Salvation personally experienced

"Anyone who cannot testify of a mighty work of God seizing and overwhelming his whole frame has not known saving grace. Those who profess that they can't remember a time when they weren't saved, need to tremble that their salvation is self-wrought and self-taught, even though their lives and works may be consistent with Biblical instruction. Have I gone too far? These distinctions are nearly incapable of verbal expression without the danger of being misunderstood, accused of some exaggeration, or actually espousing unBiblical thought." - Richard T. Smith

"The Lord will happiness divine
On contrite hearts bestow;
Then tell me gracious Lord, is mine
A contrite heart, or no?" - William Cowper

Christian culture

Disturbances arise in the minds of the children of God over reconciling normative apostolic practice and the practice of their own cultures (the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of racial, religious and/or social groups.)

Christian culture is created in Christ and prescribed in the New Testament. Though times change and cultures differ, the Christian culture is unique and exists independently. The way that Christians and churches relate to culture in any place and time may change according to those times and places. But the culture of gathering believers -- which exists outside of and independently from world governments, cultures, and standards -- is universal and permanent, having neither command to change nor necessity to conform.

A Soft Pillow for a Tired Heart

Romans 8:28 is "A soft pillow for a tired heart" - R. A. Torrey

The Promise: "And we know all things work together for good"

The People of the Promise: "them that love God...them who are the called according to His purpose"

The God of the Promise: "...God..."

For us to find this passage a soft pillow for the tired heart, the God of the promise must not be the god of natural religion. Natural man approves a religion in which man is doing what he will, while God is trying to do what He can.

The God of the promise is a Sovereign God who possesses unlimited power, else He would not be able to work all things together for good. The God of the promise is an immutable God who is not susceptible to change, else we could not know all things work together for good, but perhaps wonder whether He will change His mind. The God of the promise is a compassionate and benevolent God who has a genuine care for His people, else He would not be working good. The God of the promise is a determinate God who has a definitely settled purpose, else this could not be all working according to His purpose.

"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."

"Ye fearful saints, fresh courage take;
The clouds ye so much dread
Are big with mercy and shall break
In blessings on your head.
His purposes will ripen fast,
Unfolding every hour;
The bud may have a bitter taste,
But sweet will be the flower." - William Cowper

Has God done all He Can?

"What do you mean by praying that God will have mercy upon all men, and save them with an everlasting salvation, and then tell the congregation that God has done all He can to save them, and the matter rests with them, whether they will be saved or not?...if God has done all He can, why pray for Him do more? And if He has not done all He can, why tell the people He has?" - William Gadsby

Think about it.

William Gadsby (1773-1844) was a minister of the Strict and Particular Baptists in England. For 38 years he was pastor of the Strict Baptist church at Manchester, England and was the first editor of The Gospel Standard. He compiled a selection of hymns (including his own) and published them as a hymnbook entitled A Selection of Hymns for Public Worship.

Are Arminians "Saved"?

Yep, I knew that would get your attention. Right now, some Southern Baptists are debating whether persons baptized in churches that do not believe in eternal security can serve as international missionaries. A lesser controversy debates whether those holding Arminian ("free will") theology are even saved. I ran across this curious brand of "Calvinism" on a website called Outside the Camp. I have never before heard those who believe the Doctrines of Grace (commonly called TULIP or Calvinism) express the idea that Arminians (as a group) are not saved. Would you take that position? Have you ever heard others take such a position? Those espousing this seem to come to an odd position that turns their own doctrine on its head and sounds more like works for salvation than grace!

Three Reasons Why Arminians are not Saved by Christopher Adams

Reason Number One: Arminians are not saved because they worship an idol.
Reason Number Two: Arminians are not saved because they do not believe the truth.
Reason Number Three: Arminians are not saved because they hate the truth.

Wow!??

Southern Baptists, an Unregenerate Denomination

I am not posting this to slam Southern Baptists, but rather because I found it an interesting article that addresses the problem of unregenerate church members. Jim Elliff IS a Southern Baptist. He writes this not as a cheering outsider, but as a concerned insider.

Read this not to say, "I am not as this publican," but rather to say, "Lord, have mercy on us all." The clip below is posted to develop a taste for the entire article, which can be found from the link near the end of this blog.

"How are you doing?" "Pretty well, under the circumstances." "What are the circumstances?" "Well, I have a very effective arm. It moves with quite a bit of animation. But then I have my bad leg." "What's wrong with it?" "I guess it's paralyzed. At least it doesn't do much except twitch once a week or so, but that's nothing compared with the rest of me." "What's the problem?" "From all appearances, the rest is dead. At least it stinks and bits of flesh are always falling off. I keep it well covered. About all that's left beyond that is my mouth, which fortunately works just fine. How about you?"... Like the unfortunate person above, the Southern Baptist Convention has a name that it is alive, but is in fact, mostly dead (Rev. 3:1)...Out of Southern Baptist's nearly 15.9 million members, only 5.2 million, or 32.8%, even bother to show up on a given Sunday morning, according to the Strategic Information and Planning department of the Sunday School Board (1997).

Copyright © Jim Elliff 2005 Christian Communicators Worldwide
For the rest of the article, visit Christian Communicators Worldwide:
Southern Baptists, an Unregenerate Denomination

"Tis a point I long to know
Oft it causes anxious thought;
Do I love the Lord, or no?
Am I his or am I not?" - John Newton

A Riddle

Just for fun

I ran across this riddle many years back. I don't know the original source. Can you find the answer and appropriate Scripture references? Figure it out and leave your answer in the comments. Don't look at the comments until you have the answer.

My aunt became my mother-in-law,
My cousin was my spouse;
Which made complex relationships
For members of our house.

My sister was my wife-in-law,
If you know what I mean;
But I produced the favored sons,
Though one I've scarcely seen.

The Average Baptist

“The average Baptist is a plain, straight thinking person. He may be a great scholar, or a hod carrier, but, in religion, he takes on the complexion and manners of the New Testament. He believes in simplicity. He likes plain preaching and simple worship. If the choir, by any machination of the devil, falls under the lead of any professional musician and is turned to singing tunes with the delirium tremens, the average Baptist is grieved, and solaces his soul by singing ‘How Firm a Foundation’ or ‘Amazing Grace’...The average Baptist takes no stock of Easter, and the like, not that he does not believe in the resurrection; not that people may not observe days; but, like Paul, he is skittish of these extras and prefers the plain, old, level Jordan road, with a steady incline up, all the way till it reaches the city of God.” -- J. B. Gambrell, from The Baptist Standard, May 1907

I love Gambrell’s imagery: The average Baptist prefers the plain, old, level Jordan road, with a steady incline up, all the way till it reaches the city of God. I fear (though I hope I am wrong) that almost one hundred years after Gambrell wrote this, the “average” Baptist may no longer take on the complexion and manners of the New Testament. May God help us if this is so. RLV

“How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord,
Is laid for your faith in His excellent Word!” -- from Selection of Hymns from the Best Authors, 1787

James Bruton Gambrell (1841-1921) was born in South Carolina, raised in Mississippi, lived in Georgia, and later came to Texas. He was a Southern Baptist pastor, educator, and denominational leader; editor of the Baptist Record 14 years; President of Mercer University; editor of The Baptist Standard; and President of the Southern Baptist Convention 1917-1921.

The "Urgency" of Baptism

Command, precept, and example are all in favor of baptism following profession of faith as soon as possible.

EXAMPLE

The biblical account possesses a surprising consistency -- believers professed Christ and were then baptized, without lengthy delays.
[1] The day of Pentecost -- about 3000 gladly received the word and were baptized the same day (Acts 2:41)
[2] Following Pentecost -- people were being saved and added to the church daily (Acts 2:47)
[3] In Samaria -- when they believed, they were baptized (Acts 8:12)
[4] Eunuch of Ethiopia -- believed and was then baptized (Acts 8:36,37)
[5] Cornelius' gathering -- believed and were commanded to be baptized (Acts 10:44-48)
[6] Lydia -- heard the truth and was baptized (Acts 16:14,15)
[7] Philippian jailer -- baptized the very night he (and his family) believed; didn't even seem to wait until morning (Acts 16:31-33)
[8] The Corinthians -- were baptized when they believed (Acts 18:8)
[9] Twelve Ephesians -- heard the truth and were baptized (Acts 19:1-7)
[10] Paul -- seems to be a possible exception, but notice that on the road to Damascus there was evidently none who could baptize him and when the Lord sent Ananias to tell him what to do, he was immediately baptized (Acts 9:5,9,18).

PRECEPT

One precept is identity. Baptism identifies us with Christ in His baptism and testifies that we are following Christ. This identification should not be delayed. Our obedience and identification prepare us to walk in newness of life. Raised out of a watery grave, we are pictorially raised to walk in newness of life (Romans 6:4). Death to sin, burial of the old man, and resurrection to new life are officially announced. A second precept is gospel order. The gospel order is -- received the word, baptized, added to the church, continuing in doctrine and fellowship, and breaking of bread (Acts 2:41,42). The Lord was adding to the Jerusalem church daily, such as should be saved; then they were baptized (or else not added to the church daily, since baptism precedes church membership), Acts 2:47. To preach the duty and necessity of church membership, the necessity of baptism to precede church membership, and then postpone baptism, is to deny in practice the truth we preach.

COMMAND

Baptism is a command of God to the convert (e.g. Acts 2:38; 10:48) and to the church (Matt. 28:18-20). Should obeying God be delayed? Is not a church guilty when it encourages sloth, even inadvertently, about obeying one of God's commands? How much more, possibly, this first command? Baptism is the first act of obedience required by God of the believer. Obedience should not be delayed. The evidence is heavily weighted in favor of baptisms sooner rather than later.

I understand some of the reasons raised in favor of delaying baptism. I also strenuously object to the easy-believism pseudo-evangelistic methods that are often associated with "quick" baptisms. Nevertheless, our reasons and objections are invalid in light of New Testament command, precept, and example.

The idea is not that if one professes faith at 11:55 a.m. that he or she must be in the water by 12:00 noon. The idea is that once one has professed faith, what scriptural hindrance is there between that and his/her baptism? The eunuch said, "What doth hinder me to be baptized?" How did Philip answer? "There are too many logistical problems, we'll have to put it off for awhile"? "Let's try to schedule it so Mom & Dad can be there"? or "After you've had a few classes on Baptist doctrine, I'll get back to you"? No! It was, "if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest." Philip could not baptize the eunuch until they arrived at the body of water, but when they were there, and there was a legitimate profession, there was NOTHING else that stood in the way of his baptism. If that's not a good Bible principle I don't think I'm capable of seeing one!

The order of the commission seems to be evangelism, then baptism, then instruction (Matt. 28:18-20). I am NOT saying that a person's baptism is not valid because it is delayed. I AM saying that our reason for delaying is not valid. This will succinctly sum up my position -- If a church accepts a person's profession as genuine, there is neither Biblical example nor doctrinal reason to delay baptizing that person.

"Christians, if your hearts are warm,
Ice and snow can do no harm;
If by Jesus you are prized,
Rise, believe and be baptized." - John Leland

Happy Anniversary 1937-2006

Sixty-nine years ago today, January 9th, 1937, Charlie Vaughn and Adelaide Chapman were united in matrimony in Rusk County, Texas. Sixty-nine years later they are still together in Rusk County, Texas. With the exception of a year or so during World War II, they have spent very few of some 25,200 days apart. Happy anniversary, Mom & Dad!

"Thus far the Lord hath led me on,
Thus far His power prolongs my days" - Isaac Watts

Who Can Baptize?

Who Can Baptize? Anyone? Any believer? Any baptized believer? A church? Anybody a congregation chooses to authorize? Any ordained minister? The apostles?

We have discussed this on an e-mail list I'm on. Also a disagreement over a policy of the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention about who is authorized to baptize has brought the question to the forefront in Baptist blogging communities. If one Convention of Baptists cooperating together and supporting the same program cannot agree on who can baptize, how much more so among all the different groups of Baptists?

Who can baptize? How can we know who can baptize? The Bible must decide the question. Surely the apostolic understanding of Jesus' command must inform us on who can baptize. When they undertook to obey the command of Jesus Christ, how did they perform it? Who baptized? Let us look at the command and the examples, and consider the precepts (teaching) in the Bible concerning baptism to see whether they shed light on the subject.

COMMAND (often referred to as the Great Commission)
Baptism is a command of God to be performed (Matt. 28:18-20) and to be submitted to (e.g. Acts 2:38; 10:48). The command to baptize is found in Matthew 28:18-20 (compare also Mark 16:15-18; Luke 24:46-49; and Acts 1:8). The order of the command is make disciples, baptize, and teach. The fact that baptism is commanded to be performed suggests that those commanded, and no others, are the proper administrators of baptism.

Within the immediate context, most accept that Jesus was speaking to and commanding the apostles. For example, John Gill (commenting on Matt. 28:18) wrote, "…the following words were only spoken to the apostles." Most would probably agree that only the apostles were present when Jesus gave this commission (e.g.: v. 16 - "Then the eleven disciples went..."), though some in harmonizing the gospels may dispute this. If Jesus was speaking to the apostles, it is possible to understand the command in the following ways -- to the apostles as apostles; to the apostles as church representatives; to the apostles as preachers; to the apostles as individual believers. It is possible that He could also speak to them as members of the human race, but I suppose most would not think of that as applicable to this discussion.

EXAMPLE
If I have examined the Scriptures correctly and thoroughly, there are about ten examples of baptisms after Jesus gave the above-mentioned command to the apostles. Certainly this is not all the New Testament era baptisms, but I believe this exhausts the descriptive accounts in the book of Acts. In some cases, the account specifies the administrator. In others, the administrator is easily surmised, while in other cases, the administrator may be assumed, but cannot be definitely identified. Here are the accounts in chronological order: [1] Acts 2:41; [2] Acts 8:12; [3] Acts 8:13; [4] Acts 8:36-38; [5] Acts 9:5,9,18; (cf. Acts 22:16) [6] Acts 10:44-48; [7] Acts 16:14,15; [8] Acts 16:31-33; [9] Acts 18:8 (cf. I Corinthians 1:14-16); [10] Acts 19:1-7. Baptism is also mentioned in Acts 1:5, 22; 10:37; 11:16; 13:24 -- all in reference to John’s baptism.

The baptisms recorded in Acts may be reasonably, though not indisputably, categorized in the following manner:

Administrator known
Samaritans -- Philip baptized believing Samaritans (Acts 8:12)
Simon the sorcerer -- Philip baptized Simon (Acts 8:13)
Eunuch of Ethiopia -- Philip baptized the eunuch (Acts 8:36-38)
Saul/Paul -- Ananias baptized Paul (Acts 9:5,9,18)
The Corinthians -- some were baptized by Paul (Acts 18:8), though most were not (cf. I Corinthians 1:14-16)
Twelve Ephesians -- Paul baptized twelve men in Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7)

Administrator assumed
Cornelius' gathering -- Peter commanded them to be baptized and probably performed it, though the text is not specific (Acts 10:44-48)
Lydia -- heard the truth and was baptized, presumably by Paul, but Luke, Silas or Timothy probably can’t be ruled out (Acts 16:14,15)
Philippian jailer -- evidently Paul or Silas baptized the jailer and his household (Acts 16:31-33)

Administrator unknown
The day of Pentecost -- the Apostles are the generally assumed administrators, though the text does not specifically say (Acts 2:41)
The Corinthians -- Paul did not baptize all of them (I Corinthians 1:14-16); plausible candidates include Silas, Timothy, Apollos and Peter.

Those who have a different point of view could argue against some of these as I have assigned them. The eunuch and several named in Corinth are indisputable as to the administrators. The baptisms in Samaria by Philip should be an objective conclusion, since no one else is mentioned with him. Ananias baptizing Paul seems reasonable. Most others cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and some people hold that the 'rebaptisms' of Acts 19 are not actual baptisms at all. All references emphasize the candidate -- "be baptized", in the passive voice -- except two, which emphasizes the administrator in the active voice (Acts 8:38 & I Cor. 1:14, 16).

The known cases show that the command was not given to the apostles exclusively, because not all administrators were apostles. The examples that are certain or somewhat certain point to church officers, ministers or apostles as the administrators of baptism. They do not show that all believers indiscriminately were performing baptisms. Those who hold that anyone can baptize might argue that the unknown cases leave room for their position. But there is only silence and no support. The Biblical emphasis is on the candidate, not the administrator. This does not mean that the administrator does not matter.

PRECEPT
Is there anything in the teaching, nature or meaning of baptism that requires an authorized administrator? These passages in the epistles address the subject: Romans 6:3-4; I Corinthians 1:14-17; 10:2; 12:13; 15:29; Galatians 3:27; Ephesians 4:5; Colossians 2:12; Hebrews 6:2; and I Peter 3:21. I see no strong argument from the nature or meaning of baptism concerning the administrator. We, having put on Christ, are baptized into His death and raised to walk in newness of life. One precept that might be related is identity. Baptism identifies us with Christ in His baptism and testifies that we are following Christ. If we are identifying as followers of Christ, we would not want to be identified in baptism by someone who is not a follower of Christ. A second precept that might apply is gospel order. The gospel order is -- received the word, baptized, added to the church, continuing in doctrine and fellowship, and breaking of bread (Acts 2:41,42). If we consider this as a matter of continuous replication, it could be important that the administrator is within this continuum. Thirdly, we might consider the "one baptism". If there is only one baptism, should the administrator have that one baptism? Even if one admits the above conclusions (e.g., some believe the "one baptism" is spiritual rather than water baptism), at most they suggest an administrator who is a baptized believer. Many would point to Paul’s teaching in I Corinthians 1 ("Christ sent me not to baptize", etc.) as portraying the administrator of baptism as insignificant. But nothing in the precepts would contradict limiting authorized administrators to persons acting in a ministerial capacity.

Can anyone baptize? NO. The command clearly WAS NOT given to unbelievers. So immediately we know the lowest common denominator for an administrator -- a believer, a follower of the way. The following we can safely assert: those who baptized in early New Testament times were believers who had been baptized and were part of Jesus' gathered church. All known cases were persons acting in a sort of ministerial capacity -- apostle, evangelist (or deacon), and one directly commissioned to baptize (Ananias, possibly an elder at Damascus). Command and example favor this as the normative practice of the church.

The "Rebaptisms" of Acts 19

Acts 19:1-7 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. And all the men were about twelve.

Why did these people at Ephesus need baptism? They were baptized "unto John's baptism". A number of ideas have been posited -- because they had not received the Holy Spirit; they "were not saved"; that John's baptism was not "Christian baptism", and perhaps others. I think these are untenable, though I am not sure I can offer an alternate explanation.

The first two are usually tied together in the minds of folks that hold the idea. They did not have the Holy Spirit, so therefore they had not been born again, saved, regenerated, or whatever terminology they use to refer to faith in Christ through believing the Gospel. For example: "Rebaptism in the New Testament seemingly occurred only when a group of people never had received the Holy Spirit, who is the seal of salvation. Although the dozen people had John's baptism, they were then properly baptized as they trusted in Jesus and received the promised Holy Spirit." But this interpretation creates a problem with the Samaritan believers' experience (see Acts 8:5-17). The believers in Samaria were baptized, then afterwards the Apostles came to Samaria and laid their hands on them, and they received (same as Acts 19) the Holy Ghost. They WERE NOT "re"baptized. Compare the similarities of Acts 8:14-17 and Acts 19:6. If the absence of the manifestation of the Holy Spirit invalidated the baptism of these Ephesians, why not the Samaritans? Consider also that these Ephesians are plainly called "disciples" and "believers".

Something lacking in John's baptism is another main reason given for these folks needing to be baptized. Apparently a number of the Anabaptists so believed. The Easton Illustrated Dictionary states, "John's Baptism was not Christian baptism...those whom John baptized were rebaptized by Paul." But consider: (1). John's authority was from heaven. Compare Matthew 21:25-27 and John 1:6. (2). John the Baptist preached the Holy Ghost (of whom they professed they had not heard). Compare v. 2 & Matthew 3:11. (3). John required evidence of repentance (Matt. 3:8), and no one can experience it without the influence and work of the Holy Ghost. (4). Their answer (v. 3 "Unto John's baptism"; eis to Ioannou baptisma) implies that they were not actually baptized by John, but perhaps by someone following his teachings. John was beheaded probably a year or so before the crucifixion of Jesus. The events in Acts 19 occurred as much as 25 years after the death of John the Baptist. (5). Apollos, a disciple of John ("knowing only the baptism of John", Acts 18:25,26) was not "re"baptized. He only needed further instruction, which he received from Aquilla and Priscilla.

If not these, then what? I would like to follow the interpretation of John Gill, who wrote, "...these are the words of the Apostle Paul, giving an account of John's baptism, and of the success of his ministry, showing, that his baptism was administered in the name of the Lord Jesus..." In other words, in verse 5, Luke is still recording what Paul is saying about people being baptized by John, rather than stating that the Ephesians were baptized. If Gill is correct, no actual baptisms occur in the Acts 19:1-7 pericope. Just discussion of John's baptism. As I said, I would like to follow Gill -- seems to wrap up and cut off any further questions about "re"baptism. I just can't see it fitting the sentence structure and context.

That leaves me with only one other option of which I can think -- these disciples in Ephesus had been baptized by someone who had heard John preach the Messiah and then picked up an incomplete message and ran with it. This person would have been unauthorized to adminster John's baptism. This is similar to the position laid out by Elder David Pyle, "...those people were rebaptized. This was done notwithstanding the fact that those people were sincere in their convictions when they were first baptized, and notwithstanding the fact that the Bible considered them to be believers when they were first baptized." I certainly hate to hang theology out on many supposes, but I've not been given a better answer.

Comments? Enlightenment?

In Memory - Mark Dudley Matlock: 1959-2006

Mark Matlock died Thursday January 5 in a car accident. He was 46 years old. He was a member of the Union Springs Baptist Church, where his father is the pastor. In addition of son to Bro. & Sis. Glenn Matlock, Mark was husband to Marilyn, father to Rebecca and Paul, brother to John and Rachel, and friend to many. May God comfort his loved ones.

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

Biblical Principles for Church Music (3)

SUMMARY

* Jesus put his stamp of approval on audible group singing by the church in gathered worship. The gathered church should sing songs that praise God. Singing outside of the gathered church is acceptable to God as well as that in the congregation.
* The contented Christian finds reasons to praise God in all situations. Singing is appropriate on occasions that may seem inappropriate by worldly standards. Praying and singing are a powerful combination.
* Singing with a musical instrument does not inhere in the Greek word “psalmos.”
* Songs should have meaningful content. Songs that are unintelligible should be avoided. Songs should engage both mind and spirit. Keep in mind the edification of the WHOLE congregation.
* The heart, more than the voice, should be “in tune.” God must be the focus of the song service. The church music should aid and not impede us in worshipping God in spirit and in truth.

PRINCIPLES VERSUS LAW

Principle = a basic standard that is accepted as true and that can be used as a basis for reasoning or conduct

Law = a legal document or body of rules of conduct binding upon human society and governing activity

Many people would rather have a law than a principle because it is easier (requires less thought and less work), and, like the Pharisees, when it is performed they can feel like they have done all that God requires. What in the world do I mean? Let me give an example that may illustrate. The Baptists that originally came to East Texas did not believe that tithing was a New Testament command, but rather that it was part of the Law of Moses. Instead of teaching tithing they taught the principle of giving as God prospered and giving out of love. The law said 10%, but the principle did not tell the individual exactly how much to give; he had to work it out himself. Some (misers) did not want anything at all to be taught concerning giving. Along came preachers (first, the SBC’ers, then the BMA’s & Independents) and taught that the tithe was a command for the New Testament church. At first, many fought it, but it was gradually accepted. Where once people did not apply the principle and give as they should, now many ONLY give 10% and believe they have done all God has required them to do!

This kind of mentality applies in the question of church music. Some want a law that explicitly says what music may or may not be used. They are comfortable with that. Others do not want anyone to mention anything about music being good or bad. Let everyone decide for themselves and do what they want. A Biblical principle requires study and thought about how it should be applied. It places great responsibility on us. With music, if we honestly and inwardly consider principles such as the ones we have discussed here, we will at times find songs that we love and enjoy do not really fit God’s principles for music. We may fight it, because there is no law that says we can’t listen to it. But remember, we know these principles (at least some of them), and we will give an account to God.

Why didn’t God just lay down laws for all these things? Wouldn’t that have been much easier? If he had, he would have given a law for every single situation in which we might find ourselves, and we would have to know every law for every situation. Principles may be applied broadly as we run into the different situations and problems of life. This also allows us room to grow in grace, and individual soul liberty. But let’s not use that liberty for license.

Biblical Principles for Church Music (1)
Biblical Principles for Church Music (2)

Biblical Principles for Church Music (2)

Matthew 26:30: “And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.” (cf. Mk. 14:26) Hebrews 2:12: “...in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.”

The “they” of the Matthew 26 is the Lord Jesus and his apostles. After the Lord instituted his supper, He and the apostles sang an hymn and departed into the mount of Olives. The Hebrews passage alludes to Jesus and prophecy concerning him, and indicates He sang praise in the midst of the church (congregation). In light of this, and the Ephesians & Colossians passages, it is amazing to me that Baptists had a controversy over whether to sing when gathered as a church. Beginning in the old country and ending in the new, Baptists in the 1600-1700’s were divided over whether or not to sing. The Philadelphia Association even added a statement concerning “Of Singing of Psalms in Public Worship” to the 1689 London Confession, concluding that it was ordained of God for public assemblies.

Some Conclusions:

1. Jesus put his stamp of approval on audible group singing by the church when He instigated and participated in it in gathered worship.
2. The tradition of closing the Lord’s supper with an hymn is good one based on precedent.
3. The gathered church should sing songs that praise God.

James 5:13: “Is any among you afflicted? let him PRAY. Is any merry? let him SING psalms.” Acts 16:22, 24-25: “...beat them...and made their feet fast in the stocks. And at midnight Paul and Silas PRAYED and SANG praises unto God...” Singing is most often associated with happiness and merriment (cf. Matt. 11:17). But we must keep in mind that Christian joy differs from that of the world. In Philippi, in jail, Paul and Silas were both afflicted and merry, as revealed in their prayers and singing. Jesus sang an hymn with his disciples just before going into agonizing prayer in the garden. Paul and Silas sung in jail after being beaten and put in stocks. With the peace that passeth all understanding and joy unspeakable offered to us by our Lord, we find reasons to praise God in all situations. “Although the fig tree shall not blossom, neither shall fruit be in the vines; the labour of the olive shall fail, and the fields shall yield no meat; the flock shall be cut off from the fold, and there shall be no herd in the stalls: Yet I will rejoice in the Lord, I will joy in the God of my salvation.” Habukkuk 3:17-18

Some Conclusions:

1. The contented Christian finds reasons to praise God in all situations.
2. Singing is appropriate on occasions that may seem inappropriate by worldly standards. (Might James 5 imply that singing is not always appropriate, such as singing when one ought to be calling the elders of the church?)
3. Singing outside of the gathered church is acceptable to God as well as that in the congregation.
4. Praying and singing are a powerful combination.
5. Singing with a musical instrument does not inhere in the Greek word “psalmos.” (Many teach that “psalmos” MEANS to sing with musical accompaniment. It may allow for that, but does not MEAN that).

Biblical Principles for Church Music (1)
Biblical Principles for Church Music (3)

Biblical Principles for Church Music (1)

Specific scriptures from which we may derive principles for Church Music

Controversy over music has a long-standing tradition in Baptist circles. Some of the past controversies include: whether to sing or not; whether to use the Psalms or “hymns of human composure;” whether usual singing (lining out hymns) or regular singing (using musical notation); whether to use round or shaped notes; and whether or not to use instruments.

The best approach to church music is to develop principles based on the teachings of the Bible, and then apply those principles to songs and singing to determine if they are scriptural and appropriate for the congregational worship context.

I Corinthians 14:15: “...I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with understanding also.”

Singing should take place with the mind engaged. Therefore, the words should be meaningful and intelligible. We should take thought of what we are singing. Meditate on it. We should not be singing by rote -- if we are not careful we are singing just by memory with no real thought of what we are saying. We also should not adopt a song merely because it has a catchy tune. The words must be meaningful. BUT, while unintelligible songs are worthless, so are those driven by intellectualism alone. Singing is a spiritual exercise, and even the best words become lackluster if there is no “feeling,” no “reality,” no “spirit.” To sing spiritually we must first have the Spirit, and then be in a worshipful attitude toward God. The mind does not exclude the Spirit, nor the Spirit the mind.

Colossians 3:16: “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly with all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.”
Ephesians 5:19: “Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;”

First, notice that in Colossians singing is associated with the Word and in Ephesians with the Spirit (v. 18). This is in agreement with I Cor. 14:15, and emphasizes that the Spirit and the Word are complimentary, not contradictory. The tri-directional purpose may be seen both in Colossians and Ephesians: (1) to others, “teaching and admonishing one another;” (2) for one’s self, “in your hearts;” (3) to God, “to the Lord.” Singing is a congregational exercise, not merely for the enjoyment of a single individual or a few individuals. Even those who can’t or won’t sing may be taught, admonished, and spoken to through the song. It must have a meaning, and through the song the congregants speak to one another. Though singing can and will be enjoyable, it is not merely for entertainment. One is not singing just for the benefit of others; it must come from the heart. It must come from God. Singing is worship, and worship must be real. It is more than a form. It wells up inside and flows out. The song should be in our heart before it touches our lips. Finally, the song that springs within us and flows toward others must also be directed toward God in deliberate and sincere worship, praise and honour of him. Even though the words may be good, and we may be feeling it in our heart, in the final analysis, the song is lacking if not directed to God. All three of these elements should be present in the music of the Lord’s churches.

Consider also that these passages are vitally connected with John 4:24: “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”

These principles suggest:

1. Songs should have meaningful content.
2. Songs should engage both mind and spirit.
3. People should think about the meaning of what is being sung.
4. Keep in mind the edification of the WHOLE congregation.
5. The heart, more than the voice, should be “in tune.”
6. God must be the focus of the song service.
7. Songs that are unintelligible (whether because of senseless lyrics or sounds that overpower the words) should be avoided.
8. The church’s music should aid and not impede us in worshipping God in spirit and in truth.

Biblical Principles for Church Music (2)
Biblical Principles for Church Music (3)

Do shaped notes ”work”?

What are shaped notes?

Shaped notes are a device created to make sight reading music easier. Shaped note-heads were invented near the end of the 18th century in the United States. A different shape is used to represent the different syllables of the scale instead of all round note-heads. “Shaped notes were invented for the purpose of making it possible for large numbers of people to be quickly taught to sing correctly in parts for harmony, to the edification of all.” (Sightler, Music in the Bible)

Do shaped notes “work”?

That is, do shaped note heads actually facilitate the learning of music? Do they improve sight reading ability? By learning of music, I have in mind singing rather than playing instruments. Most shape-note partisans would readily argue that they do help. Those never exposed to the shape note tradition (if they have an opinion) or those who have rejected it, may feel that the shapes are of no help. Some who could already read music before coming to the shape note tradition might concur that they are of no real help.

Irving Lowens and Allen P. Britton wrote, “Had this pedagogical tool been accepted by ‘the father of singing among the children,’ Lowell Mason, and others who shaped the patterns of American music education, we might have been more successful in developing skilled music readers and enthusiastic amateur choral singers in the public schools.” (Journal of Research in Music Education, Spring 1953) So on might go the debate, each side presenting their theories with no experimental comparison to provide proof. A good comparison would have to take the form of a controlled study. The subjects of the study would need to be young enough not to have established patterns and preferences. Wouldn’t it be helpful to conduct such a study? Just such a study was actually carried out!

In the 1950s, George H. Kyme carried out a controlled study of “shaped notes versus round notes” with an experimental group of fourth and fifth grade students living in California. Kyme carefully matched his experimental and control groups for ability, quality of teacher, and many other factors. He found that the students taught with shaped notes learned to sight-read music much better than those taught without them. The results were statistically highly significant. As a side effect of his experiment, Kyme also found that the students taught with shaped notes were more likely to pursue musical activities in their future education. Kyme proved what shape-note singers already knew -– shaped note heads improve our sight-reading and facilitate our singing. Though perhaps no particular blessing to the instrumentalist, they are a boon for the singer.

Sources

1. Music in the Bible and in the True Church, by James H. Sightler.
2. “The Easy Instructor (1798-1831): A History and Bibliography of the first Shape Note Tune Book,” Journal of Research in Music Education, I (Spring 1953), 32. Irving Lowens and Allen P. Britton.
3. “An Experiment in Teaching Children to Read Music with Shape Notes,” Journal of Research in Music Education, VIII, (Spring 1960), pp. 3-8. George H. Kyme.
4. Some material adapted from an article which I and many others have written on Wikipedia, and can be used under the GNU Free Documentation License: “Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia article used (a direct link back to the article satisfies our author credit requirement).” Wikipedia.org - Shape note.

“Shaped notes – helpful for those who know them, unobtrusive to those who don’t.”

To Sing or Not to Sing?

To sing or not to sing, that is the question. You might be surprised that it hasn't always been answered "to sing".

"The earliest Baptist worship was lengthy and dealt primarily with Bible exposition. There was no singing, and Baptists put great value upon spontaneity and audience participation.

By the 1670s, some Baptist churches were singing both the Psalms and 'man-made' songs. This was quite controversial, and many churches split over the 'singing controversy.' Benjamin Keach, a London pastor, led his church to sing a hymn after the Lord’s Supper, and within a few years they were also singing during regular worship services. In 1691, Keach published the first Baptist hymnal, Spiritual Melody, a collection of over three hundred hymns." - Leon McBeth

"...Let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name." - Hebrews 13:15

A New Year's Sermon

Ever hear the expression "preaching your own funeral"? Try this.

On the first day of January in 1770, Baptist pastor Morgan Edwards preached a New Year's sermon. He chose these words from Jeremiah 28:16: "This year thou shalt die." He did not expound the text. Rather he believed that he would die within the year and was in effect preaching his own funeral sermon. However, as Martha Mitchell writes, "The year expired, but Morgan did not, thereby diminishing his credibility." In fact, he lived twenty-five years after this event. Morgan Edwards' boondoggle became, as one Quaker minister said, not Edwards' death, but the death of his ministry. Edwards resigned his pastorate and never pastored again.

Morgan Edwards was born in Wales in 1722. He received a thorough education, studying under such Baptist notables as Samuel Stennett and John Gill. He read the Old and New Testaments in Hebrew and Greek. He led in founding Brown University in Rhode Island. He pastored the First Baptist Church of Philadelphia, and served as both Moderator and Clerk of the historic Philadelphia Baptist Association. His Materials toward a History of the Baptists is an important document about Baptists of his era. He died in Delaware in 1795.

Perhaps Edwards' ministry ended because of his carelessness in exposing a premonition that turned out to be wrong. On the other hand, perhaps his carelessness was ordered to end his ministry. Regardless, let us learn to carefully weigh our impulses and impressions, and be careful to value God's meaning of God’s word above our own.

However, this year someone will die. It might be someone I know. It might be you; it might be me. It is appointed unto men once to die and after this the judgment. All have sinned and the wages of sin is death. There is a time to die. Jesus has the keys of hell and death. He opens and no man shuts. He shuts and no man opens. Yes, this year someone will die.

We do not know the day or the hour our time shall come. We ought to learn to say, "If the Lord will, we shall live and do this or that." Let us not be as the rich fool, for one day we shall hear the summons, "This night thy soul shall be required of thee!" Then shouldn't we live each new day and begin every new year in the light of that knowledge?

And am I born to die,
To lay this body down?
And must this trembling spirit fly,
Into a world unknown? - Charles Wesley

A New Year's Poem

New Years' Thoughts, (Common Meter) written Dec. 30, 1992

Another year has come and gone;
We nothing can re-do.
Adorn fresh laurels near His throne;
Replace the old with new.

Another year has rolled around;
The Lord has let us live.
Let praises to His name abound,
And honours gladly give.

(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.

Shape note music

Because of seeming interest, I've added a 4th post on religious liberty (see below) instead of my intended "Do shaped notes work?" blog.

Singers, musicians, et al., please check back. I will post that one after the New Year's weekend, Lord willing. I am also working on a "Biblical Principles for Church Music" blog.

Baptists and Religious Liberty (4)

The interpretation and application of Romans 13, or Religious Liberty and Obeying the Law

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. - Romans 13:1-7

This text teaches and supports a view of obedience to civil authority.

[1]. The scope is not limited to Christians: Though the letter itself is written to Roman Christians, Paul states, "Let EVERY SOUL be subject unto the higher powers."
[2]. Government is authorized or appointed by God: "Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God." Government is ordained by God -- ordained in the sense "set in order", which is well within the meaning of the word, and accords with Genesis 9:5,6, et al.
[3]. This authority spoken of bears the sword: "he beareth not the sword in vain." Government, not the church, bears the sword.
[4]. This authority spoken of is an avenger or revenger: "...he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." The little child of God is not an avenger, but waits on God to meet out justice: "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." (Romans 12:19)
[5]. This authority spoken of receives tribute or taxes: "For for this cause pay ye tribute also..." This harmonizes with Jesus' instructions in Matthew 22:17-21. The church and its officers are not a taxing entity.

Other verses that speak to the subject include: Titus 3:1,2 [Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work, To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.] and I Peter 2:13-17 [Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation. Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.].

Human government is of divine institution; anarchy is a child of the sin nature of man. In Paul's message here, obedience hinges on two main things: the external consequences of disobedience and the internal conscience.

Paul does not say that the civil government is a minister of God IF it does good, but civil government is a creature of God ordained for the general good of people. This text DOES NOT support "unconditional and uncritical subjection to any and every demand of the state." The child of God must draw the line when the choice is either obey God or the government.

Baptists and Religious Liberty (3)

The concepts of religious liberty and separation of church & state are frequently on the minds of Americans. Events, judicial decisions, and anti-Christian activism may sometimes unnerve us. Will we always have our freedom? Could telling the truth become hate speech? What does the future hold?

The circumstances of this country could change, and our constitutional religious liberties could someday be stripped from us. BUT the lack of government support -- even government interference, nay even government opposition -- will not do in God's way of faith. The faith has outlasted friend and foe, been baptized in blood, drowned in water, endured the flame of fire and dank darkness of dungeon, and has marched on from day to day and from age to age, and by God's grace and the promise of our Lord Jesus Christ, the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. WITHOUT DOUBT, I prefer to freely stand and preach without fear of persecution, aggression, or bodily harm, but by that same grace that has made freedom my lot thus far, may I -- may we -- be pleased to stand firm and endure afflictions as a good soldier of Jesus Christ -- if and when it may come to that.

Faith of our fathers, living still;
In spite of dungeon, fire and sword:
O how our hearts beat high with joy,
Whene'er we hear the glorious word!
Faith of our fathers, holy faith!
We would be true to thee till death.

Our fathers, chained in prisons dark,
Were still in heart and conscience free;
How sweet would be their children's fate,
If they, like them, could die for thee!
Faith of our fathers, holy faith!
We would be true to thee till death. - Frederick W. Faber

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free...If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." - John 8:32, 36

The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

On this day, December 28, 1945, Congress officially recognized the Pledge of Allegiance. According to infoplease, the original pledge was published in September 1892 in The Youth's Companion (Boston, MA). The phrase "under God" was added on June 14, 1954.

After posting on religious liberty issues, I ran across the fact that Congress officially recognized the Pledge of Allegiance on Dec. 28th -- this very day. It is, especially related to separation of church & state and the phrase "under God", a hot topic. The Court's rejection of standing in the Newdow case, rather than rendering a decision, means it is likely to be back before the U.S. Supreme Court soon.

Should "under God" be in the pledge? Is it a violation of the liberties provided by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution? Former Supreme Court decisions and statements seem to favor its neutrality as a patriotic and historical expression of faith rather than a religious one. For example, Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan wrote, "This general principle might also serve to insulate the various patriotic exercises and activities used in the public schools and elsewhere which, whatever may have been their origins, no longer have a religious purpose or meaning. The reference to divinity in the revised pledge of allegiance, for example, may merely recognize the historical fact that our Nation was believed to have been founded 'under God'. Thus reciting the pledge may be no more of a religious exercise than the reading aloud of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, which contains an allusion to the same historical fact." (Abington v. Schempp, 1963)

The pledge of allegiance is a tough one in a way. I'm not really sure how much pledging of allegiance a child of God ought to be giving to a temporal kingdom of this world. Allegiance is the duty a citizen owes to the state or to the sovereign of the state to which he or she belongs. The citizenship of the little child of God is in heaven. We are pilgrims and strangers in this foreign land, looking for a city whose Builder and Maker is God. Certainly we are taught and ought to obey the laws of our country. Paul instructs us thusly in Romans 13:1ff: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation." Yes, live circumspectly and obey the laws. Live peaceably. Have a good reputation toward "them which are without". But can we truly pledge our allegiance to an earthly power when we are not our own, but are bought with a price? "Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men."

I think I'll leave this one for those of Caesar to sort out. Christians don't have to have "under God" in a pledge of allegiance in order to render due respect to their Maker and Redeemer.

Baptists and Religious Liberty (2)

The concepts of religious liberty and separation of church & state are frequently on the minds of Americans. I often find myself confused, trying to juggle all the religious, political and social implications of religious liberty. At great risk of being found wrong, and against my better judgment (if I have any), I am postponing my intended religious liberty blog for today in order to insert this one that addresses three specific issues. This is what I believe today. Beliefs are subject to change without notice.

For the American Christian, there are two considerations -- the legal/constitutional and the Biblical. These do not always agree. For the Christian, the Biblical must always eventually trump the legal/constitutional. Consider these issues:

[1] A constitutional amendment for school prayer -- This may not be quite as much in the forefront here as it once was. As a citizen, I am opposed to a school prayer amendment. It violates the spirit of the 1st Amendment of the U. S. Constitution and gets the government into the business of religion. The 1st Amendment, properly understood, already guarantees any person's right to pray anywhere under any circumstances. As a Christian, I believe Christians "ought always to pray, and not to faint". That is everywhere, including schools, homes and pastures -- even churches! We need no law to authorize us to do so, because it is authorized by God. Should some one ban us from doing so, we must obey God rather than men.

[2] A legislative body employing a chaplain to lead religious exercises -- As a citizen, I am not opposed to prayer before a legislative body meets, a chaplain speaking to a legislative body, etc., but to employ such a person with American taxpayer funding would be a violation. Also for the body to limit the prayers, speeches, etc. to members of a particular religious persuasion would be a violation. How would you as a Christian like it if your legislative body were opened with a prayer and offering of incense by a Hindu priest (or whatever name they call them)? If you're in favor of some religious rite or exercise in a publicly sponsored arena, ask yourself how you would feel if it were Islam, Buddhism, or Shintoism. If that would change your opinion, you probably aren't thinking consistently.

[3] A student-initiated prayer at public school (e.g., before its football games) -- I've never really understood praying for football games. In fact, I have some issues with mandatory public education. But I'll try to be fair. Students are not agents of the government just because they attend public school, and they don't surrender their 1st Amendment rights when they enter the schoolhouse. IF the prayers are TRULY student-initiated and student-led, and IF there is liberty for ALL who might want to pray, AND no coercion of those who don't, then I don't suppose there is a violation. When the prayers have a definitely set aside place in the program, one might wonder if they are truly student-initiated. Do you favor prayer at public school events? Would you object if a student of another religion (such as Islam) led the prayer? If that would change your opinion, you probably aren't thinking consistently. If a prayer were led by a Satanist student, I expect someone in authority would see that there were no more student-initiated and student-led prayers before ballgames or at graduations!

At one end of the spectrum, some would enforce Christianity by legal and coercive means, and, if allowed, would make being Christian and American one and the same. At the other end, there are a number of radicals using the cloak of "separation of church & state" to try to drive Christianity into the caves and closets, and out of the public arena in our nation. May we by God's grace avoid both extremes.

And then there is the downright silliness - like the fellows who are so emotionally distraught because a city named Las Cruces (Spanish for THE CROSSES) would have three crosses in their city logo; or the flap over calling a "Christmas tree" a "Christmas" tree (hey, regardless of our beliefs we all know what holiday it's associated with, and it's not Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Ramadan or Happy New Year) . Give me a break. Some people are like the red wasps that live behind my window sills. In August they're so hot and bothered they're just looking for someone to sting!
http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/32902.html
http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051216/NEWS06/512160429

Stay tuned. More tomorrow.

Baptists and Religious Liberty (1)

The concepts of religious liberty and separation of church & state are frequently on the minds of Americans and Baptists. Here are some Bible principles that may help guide our thoughts.

[1] "My kingdom is not of this world" - John 18:36. The kingdom of Jesus Christ is separate from the kingdoms of this world, and the kingdoms of this world have no authority over His kingdom. Religion is a matter between God and the soul, and the only mediator is Jesus Christ. Human authority should not meddle in these affairs.
[2] "We ought to obey God rather than men" - Acts 5:29. We are enjoined to obey governmental authorities in their sphere of service (Rom. 13:1ff.), but allegiance to God supercedes any and all human authority.
[3] "But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock" - I Cor. 8:9. (cf. I Cor. 6:7 - "Why do ye not rather take wrong?"). We do not deny the authority of God in His commands. But in areas in which we have liberties, there are times when we should take wrong in consideration of the overall good.
[4 ] "If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed," John 8:36. There is no true religious freedom apart from that dispensed by Jesus Christ. Any other is ephemeral -- an illusion.

One aspect of the Baptist stand for religious liberty is found in the desire for uncoerced religion, between man and his God without human intermediaries. Following this principle, Baptists could not demand allegiance to their principles from those who did not hold them. This aspect we extend to others.

Another aspect of the Baptist stand for religious liberty is found in the desire to obey God at all costs, which at times can lead to "civil" disobedience. Following this principle, no matter the laws in Britain, the American colonies, etc., Baptists would not surrender their duty to preach what they believed to be the truth. This aspect we ask for ourselves.

A third aspect of the Baptist stand for religious liberty is found in the desire to not press every liberty that we have to the extent of becoming stumblingblocks. If a city council makes a law concerning zoning, for example, it might restrict a church's ability to meet or build a structure in a certain area. While this might violate the Constitution (if it discriminates only against churches), it does not keep them from obeying God, for they can meet and preach in some other location and structure. This might be a good occasion to "take wrong" and go on, rather than pressing for rights. This aspect we hold out in peace and reconciliation between us and others.

A fourth aspect of the Baptist stand for religious liberty is found in the desire for true religion only between God and His subjects. Only the subject He has made free shall be free indeed. This freedom cannot be bound by physical chains, locks, or bars. This aspect we accept by faith with hope, for God knoweth them that are His.

"Government is the formation of an association of individuals, by mutual agreement, for mutual defence and advantage; to be governed by specific rules. And, when rightly formed, it embraces Pagans, Jews, Mahometans and Christians, within its fostering arms--prescribes no creed of faith for either of them--proscribes none of them for being heretics, promotes the man of talents and integrity, without inquiring after his religion--impartially protects all of them--punishes the man who works ill to his neighbor, let his faith and motives be what they may. Who, but tyrants, knaves and devils, can object to such government?" – John Leland, from The Writings of Elder John Leland, p. 476

Behold your King

Jesus, demonstrated as King Over Creation, Disease, Demons, and Death (Common Meter)

A mighty God His creatures formed
And did whate’er He pleased.
His voice divine dispels the storm;
His hand heals the diseased.

The sick, the blind, the dumb, the lame
Are in His special care;
If He but speaks their lowly name
They to His feet repair.

The demons flee at His command;
The angels praise His worth.
The dead are raised when He demands
Their bodies to come forth.

(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.

Grace and Truth to You: In Christ Alone: Ecumenical Evangelism vs. Re-Emerging Baptist Landmarkism

Grace and Truth to You: In Christ Alone: Ecumenical Evangelism vs. Re-Emerging Baptist Landmarkism

Why Mary?

Why did God choose Mary to be the mother of Jesus? Many look for something in Mary or for something she did. She was a young Jewish virgin. She was holy. She was receptive. And on it goes. Out of all the women who have ever lived, was she the only receptive holy young virgin? Out of all the young unmarried Jewish women in her day, was she the only receptive holy young virgin? Why did God choose Mary? The Bible does not say. The wrong answer has made Mary the object of worship and special adoration.

The birth of Jesus Christ happened as much according to the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God as His crucifixion. He came in the fullness of time -- God’s time -- to the right people in the right place. He fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies of His first advent.

Why did God choose Mary? The Bible does not say. But this we know. The angel announced to Mary, "thou hast found favour with God." The Greek word for favour is "charis", which is translated "grace" well over 100 times in the Bible. Mary became the mother of Jesus by GOD'S unmerited favour, His eternal choice, and His unlimited power. It was nothing that Mary did. It was nothing that she was. God extended grace. Oh, how the natural man recoils from this being an unconditional choice on God's part. But God did not ask Mary if she, a young unmarried Jewish virgin girl who had never known a man, wanted to be the mother of the Saviour. He chose her. He called her. The Holy Ghost came upon her, she conceived and brought forth a Son and called His name Jesus -- "for he shall save his people from their sins."

How like God's choice of Mary is His choice to save poor undeserving sinners. It is nothing they do. It is nothing they are. God extended grace. Thank God for His grace.

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas to one and all.

Christmas here in the good old U.S. of A. is a strange combination of Christianity, paganism, and good old-fashioned capitalism. Christians try to put Christ back into a Christmas He never instituted while retailers hustle to make as much money as possible from a holiday they are not sure they even want their employees to mention to their customers. Perhaps such ideas were in the thoughts of Ken Wimer (pastor of Grace Church, Shreveport, LA) when he wrote that Christmas "truly becomes a Christ MESS'."

Don't let your holiday become a mess. Celebrate Christ the living Saviour according to His Word, spend quality time with your family, and enjoy the few days off of work.

Merry Christmas and God bless you.