, logic, epistemology and Constitutional issues and interpretation.” Looks like someone called out the big guns against the annoying little believers of Nacogdoches who write letters to the editor!
[2] Evolutionist Jason Rosenhouse tells us “Improbable things happen all the time, you see, and the fact that something is improbable does not mean that it cannot happen.” True; and a little faith, eh?
[3] On the other hand, Isaac Newton was educated and believed in both the Theory of Gravitation and the infallible God!
[4] The authors, both history professors, worked for 10 years compiling this encyclopedia. According to the American Library Association the 3-volume set is “very readable and apparently well-researched” and “would be an excellent purchase for high-school, college, and public libraries.”
In reviewing visits to my blog, I notice that some people find my Who Can Baptize? blog post through the search terms, “Can a deacon baptize?” or “Can a Baptist deacon baptize?”
This is a double-edged question, and one for which one may find two sorts of answers:
- According to accepted church practice, can a Baptist deacon baptize?
- According to the Bible, can a Baptist deacon baptize?
First, according to accepted church practice, can a Baptist deacon baptize? According which church you ask, you will get either a “yes” or “no”. Some Baptist churches flatly will allow no one but ordained elders/preachers to perform baptisms. The division of practice seems to fall roughly into (1) only ordained preachers can baptize or (2) anyone whom the church authorizes may baptize[1] or (3) that any Christian can baptize. According to the latter two ideas a deacon may be allowed to baptize either on the basis of the church asking him to, or simply by the authority that he is a Christian. In the first, the authority is placed in the ordained ministry and the deacon is disallowed from baptizing. A fourth position (and there are probably many other variations) is that performing baptisms are allowed to those who are ordained – the deacons are ordained and therefore allowed to baptize on that basis. (Different churches even vary on whether or not to ordain deacons.) Relying on my experience, I would expect that very few baptisms are actually performed by deacons, even in churches that agree that the practice is acceptable. And when they do they are likely baptizing under iteration 3, in which any Christian can baptize, rather than baptizing as a deacon.
Second, according to the Bible, can a Baptist deacon baptize? This removes the discussion from what is practiced to the underlying rule of our practice, the word of God. Still, some Baptist churches interpret the “rule” differently and still may answer either “yes” or “no”. While this can be a multi-pronged investigation of biblical principle and New Testament practice, for many the decision will be made on the interpretation of Acts 8:12-38. While “the commission” of Matthew 28:18-20 is spoken directly to the apostles, we find in the book of Acts at least two people not among the apostles who baptize – Philip (Acts 8) and Ananias (Acts 9:5,9,18). The Philip who baptizes in Acts chapter 8 is the same Philip of Acts 6:5.[2] This Philip is one of the seven, the first collection of deacons set apart in the church of Jerusalem.[3] If this deacon baptized in New Testament times, there should be little question for us now – according to the Bible a Baptist deacon can baptize.
[1] Many of these might say something like, “Although normally the pastor of a church baptizes and presides at the Lord’s Supper, any member designated by the church could do so.”
[2] This is not Philip the apostle, but the Philip who is mentioned in Acts 6:5. No other disciples named Philip are mentioned in Luke’s history of the Acts. Note: (1) the apostles were not scattered but continued at Jerusalem (Acts 8:1), while Philip was among the dispersion (Acts8:4-5); (2) the apostles are distinguished from Philip (Acts 8:14,18,25); (3) the apostles, but not this Philip, had the power of communicating the Spirit by laying on of hands (Acts 8:14-18); (4) the apostles returned to Jerusalem, but Philip was called to go the way toward Gaza (Acts8:25-26); and (5) Philip passed through many cities preaching until he came to Caesarea, the place where Philip the evangelist is found in Acts 21:8. (A deacon who was preaching would more appropriately be called an evangelist, while an apostle would have been identified as an apostle.)
[3] These were not called deacons in Acts 6, but they performed some of the same duties mentioned in that church office (1 Tim. 3:8-13).The deacons were charged with oversee the distribution of monies and provisions to the needy among the congregation. The word deacon/diakonoi means “servant,” and these men were certainly servants of the church. Someone has noticed, “They could claim the same promise for faithful service that Paul specifically made to deacons in 1 Timothy 3:13.” Though Luke never calls them the noun diakonoi, the verb diakoneo is “serve” in verse 2. There are two offices in the New Testament – elders and deacons – and the calling, setting apart and service of Acts 6 agrees well with the calling, setting apart and service of deacons. One of the early post-apostolic church father, Irenaeus,writing around AD 180, calls Stephen (one of the seven in Acts 6) a deacon (Against Heresies 3.12.10).
Below are some excerpts from confessions of faith in which the compilers address the topic of who had the authority to administer baptism -- sometimes specifically, as in ordained ministers and sometimes more generally, as under the authority of the church. There are many associations and conventions whose articles of faith do not address the subject of the administrator of the ordinances at all. The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 of the Southern Baptist Convention does not, but I have included it here because (1) they are the largest worldwide group of Baptists, and (2) some believe calling it a "church ordinance" implies church authority in administration. The list skews conservative, partly because more conservative churches feel a greater need to address such a topic. The list is presented first chronologically in the order the confession was composed or last revised, and second alphabetically for those confessions for which finding a date was more complicated than I wanted to deal with at the moment.
Chronological
Dordrecht Anabaptist/Mennonite Confession of Faith, 1632
That the apostles, likewise, as faithful followers of Christ, and leaders of the church, were diligent in this respect, with prayer and supplication to God, through the election of brethren, to provide every city, place, or church, with bishops, pastors, and leaders, and to ordain such persons thereto, who would take heed unto themselves, and unto the doctrine and flock, who were sound in faith, pious in life and conversation, and of good report without as well as in the church; that they might be an example, light, and pattern in all godliness and good works, worthily administering the Lord's ordinances--baptism and supper-and that they might everywhere (where such could be found) appoint faithful men who would be able to teach others also, as elders, ordaining them by the laying on of hands in the name of the Lord, and provide for all the wants of the church according to their ability...
London Baptist Confession of 1644
The persons designed by Christ, to dispense this ordinance [of baptism], the Scriptures hold forth to a preaching Disciple, it being no where tied to a particular church, officer, or person extraordinarily sent, the commission enjoining the administration, being given to them under no other consideration, but as considered Disciples.
London Baptist Confession of Faith, 1646
The person designed by Christ to dispense baptism, the Scripture holds forth to be a disciple; it being no where tied to a particular church officer, or person extraordinarily sent the commission enjoining the administration, being given to them as considered disciples, being men able to preach the gospel.
Appendix to the London Confession of Faith 1646, by Benjamin Cox
A disciple gifted and enabled by the Spirit of Christ to preach the Gospel, and stirred up to this service by the same Spirit, bringing home to his soul the command of Christ in His word for the doing of this work, is a man authorized and sent by Christ to preach the Gospel...And such preachers of the Gospel may not only lawfully administer baptism unto believers, and guide the action of the church in the use of the Supper...
Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, 1689 (Also Philadelphia Confession)
26.8: A particular church, gathered and completely organized according to the mind of Christ, consists of officers and members; and the officers appointed by Christ to be chosen and set apart by the church (so called and gathered), for the peculiar administration of ordinances, and execution of power or duty, which he intrusts them with, or calls them to, to be continued to the end of the world, are bishops or elders, and deacons. (Acts 20:17, 28; Philippians 1:1)
28.2: These holy appointments are to be administered only by those who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ. (Matthew 28:19; 1 Corinthians 4:1)
Kehukee Association Articles of Faith (North Carolina), 1777
We believe that no minister has no right to administration of the ordinances, only as are regularly called and come under the imposition of hands by the presbytery.
Primitive Baptist Confession of Faith, Fulton, Kentucky, 1900
...administering baptism by immersion to penitent believers only by ministers of the gospel clothed with authority by the Gospel Church...
Treatise of the Faith and Practices of the Free Will Baptists, 1948
Duties of Ministers. These are to preach the Word, administer the ordinances of the Gospel, visit their people, and otherwise perform the work of faithful ministers.
The Baptist Faith and Message, 2000
Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit...Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper.
Articles of Faith of Baptist Bible Fellowship International, 2002
We believe that Christian baptism is the immersion in water of a believer, in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the authority of the local church...
Articles of Faith of Global Independent Baptist Fellowship, 2002
We believe baptism is the immersion in water of a believer in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by and under the authority of a New Testament Baptist church...
Alphabetical
Articles of Faith of the National Primitive Baptist Convention, USA, Inc.
We Believe that Baptism is the immersion of a believer in water by a proper administrator (an ordained elder) in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost.
Articles of Faith of the Sardis Association of Old Regular Baptist
We believe that no Minister has the right to administer the ordinances and commands of the Gospel except such as are regularly ordained and baptized, and that by immersion by a legal administrator of the Gospel come under the hands of a regularly chosen presbytery of the Church.
Doctrinal Statement of the American Baptist Association
Scriptural baptism is the immersion of penitent believers in water, administered by the authority of a New Testament church in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Doctrinal Statement of the Baptist Missionary Association of America
The Ordinances of the Church--Her two ordinances are baptism and the Lord's Supper...Both ordinances must be administered by the authority of a New Testament church.
Statement of Principles of the Interstate and Foreign Landmark Missionary Baptist Association
...the church, as set up in Jerusalem by the Lord Jesus Christ, and her successors, are the only institutions authorized to administer these Ordinances...
Notes:
- The Kehukee Association (org. 1769) is about the fifth oldest association of Baptist churches in America. Its statement (or slight variations of it) on the administrator of the ordinances was widely disseminated in association articles of faith throughout the South.
- A church or association's statement of administering the ordinances falling under the duties of ministers may not necessarily mean that they strictly limit the administration of ordinances to ministers.
In his book, A Biblical Critique of Infant Baptism, Matt Waymeyer gives 6 reasons why he rejects infant baptism:
- The absence of a direct command
- The absence of a Biblical example
- The absence of compelling evidence
- The breakdown of the circumcision argument
- The discontinuity of redemptive history
- The significance of biblical baptism
Waymeyer says he "made a list of reasons why I personally came to reject paedobaptism, and eventually those six reasons became the six chapters of the book."
Links to various ideas on the subject
The following is an interesting off-topic exchange from a discussion on preaching, in which Bob Cleveland made the strange claim that no one has ever correctly answered why Southern Baptists require immersion to join their churches.*
Bob Cleveland:
"How about preaching about the reason why nobody I’ve asked has ever given me a correct answer ... in terms of our core beliefs ... as to why one must be immersed to join an SBC church?"
Bart Barber:
Just so you won’t be able to say “nobody” any more.
- Baptism IS immersion. Non-immersion is not baptism.
- To refuse to be baptized is deliberate disobedience against Christ, who has commanded us to immerse disciples and to be immersed as disciples.
- The person in deliberate, unrepentant disobedience against Christ is subject to church discipline.
- The person subject to church discipline ought not to be admitted into church membership as though he were not subject to church discipline.
* I suspect it is more that Bob doesn't like the answer than that no one has actually ever answered. Neither Bob nor Bart addressed the odd fact that there are actually Southern Baptists who no longer require immersion as essential to church membership.
Isaiah 5:1-5
1 Now will I sing to my wellbeloved a song of my beloved touching his vineyard. My wellbeloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill: 2 And he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes. 3 And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard. 4 What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes? 5 And now go to; I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard: I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be eaten up; and break down the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down: 6 And I will lay it waste: it shall not be pruned, nor digged; but there shall come up briers and thorns: I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it. 7 For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant: and he looked for judgment, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry.
Isaiah the prophetic songster intones a song to his well-beloved. As he begins the intro, in the third person he sings to or concerning his wellbeloved and his vineyard (1-2). As he builds his rhythm, he shifts to the first person to speak for or as his wellbeloved (3-6). As he closes out, he returns to the third person to explain the meaning of his parable in song (7).
The song is a parable of a vineyard. The wellbeloved chooses fruitful ground, a prime location "in a very fruit hill." He makes full preparation -- removing stones, adding fence, tower, winepress, etc. He selects the finest stock ("planted it with the choicest vine"). The parable paints a picture of a vigneron[1] who spares no effort. Nothing is left undone; no fault can be found. Nevertheless the resulting crop is defective. Wild grapes spring forth in contradiction to expectation of the owner of the vineyard. The main difference between wild and domestic grapes is the care lavished on the domestic!
As Nathan the prophet drew in the sympathy of King David with a sheep and shepherd parable, so Isaiah prepares his hearers for an expected end. No criticism cleaves to the owner. The problem is the vineyard itself (Cf, Hebrews 8:8). What more should happen to this disastrous vineyard than its destruction by the owner? That which is useless will be removed (Cf. Jeremiah 13:7-10; Matthew 5:13; Luke 13:7). He will turn in the beasts of the field to eat it up and tread it down. He will make it a wasteland of briers and thorns. He will withhold the rain. Withhold the rain?? Who is this owner of the vineyard, and what is the vineyard?
The (whole) house of Israel is the vineyard of the Lord of hosts, and the men of Judah to whom Isaiah presently sings his prophecy God's pleasant plant. Wild grapes of their own making have sprung forth -- oppression in place of justice; the scream of anguish in the place of righteousness. If the hearers are naturally drawn to the conclusion of cheering the destruction of the worthless vineyard, what is their hushed answer now that they know the vineyard is none other than themselves?
[1] a person who grows grapes for winemaking
Some have called as the last two-thirds of Isaiah 5 "Judah’s Grapes of Wrath". The prophet pronounces six "woes", interspersed with four "therefores".
Isaiah 5:4-5
...when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes? And now go to; I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard: I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be eaten up; and break down the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down...
The vineyard is Israel, which brought forth these "wild grapes":
- Greed and self-promotion: join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth
- Pleasure and self-indulgence: rise up early in the morning, that they may follow strong drink; that continue until night, till wine inflame them...they regard not the work of the Lord
- Presumption and rash defiance: draw iniquity with cords of vanity, and sin as it were with a cart rope: That say, Let him make speed, and hasten his work, that we may see it
- Perversion and self-vindication: call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness
- Pride and self-satisfaction: wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight
- Power and false judicature: are mighty to drink wine...Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him
The end of the useless field is its destruction.
- Verses 13-16 Therefore...
Appropriate to their self-promotion and self-indulgence in multiplying wealth and pleasure, they will lose their land (go into captivity), experience hunger and thirst, be humbled and be ruined by death and hell (Their appetite meets one more insatiable than their own v. 14, Cf. Prov. 30:15-16). "But the Lord of hosts shall be exalted in judgment, and God that is holy shall be sanctified in righteousness."
- Verses 24-30 Therefore...
Appropriate to their rash defiance, self-vindication, self-satisfaction, and false judicature, the Lord will speedily repay those who challenged "Let him make speed." Those who consented to sin and issued false judgment will now submit to God's justice. The warnings did not appease God's wrath, and now they must prepare to meet God, whose anger is not abated and whose hand is still stretched out in judgment. God will bring against Judah an insurmountable enemy who will exercise his judgment upon them, and there is no turning back.
Cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?
Definitions
self-promotion: the action of promoting or publicizing oneself, especially in a forceful way.
self-indulgence: indulging one's own desires, passions, whims, etc., especially without restraint.
rash defiance: a hasty, daring or bold resistance to authority.
self-vindication: defense or justification of one's thoughts or behavior.
self-satisfaction: excessive satisfaction with oneself or one's achievements; smug complacency.
false judicature: partisan administration of justice.
Follow up: Target CEO Responds to Transgender Bathroom Protests: 'Our Focus on Safety Is Unwavering'
Someone noted, "With Target's new policy, it's unverifiable. You cannot verify a person's intent..."
The article tells us that Target CEO Bryan Cornell insisted "that Target has no plans to reverse its bathroom policy." He defended the stance by comparing this issue to the African-American Civil Rights struggle in the 1960s. Every African-American -- and every thinking person -- ought to be outraged by this. How can anyone suggest and approve of such a comparison? The transgender issue is one going on (or not) in the minds of those affected, and cannot be verified. Racial identity is natural and is easily noticed. These are not the same thing.
The posting of quotes by human authors does not constitute agreement with either the quotes or their sources.
"The free willers admit that God has all power, and knows everything, so even if He did not predestinate the acts of man, He remains (as far as we can see) 'accessory' to them. A snake swallowing a squirrel will try not swallow the tail, but swallowed it must be, and they must swallow the fact that God is the first cause and last end of all things whatsoever." -- John Gordon Crowley
"Theology is simply that part of religion that requires brains." -- G. K. Chesterton
"Once you go astray in your doctrine, you will very soon go astray in your behavior. You can’t divorce doctrine from behavior." -- Martyn Lloyd-Jones
"All who are taught and have learned will come to the Lord Jesus Christ. The same way it is with the man who has just learned he is drowning. When the lifeguard appears, the drowning man will not resist him but welcome him with great urgency and open arms." -- Dennis Lee Dabney
"History is more complicated than most of us want to accept, but it is also this: unchangeable." -- Doug Hibbard
"That very church which the world likes best is sure to be that which God abhors." -- Charles Spurgeon
"The Truth of the matter is this, before [the demoniac of Gadara] saw the Lord Jesus from afar, the Lord Jesus had already seen him from afar off, even from the other side of the Sea." -- Dennis Lee Dabney
The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the specific posts linked.
- A Book on Theology -- "I hope you have a good title."
- Can Your Theology Handle the Book of Lamentations? -- "Mr. or Mrs. card-carrying evangelical, are you quietly ashamed of some of God’s tirades of judgment in the Old Testament?"
- Dr. V. M. Holland's Histories of East Texas -- "In growing up in a rural East Texas community in the 1920’s early in life, you realize the importance of neighbors."
- Is the pope Catholic? -- "The unusual debate has grown so serious, in fact, that on Tuesday evening (April 19), the Jesuit-run Fordham University hosted a panel of Catholic experts titled: “Is the Pope Catholic?”"
- Neil deGrasse Tyson thinks there's a 'very high' chance the universe is just a simulation -- "And if that's the case, it is easy for me to imagine that everything in our lives is just the creation of some other entity for their entertainment."
- Pastor wants SBC to repudiate Confederate flag -- "Southern Baptist Convention resolutions are non-binding statements expressing the views of messengers present and voting at the annual meeting."
- Recessional -- "Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet, lest we forget."
- The Other Side of “Proof-Texting” -- "I have often heard students speak disdainfully of it primarily because of their narrow definition associating it with merely searching for texts that support your one’s doctrinal opinions, assumptions or predilections."
- The smug style in American liberalism -- "Finding comfort in the notion that their former allies were disdainful, hapless rubes, smug liberals created a culture animated by that contempt."
- When Nathan Bedford Forrest Defended the Black Man's Rights -- "...I would encourage an examination of the complete picture of Nathan Bedford Forrest, rather than just a snapshot of his earlier days."
- William T. Thompson did NOT design the Confederate Flag -- "There is a rumor going around right now that the designer of the second flag of the Confederacy was a man named William T. Thompson."
C. S. Lewis once wrote, “Everyone who believes in God at all believes that He knows what you and I are going to do tomorrow.”
My, how things have changed.
While Open Theism isn’t on the radar of many Baptists in their local churches, it is growing in popularity in the theological world. Both the Christianity Today periodical and the Evangelical Theological Society seem to be promoting its acceptance (at the least not warning against it). It is founded in ideas of radical libertarian freewill, and appears, in part, to be an adverse reaction to strong views on the predestination, decrees and purpose of God. It seeks to “reconcile” God’s sovereignty and man’s free will. It is a growing issue, as Martyn McGeown notes, “Open theism is not on the lunatic fringe in Christendom. Leading evangelicals espouse this heresy.”
Open Theism presents an unbiblical view of God. A warped view of God can distort other doctrines, such as God’s wrath, God’s righteousness, the substitutionary atonement, salvation by grace and others. A biblical view of God embraces “God and the Three O’s” -- omnipresence (all present; Proverbs 15:3), omnipotence (all powerful; Revelation 19:6); and omniscience (all knowing; John 21:17). Open Theism disputes most directly God’s omniscience, but this affects thoughts on his omnipresence and omnipotence as well.
Open Theism should be pointed out, warned against and rejected.
God is not a man. He is not like us. “For he is not a man, as I am...(Job 9:32)” “...Thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself...(Psalm 50:21).” “...I am God, and there is none like me. (Isaiah 46:9)”
Open Theism: What Is It?
Open Theism: Against God's Omniscience
Open Theism: Problem Passages
There are some verses and incidents in the Bible that seem to contradict God's outright omniscience in all cases at all times. Let’s look at a few of these that are raised by Open Theists and others.
Did God know where Adam and Eve were hiding?
- Genesis 3:8b-9 “...Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden. And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?”
- Open Theistic Conclusion: God had to look for Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, so he doesn't know everything.
- This example is actually a quite strange objection – very often mentioned but well understood textually even by most of those who don’t believe God is absolutely omniscient. Rather than a confused God who is looking for a couple he can’t find, God is asking a question to draw out the thoughts of his hearers, Adam and Eve. God uses this method again, recorded in Genesis 4:9-10 “And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper? And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground.” It is unquestionably clear that God does not ask this question for his own knowledge, but to draw out the thoughts of his hearer, Cain. This is a common teaching technique.
Did God make a mistake in creating mankind?
- Genesis 6:6 “And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.”
- Open Theistic Conclusion: God made a mistake, not foreseeing what would go wrong with his creation.
- Genesis 6:6 doesn't delve into the arena of knowledge or foreknowledge. It relates what we would describe as “feelings”. On the other hand, verse 3 is about knowledge and foreknowledge, when God unequivocally states what he is going to do: “And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.” In “it repented the Lord” and “it grieved him” we find two of many biblical uses of anthropomorphic language.[1] When the Bible says that the sun rises and sets, it adapts to man-centered language -- rather than using God-centered language. From God’s perspective the sun doesn’t move. From man’s perspective the sun rises and sets. God does as he pleases (Psalm 115:3; 135:6), and in this case it pleased him to “repent” and “grieve” (Daniel 4:35). From their perspective, some men say God did not know what would happen when he created the world. But Isaiah says he knows and declares the end from the beginning. The statement in Genesis 6 is not addressing the knowledge of God from an intellectual standpoint. It is, rather, addressing the concern of God for his creation -- expressing his great displeasure of sin and explaining why he would judge the whole earth.
Is God uncertain of the future?
- Exodus 4:9 “And it shall come to pass, if they will not believe also these two signs, neither hearken unto thy voice, that thou shalt take of the water of the river, and pour it upon the dry land: and the water which thou takest out of the river shall become blood upon the dry land.”
- Open Theistic Conclusion: God gave extra signs, since he didn’t know for sure which ones the Israelites would believe.
- Did God know how the people would react? Yes. Rather than directly telling Moses that he knew they would not immediately respond to the signs, God is preparing Moses -- by demonstrating his power and supplying him with other signs to perform when they respond unfavourably to the first signs. The signs operated just as God designed and foreknew. The continual demonstration of his ample grace increases faith, first of Moses, and then of the children of Israel.
Did God change his mind about Israel because he didn’t know something?
- Exodus 32:11-14 “And Moses besought the Lord his God, and said, Lord, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever. And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.”
- Open Theistic Conclusion: Because of unforeseen circumstances, God was about to wipe out the nation he was creating.
- The Lord knows the way of the righteous and will bless it. The Lord knows the way of the ungodly and shall judge it (Psalm 1:6). God demonstrates both his fierce wrath and ample grace. In “the Lord repented” we again find the biblical use of anthropomorphic language, an expression of God’s “feelings”. In Exodus 32, from Moses’s perspective, God seemed to change. And in the sense of responding conditionally, he did “change” (see Jeremiah 18:5-11; “if that nation…turn from their evil, I will repent”). He answered Moses’s prayer. This is a series of actions demonstrating God’s justice and grace and not a lack of foreknowledge on God’s part (cf. Jonah 3:4b,10; 4:2).
Is there something that never entered God’s mind?
- Jeremiah 32:35 “And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.”
- Open Theistic Conclusion: The thought of sacrificing children was something God was unable to foresee.
- This is an expression of incredulity in the human sense, not a remark on God’s overall knowledge. The statement emphasizes the presumptuous nature of their acts. God did not order it by his law or his prophets, and in no way approved of their actions. It was a grievous sin and an abomination.
Was God surprised by what happened?
- Isaiah 5:3-4 “And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard. What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?”
- Open Theistic Conclusion: God expected something that did not come to pass.
- Was God surprised by the progress of his vineyard? This is a simple manner of expression of truth my means of a parable rather than conundrum concerning God's knowledge. “When I looked that it should bring forth grapes” speaks of the lack of proper and timely response to the work of God, as would by nature occur in a vineyard, and is not expressly saying something about God’s foreknowledge.
The above verses are a small sampling of some of those used by Open Theists to “prove” that God is not omniscient or all-knowing. A Google search will easily reveal other disputed verses, as well as answers to the Open Theist view much better than the ones provided here.
Open Theism: What Is It?
Open Theism: Against God's Omniscience
[1] Anthropomorphic language – “ascribing human form or attributes to a being or thing not human, especially to a deity” (Dictionary.com) Anthropomorphic language in the Bible presents God in human terms that we might have some human understanding of and empathy with his actions.
"The term “anthropomorphism,” in its restricted sense, refers to the representation of God with the forms of humanity (such as an arm or hand). “Anthropopathism” refers to the representation of God with the feelings of humanity. “Anthropopraxism” refers to the representation of God with the activities of humanity." -- From Recognizing and Interpreting Anthropomorphic Language
