What is the study of Baptist origins?
Simply put, to study Baptist origins is to study when Baptists as we know them had their beginning. Yet the study of Baptist origins encompasses more than just answering "Did Baptists start in Canaan land in AD 27 or England AD 1641 (or somewhere in between)?" That would be the simplistic and seemingly natural approach, but it’s just not that simple. Baptists are never that simple! If they began in AD 27, how did they get from there to here? Why were they not called Baptists back then? If they began in AD 1641, can they truly be New Testament churches? Did the truths they hold exist before that time?
The discussion of Baptist origins transforms into a discussion of its interconnected points: (1) Baptist history – not only when did it start, but how did it get from there to here, from point A to point B; (2) Baptist identity – Just what is a Baptist, anyway? (3) Baptist polity – How should we constitute a church? Who should baptize? Further, it knits itself into our ecclesiology and theology (doctrine). If New Testament churches haven’t been here since AD 27, just what did Jesus mean when He said the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and just what is the nature of the church anyway? To whom or what did He make that promise?
“Perhaps this is going to be harder than I thought. Why should I study views of Baptist origins, or Baptist origins at all for that matter?” In his novel Erewhon Revisited, Samuel Butler wrote, “It has been said that though God cannot alter the past, historians can...” This must be where the Baptist historians come in, right? Don't like the past. Rewrite it.
No, there are good reasons to study Baptist history and origins other than finding ways to change it! We should study Baptist origins to add to our knowledge. We should study it to understand Baptists. Who are the Baptists? Why aren’t they all the same? Understanding a Baptist groups’ views of Baptist origins helps explain some of the beliefs of the group (e.g. Separatism vs. Ecumenism). Understanding their history may help explain some of the practices of the group. We should study Baptist origins to appreciate our heritage. Those who know something of the trials and hardships, triumphs and glories, faults and foibles – as well as the writings – of their ancestors are better positioned to appreciate and learn from them. We can learn from their experiences and their testimony, both positively and negatively.
What are some of the differing views of Baptist origins? There are probably about five theories, with sub-theories beneath those with varying emphases. All may be fairly represented by two broad categories – restorationist theories and continuationist theories.1 Milburn Cockrell wrote, "A person who believes that a church pops up here and there with no organic connection to any other church, and a man who believes that there has been a link-chain of churches (one church starting another church), do not believe one and the same thing." -- Observations on Church Organization
Restorationist theories hold in common that there has not been a successive groups of baptized believers from the time of the New Testament to the present. Continuationist theories hold in common that there have been successive groups of baptized believers from the New Testament times to the present.
Why are there so many different views of Baptist origins? Because we are Baptists!! And as Baptists we feel compelled to disagree, don't we?
Actually, there are probably two main reasons why we have two broad differences of opinion about Baptist origins, with competing theories and sub-theories under these. History and theology. There are different opinions and interpretations of the historical knowledge we have of the Baptists, and there are different opinions and interpretations of the theology we hold concerning the church as seen in the New Testament. And -- these two can act like magnets, at times attracting one another and at times pushing each other away. They do affect one another. Some historians seem to write with an air of having in hand a documentary of exactly how the Baptists started in the 1640’s, while others reinterpret history to fit their theological presuppositions.
"Baptists today should know about Baptist historians and their views about Baptist history and succession. This is what I call the historical consensus. A Baptist's historical theology includes the historical consensus. All students of Baptist history should realize that theology shapes the historian's views.(emphasis mine, rlv)" -- Some Critical Lectures on Baptist Succession by R. E. Pound
A third reason, from the historical standpoint, is obscurity of records. Brackney on p. 15 of Baptist Life and Thought wrote: "Since present documentation is scarce, complete validation of any of these theories must await further discoveries of primary source materials..."
I don't intend to try to solve all the problems and answer all the questions, but over the next several posts to investigate what are the main different views of Baptist origins.
1. I am indebted to Elder Mark Osgartharp, pastor of Lakeview Missionary Baptist Church in Wynne, Arkansas, for the naming of these two categories.
Friday, April 06, 2007
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Whitsitt controversy
One of the controversies Shurden discusses in his book Not a Silent People is the controversy over Baptist origins, aka the Whitsitt controversy. In the 1890s, William Heth Whitsitt (1841-1911) wrote an article for the Johnson's Encyclopedia, in which he set forth the belief that the Baptists in England began to baptize by immersion in 1641 and previously had not practiced immersion. Before this he had anonymously proposed this theory in New York Independent in 1880 (or at least later claimed several of such editorials). In September 1896 he put out a book on the subject entitled A Question in Baptist History.
"During the autumn of 1877, shortly after I had been put in charge of the school of Church History at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in preparing my lectures on Baptist History, I made the discovery that, prior to the year 1641 our Baptist people in England were in the practice or sprinkling and pouring for baptism. I kept it to myself until the year 1880..."
Whitsitt's "discoveries" set off a firestorm which only subsided with his dismissal as president and church history professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. The battle against Whitsitt was led by such men as T. T. Eaton, John T. Christian, and B. H. Carroll. Later commentators would claim that these men "won the battle but lost the war", pointing out that all six of the Southern Baptist seminaries taught as church history the very point Whitsitt raised.
Did Whitsitt and his followers really win the war? The battle never came into most primitivistic Baptist groups, who had been separated from the Convention Baptists long before Whitsitt -- even before the Convention. Shortly after the Whitsitt controversy, some Landmark Baptists took their marbles and went to play elsewhere. Landmarkers evidently gradually went "underground" in the SBC, and a Baptist academia full of Whitsitt's disciples was left to teach Baptist origins as they saw it. Yet well over 100 years later it is becoming evident that common Baptists and young historians within the SBC (and elsewhere) don't believe that Whitsitt's word is the final word.
In the next several posts, we will consider what are the various theories of Baptist origins.
"During the autumn of 1877, shortly after I had been put in charge of the school of Church History at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in preparing my lectures on Baptist History, I made the discovery that, prior to the year 1641 our Baptist people in England were in the practice or sprinkling and pouring for baptism. I kept it to myself until the year 1880..."
Whitsitt's "discoveries" set off a firestorm which only subsided with his dismissal as president and church history professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. The battle against Whitsitt was led by such men as T. T. Eaton, John T. Christian, and B. H. Carroll. Later commentators would claim that these men "won the battle but lost the war", pointing out that all six of the Southern Baptist seminaries taught as church history the very point Whitsitt raised.
Did Whitsitt and his followers really win the war? The battle never came into most primitivistic Baptist groups, who had been separated from the Convention Baptists long before Whitsitt -- even before the Convention. Shortly after the Whitsitt controversy, some Landmark Baptists took their marbles and went to play elsewhere. Landmarkers evidently gradually went "underground" in the SBC, and a Baptist academia full of Whitsitt's disciples was left to teach Baptist origins as they saw it. Yet well over 100 years later it is becoming evident that common Baptists and young historians within the SBC (and elsewhere) don't believe that Whitsitt's word is the final word.
In the next several posts, we will consider what are the various theories of Baptist origins.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Baptists and controversy
In Myth: Baptists Believe in Doctrinal Uniformity, Robert N. Nash wrote, "Baptists love controversy...Sometimes we are a bit like a pair of siblings who fight each other tooth and nail until somone else comes along and joins the fray. Sometimes we forget our differences and battle the common enemy. Without an enemy, though, we are perfectly content to pound on family members." Yes, we resemble that remark! Sometimes we may think of other Baptists more like red-headed step-cousins than real family, but I think we can get the point. We do love controversy.
In 1972, Walter B. Shurden wrote a book entitled Not a Silent People: Controversies that have shaped Southern Baptists. In it he discusses various controversies that took place within the context of the Southern Baptist Convention (or if predating it nevertheless affecting it). After presenting the controversies, he concludes with "lessons from Baptist controversies." Here are 4 lessons he thinks we learn from Baptist controversies.
1. "Controversy is inevitable among Baptists." Shurden pointed out the Baptist ideas of freedom and democratic congregational government are bound to make room for controversy. Also with this freedom comes diversity, and with diversity controversy.
2. "Controversy is painful but profitable." Shurden pointed to English Baptist John Clifford belief that the evils of controversy are temporary and the benefits permanent. We learn learn from it [sometimes I wonder! :-D ]
3. "Controversy is often embodied in powerful personalities." For better or worse, we know this to be true. Many Baptist controversies are named after a central figure -- e.g. "Whitsitt controversy", "Norris controversy", "Hayden controversy" -- or at least have one or more prominent names associated with it -- e.g. Spurgeon and the "Downgrade controversy"; Graves and "Landmarkism"; Parker, Fuller, Taylor, et al. and the missions controversy.
4. "Controversy is never finally and absolutely settled among Baptists." Baptists are a priesthood of believers and congregations who head is Christ -- there is NO central authority and NO final word from such an authority.
What have you learned from a Baptist controversy?
In 1972, Walter B. Shurden wrote a book entitled Not a Silent People: Controversies that have shaped Southern Baptists. In it he discusses various controversies that took place within the context of the Southern Baptist Convention (or if predating it nevertheless affecting it). After presenting the controversies, he concludes with "lessons from Baptist controversies." Here are 4 lessons he thinks we learn from Baptist controversies.
1. "Controversy is inevitable among Baptists." Shurden pointed out the Baptist ideas of freedom and democratic congregational government are bound to make room for controversy. Also with this freedom comes diversity, and with diversity controversy.
2. "Controversy is painful but profitable." Shurden pointed to English Baptist John Clifford belief that the evils of controversy are temporary and the benefits permanent. We learn learn from it [sometimes I wonder! :-D ]
3. "Controversy is often embodied in powerful personalities." For better or worse, we know this to be true. Many Baptist controversies are named after a central figure -- e.g. "Whitsitt controversy", "Norris controversy", "Hayden controversy" -- or at least have one or more prominent names associated with it -- e.g. Spurgeon and the "Downgrade controversy"; Graves and "Landmarkism"; Parker, Fuller, Taylor, et al. and the missions controversy.
4. "Controversy is never finally and absolutely settled among Baptists." Baptists are a priesthood of believers and congregations who head is Christ -- there is NO central authority and NO final word from such an authority.
What have you learned from a Baptist controversy?
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Broadus, societies, true church
The following is an excerpt from John Albert Broadus from Hershael York's blog "Confessions of a Pastor." Jason Fowler, archivist in the library at Southern Seminary, Louisville, KY, found the following in the James Petigru Boyce collection. Read the entire e-mail at Broadus on the requirements to be a true church.
"As to my 'syllogism.' In Homiletics, under Argument, I put on the board many specimens of argument, chiefly about real and religious questions (as more intelligible and useful), such as Romanism, Pedobaptism, close communion, etc. The last 2 sessions I have added an argument for “Landmarkism,” as an example in which if the premises be granted, the conclusions must follow, and the only question is whether the premises are true. Somehow so I put it: 1. No one has the right to preach unless he is authorized by a church. 2. Pedobaptists societies are not churches. Therefore, Pedobaptist churches have not a right to preach, and we ought not to recognize them as preachers. I said that if I believed both premises, as many esteemed brethren do, I should stand up to the conclusion squarely, as they do. That some brethren deny the 2nd premises, and some deny both. That I for my part fully admit the 2nd, but do not believe the 1st. And then I both times said I introduced this matter, on which our brethren are divided in opinion, merely as an illustration of argument, and I think it a good one, and not because I wanted anyone to adopt my views."(1)
Broadus indicates that he believes Pedobaptists (infant baptizing churches) can only be considered societies and not true churches. In this point he agrees with Landmarkism, doesn't he?
(1) Letter, John A. Broadus to James P. Boyce, 15 July 1876, James Petigru Boyce Collection, Archives and Special Collections, James P. Boyce Centennial Library, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky
"As to my 'syllogism.' In Homiletics, under Argument, I put on the board many specimens of argument, chiefly about real and religious questions (as more intelligible and useful), such as Romanism, Pedobaptism, close communion, etc. The last 2 sessions I have added an argument for “Landmarkism,” as an example in which if the premises be granted, the conclusions must follow, and the only question is whether the premises are true. Somehow so I put it: 1. No one has the right to preach unless he is authorized by a church. 2. Pedobaptists societies are not churches. Therefore, Pedobaptist churches have not a right to preach, and we ought not to recognize them as preachers. I said that if I believed both premises, as many esteemed brethren do, I should stand up to the conclusion squarely, as they do. That some brethren deny the 2nd premises, and some deny both. That I for my part fully admit the 2nd, but do not believe the 1st. And then I both times said I introduced this matter, on which our brethren are divided in opinion, merely as an illustration of argument, and I think it a good one, and not because I wanted anyone to adopt my views."(1)
Broadus indicates that he believes Pedobaptists (infant baptizing churches) can only be considered societies and not true churches. In this point he agrees with Landmarkism, doesn't he?
(1) Letter, John A. Broadus to James P. Boyce, 15 July 1876, James Petigru Boyce Collection, Archives and Special Collections, James P. Boyce Centennial Library, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky
Monday, April 02, 2007
Unaffiliated Landmark Baptist churches survey
I completed a survey of unaffiliated Landmark Baptist churches in 2001. After weeding out duplicates and/or churches for which I discovered some denominational affiliation, my total was 1305 churches. I compiled no membership statistics for these churches, but, based on the average size of churches from known landmark Baptist statistics (ABA, BMAA, etc.) the membership of these churches should be approximately 200,000 (155 is the number I used for the average). I also identified 35 associations that hold landmark ecclesiology - 3 general associations, 1 state association, and 31 unaffiliated local associations (the 3 general and 1 state also have local associations affiliated with them). In those 35 associations I identified 3657 churches with 569,338 members. Most of those statistics were from the year 2000, but, for 8 or 10 of the local associations, the latest stats I could find were early 1990’s. If these numbers are combined with the independent churches, there are almost 5000 churches that hold Landmark ecclesiology, representing about 770,000 members. I am of the opinion that there are probably twice as many unaffiliated independent landmark Baptists as I have been able to identify.
Add to these facts, that groups of Baptists often identified as primitivistic (Central Baptists, Duck River/Kindred Baptists, Old Regular Baptists, Primitive Baptists, Regular Baptists, and United Baptists) usually hold an ecclesiology in practice like Landmarkism (they do not accept baptisms from other orders, do not use ministers from other orders, and practice closed communion, hold successionism etc.), churches in the United States holding this form of ecclesiology probably number 8000 to 10,000 with over 1,000,000 members. These primitivistic churches are not normally identified as Landmark Baptists because the term is usually limited to missionary Baptists. This also does not consider that a number of churches in the Baptist Bible Fellowship, Southwide Baptist Fellowship, World Baptist Fellowship, and even the Southern Baptist Convention would identify with this doctrine and practice. This shows that, while perhaps a small grouping compared to the total number of Baptists in the United States, Landmark-type Baptist ecclesiology does have an important place in American Baptist life.
In my attempt to make sense of the 1305 unaffiliated independent landmark Baptist churches on my list, I developed seven categories to note some of the differences between the churches - Covenant Landmark, Direct Mission, Independent Fundamental, Old Time Missionary Baptist, Sovereign Grace, Unregistered Baptists, and Unknown. These categories are somewhat arbitrary (I place the churches in the categories rather the churches placing themselves) and fluid (many of the churches could legitimately be placed in two or more categories). The decision to place a church in a category was based on what I thought seemed to be her primary emphasis that made her stand out and/or seemed to guide her in her choice of fellowship with other churches. I am listing below a link to represent these categories and the total number of churches placed in each category. Remember that each link is representative of a single church and may not represent other churches in the same category. It is possible that some of the churches in a category would fellowship with churches that I have placed in another category. Another possibility is that some churches placed in a category might not fellowship with other churches in the same category.
Covenant Landmark - 28 churches. These churches might be described as believing that only Christians in landmark Baptist churches are part of the New Covenant. They might not choose to describe themselves this way. Be sure to check out the website.
Direct Mission - 61 churches. Many of these churches have an historical connection to the gospel mission movement of missionary to China T. P. Crawford. I placed these in a separate category because I felt that their landmark principles of mission work was the chief reason they choose not to participate in associations or fellowships.
Independent Fundamental - 386 churches. These churches are very much heirs of the traits developed from the fundamentalist/modernist controversies of the early 1900’s. They are the same as others commonly thought of independent fundamental Baptists, but with a stronger local church emphasis on baptism, Lord’s supper, and pulpit affiliation, etc.
Old Time Missionary Baptist - 176 churches. These churches place a strong emphasis on a definite salvation experience, and usually have a mourner’s bench in or near the front of the church. They tend to usually not have as strong objections to associations and fellowships as some unaffiliated Baptists, and are often found closely fellowshipping with other Old Time Missionary Baptists that are in associations.
Sovereign Grace - 419 churches. These churches place a strong emphasis on the doctrines of grace, usually known as TULIP or five-point Calvinism. I think most of these churches would not fellowship with other churches that do not hold the doctrines of grace (and most Landmark churches not holding TULIP would not fellowship with them).
Unregistered Baptist - 35 churches. These churches could probably all be placed in the independent fundamentalist category. But I found a strain of Landmarkers that are asserting that churches should not incorporate or otherwise cooperate with certain requirements of the government (e.g. Indianapolis Baptist Temple). Some of these believe that the registration and cooperation with governmental tax laws, etc. causes a church to “lose its candlestick” (no longer be recognized as a true church).
Unknown - 200 churches. These are churches which I believe meet the basic requirements to be called “Landmark,” and yet I found no outstanding features (or did not have enough information) to classify them. In this group are probably some who themselves observe Landmark practices such as closed baptism, closed communion and non-pulpit affiliation, and yet do not strictly draw the line of fellowship on these issues.
These unaffiliated independent Landmark Baptist churches are scattered throughout the United States, with especially strong areas being in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Texas. The Sovereign Grace Landmarkers are very strong in Kentucky, but also surprisingly strong in states like West Virginia and Ohio. The Covenant Landmarkers have their strongest base on the west coast. They draw their lines of fellowship on the covenant issue, but not on whether a church is independent. So they are often found fellowshipping with Covenant Landmarkers in the ABA, etc. The Independent Fundamental Landmarkers have great strength in Texas, probably partly because of the influence of J. Frank Norris and Louis Entzminger. Old Time Missionary Baptists have their greatest strength in Tennessee and Kentucky, with a good showing in Missouri as well.
Add to these facts, that groups of Baptists often identified as primitivistic (Central Baptists, Duck River/Kindred Baptists, Old Regular Baptists, Primitive Baptists, Regular Baptists, and United Baptists) usually hold an ecclesiology in practice like Landmarkism (they do not accept baptisms from other orders, do not use ministers from other orders, and practice closed communion, hold successionism etc.), churches in the United States holding this form of ecclesiology probably number 8000 to 10,000 with over 1,000,000 members. These primitivistic churches are not normally identified as Landmark Baptists because the term is usually limited to missionary Baptists. This also does not consider that a number of churches in the Baptist Bible Fellowship, Southwide Baptist Fellowship, World Baptist Fellowship, and even the Southern Baptist Convention would identify with this doctrine and practice. This shows that, while perhaps a small grouping compared to the total number of Baptists in the United States, Landmark-type Baptist ecclesiology does have an important place in American Baptist life.
In my attempt to make sense of the 1305 unaffiliated independent landmark Baptist churches on my list, I developed seven categories to note some of the differences between the churches - Covenant Landmark, Direct Mission, Independent Fundamental, Old Time Missionary Baptist, Sovereign Grace, Unregistered Baptists, and Unknown. These categories are somewhat arbitrary (I place the churches in the categories rather the churches placing themselves) and fluid (many of the churches could legitimately be placed in two or more categories). The decision to place a church in a category was based on what I thought seemed to be her primary emphasis that made her stand out and/or seemed to guide her in her choice of fellowship with other churches. I am listing below a link to represent these categories and the total number of churches placed in each category. Remember that each link is representative of a single church and may not represent other churches in the same category. It is possible that some of the churches in a category would fellowship with churches that I have placed in another category. Another possibility is that some churches placed in a category might not fellowship with other churches in the same category.
Covenant Landmark - 28 churches. These churches might be described as believing that only Christians in landmark Baptist churches are part of the New Covenant. They might not choose to describe themselves this way. Be sure to check out the website.
Direct Mission - 61 churches. Many of these churches have an historical connection to the gospel mission movement of missionary to China T. P. Crawford. I placed these in a separate category because I felt that their landmark principles of mission work was the chief reason they choose not to participate in associations or fellowships.
Independent Fundamental - 386 churches. These churches are very much heirs of the traits developed from the fundamentalist/modernist controversies of the early 1900’s. They are the same as others commonly thought of independent fundamental Baptists, but with a stronger local church emphasis on baptism, Lord’s supper, and pulpit affiliation, etc.
Old Time Missionary Baptist - 176 churches. These churches place a strong emphasis on a definite salvation experience, and usually have a mourner’s bench in or near the front of the church. They tend to usually not have as strong objections to associations and fellowships as some unaffiliated Baptists, and are often found closely fellowshipping with other Old Time Missionary Baptists that are in associations.
Sovereign Grace - 419 churches. These churches place a strong emphasis on the doctrines of grace, usually known as TULIP or five-point Calvinism. I think most of these churches would not fellowship with other churches that do not hold the doctrines of grace (and most Landmark churches not holding TULIP would not fellowship with them).
Unregistered Baptist - 35 churches. These churches could probably all be placed in the independent fundamentalist category. But I found a strain of Landmarkers that are asserting that churches should not incorporate or otherwise cooperate with certain requirements of the government (e.g. Indianapolis Baptist Temple). Some of these believe that the registration and cooperation with governmental tax laws, etc. causes a church to “lose its candlestick” (no longer be recognized as a true church).
Unknown - 200 churches. These are churches which I believe meet the basic requirements to be called “Landmark,” and yet I found no outstanding features (or did not have enough information) to classify them. In this group are probably some who themselves observe Landmark practices such as closed baptism, closed communion and non-pulpit affiliation, and yet do not strictly draw the line of fellowship on these issues.
These unaffiliated independent Landmark Baptist churches are scattered throughout the United States, with especially strong areas being in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Texas. The Sovereign Grace Landmarkers are very strong in Kentucky, but also surprisingly strong in states like West Virginia and Ohio. The Covenant Landmarkers have their strongest base on the west coast. They draw their lines of fellowship on the covenant issue, but not on whether a church is independent. So they are often found fellowshipping with Covenant Landmarkers in the ABA, etc. The Independent Fundamental Landmarkers have great strength in Texas, probably partly because of the influence of J. Frank Norris and Louis Entzminger. Old Time Missionary Baptists have their greatest strength in Tennessee and Kentucky, with a good showing in Missouri as well.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Ghost members
A few days back, I entitled a thread Landmarkism Under Fire, re the book by that title.
In "Appendix VI, Terms" in Landmarkism Under Fire, Elder Settlemoir mentions "ghost members":
"Ghosting members. Ghosting members is a term I have borrowed to describe a procedure by which some churches receive members who are not present, never have been present and never will be present in the assembly where they are supposed to be members. Such churches receive these members by proxy and carry these members on their roles by proxy and letter them out by proxy! The church does not even know these members nor do these members know the church! They are therefore not under the discipline of the church. These ghost members have no voice in the church. Ghosting members is usually done for the purpose of granting EMDA. The Ghost members will, at the time of constitution, be granted letters stating they are members in good standing (which is not true) and they will be lettered out to form the new church. Churches who can defend this as a scriptural procedure will have no problem baptizing a baby on the proxy faith of its god-parents!"
*No this is not an April Fools' joke!
In "Appendix VI, Terms" in Landmarkism Under Fire, Elder Settlemoir mentions "ghost members":
"Ghosting members. Ghosting members is a term I have borrowed to describe a procedure by which some churches receive members who are not present, never have been present and never will be present in the assembly where they are supposed to be members. Such churches receive these members by proxy and carry these members on their roles by proxy and letter them out by proxy! The church does not even know these members nor do these members know the church! They are therefore not under the discipline of the church. These ghost members have no voice in the church. Ghosting members is usually done for the purpose of granting EMDA. The Ghost members will, at the time of constitution, be granted letters stating they are members in good standing (which is not true) and they will be lettered out to form the new church. Churches who can defend this as a scriptural procedure will have no problem baptizing a baby on the proxy faith of its god-parents!"
*No this is not an April Fools' joke!
Friday, March 30, 2007
Landmark ecclesiology
Landmarkism is a “logical system” of ecclesiology. It is a theology concerning the doctrine of the church in the same way Calvinism and Arminianism are logical systems of theology concerning salvation. I will give below what I believe to be the main points or basic substance of this ecclesiological system.
About six or seven years ago, I conducted a study to identify/count independent unaffiliated Baptist churches holding Landmark ecclesiology. To do so I had to develop criteria to identify such churches – what might be the essence of being “Landmark”. The three pillars of Landmarkism (A. C. Dayton, J. R. Graves and J. M. Pendleton) were not agreed in all points. For example, Graves held that New Testament use of the word “church/ekklesia” always meant a local congregation. Pendleton thought that in some cases it meant “the church in the aggregate.” I determined the best way to identify a “Landmarker” or church holding Landmark ecclesiology would be to identify the common characteristics of “self-identified” Landmark Baptists from their day to the present. From that I developed what I believed would be the minimum requirements (in combination) it would take to be a “Landmark Baptist church” or “Landmark Baptist”. All might not agree with my method or my conclusion, but I offer the results here for comment.
Landmarkism:
1. The church is a local autonomous body authorized by Jesus Christ to evangelize, baptise, and teach His disciples.
2. Jesus organized His church during His personal ministry, promised its continued existence, and that church (generically) still exists today.
3. Baptism is the immersion of a believer in water by the authority of a local New Testament church; believers who have been immersed by other denominations must submit to baptism by an authorized administrator.
4. The Lord’s supper is restricted to baptised believers who are walking in orderly church capacity.
This ecclesiology is most often associated with Missionary Baptists, since the name and the systemization of it were associated with Dayton, Graves, Pendleton and others in the Southern Baptist Convention in the mid-1800s. Some who hold the above ecclesiology prefer not to be called Landmarkers. Among some Missionary Baptists it has never attained common usage, though they gladly own all four points listed above. It is debatable whether it is proper to use this term in reference in to others. Nevertheless, other Baptists hold a similar ecclesiology.
About six or seven years ago, I conducted a study to identify/count independent unaffiliated Baptist churches holding Landmark ecclesiology. To do so I had to develop criteria to identify such churches – what might be the essence of being “Landmark”. The three pillars of Landmarkism (A. C. Dayton, J. R. Graves and J. M. Pendleton) were not agreed in all points. For example, Graves held that New Testament use of the word “church/ekklesia” always meant a local congregation. Pendleton thought that in some cases it meant “the church in the aggregate.” I determined the best way to identify a “Landmarker” or church holding Landmark ecclesiology would be to identify the common characteristics of “self-identified” Landmark Baptists from their day to the present. From that I developed what I believed would be the minimum requirements (in combination) it would take to be a “Landmark Baptist church” or “Landmark Baptist”. All might not agree with my method or my conclusion, but I offer the results here for comment.
Landmarkism:
1. The church is a local autonomous body authorized by Jesus Christ to evangelize, baptise, and teach His disciples.
2. Jesus organized His church during His personal ministry, promised its continued existence, and that church (generically) still exists today.
3. Baptism is the immersion of a believer in water by the authority of a local New Testament church; believers who have been immersed by other denominations must submit to baptism by an authorized administrator.
4. The Lord’s supper is restricted to baptised believers who are walking in orderly church capacity.
This ecclesiology is most often associated with Missionary Baptists, since the name and the systemization of it were associated with Dayton, Graves, Pendleton and others in the Southern Baptist Convention in the mid-1800s. Some who hold the above ecclesiology prefer not to be called Landmarkers. Among some Missionary Baptists it has never attained common usage, though they gladly own all four points listed above. It is debatable whether it is proper to use this term in reference in to others. Nevertheless, other Baptists hold a similar ecclesiology.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Baptist history blog
I am adding a link to my side bar to the blog of Nathan A. Finn. Nathan currently teaches Baptist history and church history adjunctively at Southeastern College, in Wake Forest, North Carolina. Nathan has some very good posts on the subject of Baptist history which some of you will want to read.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Books you've read
I found the following survey on Wes Kenney's blog post "Books". Thought some of you might be interested in giving your opinions. The Bible might be your legitimate answer to a number of these. But I think the survey is really designed to get you talking about what man-written books you've read, like, dislike, etc. So try and keep that in mind as you answer.
One book that changed your life:
One book that you’ve read more than once:
One book I’d want on a desert island:
One book that made me laugh:
One book that made me cry:
One book that you wish you had written:
One book you wish had never been written:
One book that you are currently reading:
One book that you’ve been meaning to read:
One book that changed your life:
One book that you’ve read more than once:
One book I’d want on a desert island:
One book that made me laugh:
One book that made me cry:
One book that you wish you had written:
One book you wish had never been written:
One book that you are currently reading:
One book that you’ve been meaning to read:
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Lawsuits
Praisegod Barebones (aka Bart Barber) has some good thoughts about lawsuits, in my opinion.
Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? -- I Cor. 6
Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? -- I Cor. 6
Monday, March 26, 2007
What do you think?
"It has been said that though God cannot alter the past, historians can..."
From Erehwon Revisted (chapter 14), by Samuel Butler (1835-1902)
From Erehwon Revisted (chapter 14), by Samuel Butler (1835-1902)
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Heard
Heard:* To believe in God adds nothing to His perfections; to doubt Him takes nothing away.
*I wrote this down, but now don't remember where I heard this or who said it -- probably on the radio or a taped sermon.
*I wrote this down, but now don't remember where I heard this or who said it -- probably on the radio or a taped sermon.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Prayers, plans, predestination
After quoting, "You saw me before I was born and scheduled each day of my life before I began to breathe. Every day was recorded in your book," (Psalm 139:16) in context of something Rick Warren had written, a person posting on the Baptist Board questioned the compatability of prayer and God having a "plan" for everyone's life: "Now let's imagine that you say a prayer in this sort of universe. What difference does it make? God has his plan, and that plan is running down its track like a freight train...The idea of a 'plan' makes the idea of a 'prayer-answering relationship with God' ridiculous."
I thought Larry, a pastor in Michigan, gave a good answer: "The truth is that God has planned all the days of our lives. He declares it to be so and therefore it is. He also answers prayer. Think about it. If he has declared all the days of your life, he has therefore declared the prayers and the answers to them." [13 March 2007, the Baptist Board]
I thought Larry, a pastor in Michigan, gave a good answer: "The truth is that God has planned all the days of our lives. He declares it to be so and therefore it is. He also answers prayer. Think about it. If he has declared all the days of your life, he has therefore declared the prayers and the answers to them." [13 March 2007, the Baptist Board]
Friday, March 23, 2007
The Lord has His Way in the Whirlwind
Nahum 1:3 -- "The LORD is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked: the LORD hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet."
The Lord Has His Way In The Whirlwind
"The word of God tells us that God has His way in the whirlwind. One can only make of that that every building blown apart or submerged, every fallen tree, every ruined neighborhood and, yes, every lost life is the direct work of God Almighty.
"When will we ever quit attributing the work of our God to a ficticious Mother nature? How can we in one breath pray for God to deliver us and in the next deny that He had any part in the destruction in the first place?
"The wonder, to me, is not that God does these things, but that He hasn't been more severe in His judgments on us. These things are only a foretaste of the havoc He will wreak on this earth before the great and dreadful day of Christ's return."
-- An excerpt from an August 2005 post by Mark Osgatharp, Lakeview Missionary Baptist Church Wynne, Arkansas, which was in the context of the Hurricance Katrina that hit the Gulf Coast. It was interesting to find in the responses that many Baptists do not believe the Lord has his way in the whirlwind and in the storm...
The Lord Has His Way In The Whirlwind
"The word of God tells us that God has His way in the whirlwind. One can only make of that that every building blown apart or submerged, every fallen tree, every ruined neighborhood and, yes, every lost life is the direct work of God Almighty.
"When will we ever quit attributing the work of our God to a ficticious Mother nature? How can we in one breath pray for God to deliver us and in the next deny that He had any part in the destruction in the first place?
"The wonder, to me, is not that God does these things, but that He hasn't been more severe in His judgments on us. These things are only a foretaste of the havoc He will wreak on this earth before the great and dreadful day of Christ's return."
-- An excerpt from an August 2005 post by Mark Osgatharp, Lakeview Missionary Baptist Church Wynne, Arkansas, which was in the context of the Hurricance Katrina that hit the Gulf Coast. It was interesting to find in the responses that many Baptists do not believe the Lord has his way in the whirlwind and in the storm...
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Christ the beloved
The following is an Isaac Watts poetic rendition of Song of Solomon 5:9-16. I had not seen it before, but some of you may be familiar with it.
HYMN 75 L. M.
The description of Christ the beloved. Song of Solomon 5:9-16.
The wond'ring world inquires to know
Why I should love my Jesus so:
What are his charms," say they, "above
The objects of a mortal love?"
Yes! my Beloved, to my sight
Shows a sweet mixture, red and white:
All human beauties, all divine,
In my Beloved meet and shine.
White is his soul, from blemish free;
Red with the blood he shed for me;
The fairest of ten thousand fairs;
A sun amongst ten thousand stars.
His head the finest gold excels;
There wisdom in perfection dwells,
And glory like a crown adorns
Those temples once beset with thorns.
Compassions in his heart are found,
Hard by the signals of his wound:
His sacred side no more shall bear
The cruel scourge, the piercing spear.
His hands are fairer to behold
Than diamonds set in rings of gold;
Those heav'nly hands, that on the tree
Were nailed, and torn, and bled for me!
Though once he bowed his feeble knees,
Loaded with sins and agonies,
Now on the throne of his command
His legs like marble pillars stand.
His eyes are majesty and love,
The eagle tempered with the dove;
No more shall trickling sorrows roll
Through those dear windows of his soul.
His mouth, that poured out long complaints,
Now smiles and cheers his fainting saints
His countenance more graceful is
Than Lebanon with all its trees.
All over glorious is my Lord
Must be beloved, and yet adored;
His worth if all the nations knew,
Sure the whole earth would love him too.
Isaac Watts (1674-1748) - Hymns and Spiritual Songs, 1707.
HYMN 75 L. M.
The description of Christ the beloved. Song of Solomon 5:9-16.
The wond'ring world inquires to know
Why I should love my Jesus so:
What are his charms," say they, "above
The objects of a mortal love?"
Yes! my Beloved, to my sight
Shows a sweet mixture, red and white:
All human beauties, all divine,
In my Beloved meet and shine.
White is his soul, from blemish free;
Red with the blood he shed for me;
The fairest of ten thousand fairs;
A sun amongst ten thousand stars.
His head the finest gold excels;
There wisdom in perfection dwells,
And glory like a crown adorns
Those temples once beset with thorns.
Compassions in his heart are found,
Hard by the signals of his wound:
His sacred side no more shall bear
The cruel scourge, the piercing spear.
His hands are fairer to behold
Than diamonds set in rings of gold;
Those heav'nly hands, that on the tree
Were nailed, and torn, and bled for me!
Though once he bowed his feeble knees,
Loaded with sins and agonies,
Now on the throne of his command
His legs like marble pillars stand.
His eyes are majesty and love,
The eagle tempered with the dove;
No more shall trickling sorrows roll
Through those dear windows of his soul.
His mouth, that poured out long complaints,
Now smiles and cheers his fainting saints
His countenance more graceful is
Than Lebanon with all its trees.
All over glorious is my Lord
Must be beloved, and yet adored;
His worth if all the nations knew,
Sure the whole earth would love him too.
Isaac Watts (1674-1748) - Hymns and Spiritual Songs, 1707.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Foreknowledge not just information
“When the Bible speaks of God’s foreknowledge,
it is never speaking of God’s gathering information about events over which He
had no control. God is not passive, but active, in foreknowledge. ‘Him, being
delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken,
and by wicked hands have crucified and slain’ (Acts 2:23).
God did not just gather information ahead of time that Jesus would be crucified
at the hands of wicked men. He determined
it by His foreknowledge according to His own counsel. It did not just
happen to turn out that way, and He had advance information about it. It turned
out that way because He had before determined it should.” – Conrad
Murrell, in Salvation...When?, page 27
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Socrates got it right
Socrates, who died around 399 BC, was a Greek philosopher and not a Christian. But he certainly got it right when he said: "Could I climb to the highest place in Athens, I would lift my voice and proclaim, 'Fellow citizens, why do you turn and scrape every stone to gather wealth, and take so little care of your children to whom one day you must relinquish it all?'" -- Socrates, about 420 B.C., according to Plato.
Another "lesson from history" may be found at the link.
Another "lesson from history" may be found at the link.
Monday, March 19, 2007
DST - reprise
"An Act to preserve daylight and provide standard time for the United States" was enacted on March 19, 1918.
Anyone know the source/author of this below?
Not at the River Jordan
But in the flowing stream,
Stood John the Baptist dipping
When he baptized Him.
John was a Baptist preacher,
When he baptized the Lamb;
Then Jesus was a Baptist,
And thus the Baptists came.
Anyone know the source/author of this below?
Not at the River Jordan
But in the flowing stream,
Stood John the Baptist dipping
When he baptized Him.
John was a Baptist preacher,
When he baptized the Lamb;
Then Jesus was a Baptist,
And thus the Baptists came.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Hope by Mike McInnnis
Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that within the veil. -- Hebrews 6:19
The scripture uses several adjectives to describe the hope which the LORD gives:
One hope. “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” (Eph 4:4-5) This describes the very basis upon which the HOPE of the LORD’s children is based. There is only one sure ground upon which true hope can rest, HIS name is the LORD JESUS CHRIST.
A good hope. “Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace, Comfort your hearts, and establish you in every good word and work.” (2 Thess 2:16- 17) That hope which HE gives is like a breath of fresh air or a cool drink from a deep well which springs up into everlasting life, filling the soul with gladness and peace.
A blessed hope. “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ.” (Titus 2:13) The anticipation of our LORD’s return is indeed a blessed hope for those who love HIS appearing. There are some who have erred from the faith saying that the resurrection is past and that CHRIST has already come. (see 2 Tim.2:18)
A better hope. “For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.” (Heb 7:19) The ground and basis of our hope is not built on anything which must be accomplished by sinful men. JESUS CHRIST has fulfilled the law in its jot and tittle and has offered one sacrifice for sins forever. HE is now seated at the right hand of the FATHER making intercession for HIS own. The law could never make us righteous nor can it now bring us into condemnation. “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” (Rom 8:2)
A lively hope. “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.” (1 Pet 1:3) Our hope is “lively” (i.e.; living) because HE is alive and has placed within us, the hope that we too shall be raised from the sleep of death and shall put on immortality in an incorruptible body like unto HIS. This hope is at the very heart of our desire. “If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.” (1 Cor 15:19- 20)
-- Excerpt from the Grace Gazette Vol. V, Issue 10
The scripture uses several adjectives to describe the hope which the LORD gives:
One hope. “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” (Eph 4:4-5) This describes the very basis upon which the HOPE of the LORD’s children is based. There is only one sure ground upon which true hope can rest, HIS name is the LORD JESUS CHRIST.
A good hope. “Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace, Comfort your hearts, and establish you in every good word and work.” (2 Thess 2:16- 17) That hope which HE gives is like a breath of fresh air or a cool drink from a deep well which springs up into everlasting life, filling the soul with gladness and peace.
A blessed hope. “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ.” (Titus 2:13) The anticipation of our LORD’s return is indeed a blessed hope for those who love HIS appearing. There are some who have erred from the faith saying that the resurrection is past and that CHRIST has already come. (see 2 Tim.2:18)
A better hope. “For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.” (Heb 7:19) The ground and basis of our hope is not built on anything which must be accomplished by sinful men. JESUS CHRIST has fulfilled the law in its jot and tittle and has offered one sacrifice for sins forever. HE is now seated at the right hand of the FATHER making intercession for HIS own. The law could never make us righteous nor can it now bring us into condemnation. “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” (Rom 8:2)
A lively hope. “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.” (1 Pet 1:3) Our hope is “lively” (i.e.; living) because HE is alive and has placed within us, the hope that we too shall be raised from the sleep of death and shall put on immortality in an incorruptible body like unto HIS. This hope is at the very heart of our desire. “If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.” (1 Cor 15:19- 20)
-- Excerpt from the Grace Gazette Vol. V, Issue 10
Systematized theology
"Jesus, as has been intimated, did not teach a Dogmatic Theology; but only imparted, in a fragmentary form, the eternal truths of the religion of Heaven. The Apostles, particularly Paul and John, formed indeed a system of doctrines; but not a sharply-defined and logical system like that of the Schoolmen of the middle ages, and those Schools of Theology of our day. It was long, however, before believers at large began to build up the doctrines of Christianity in a connected and systematic manner. At first they were satisfied with the simple confession that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, that he is the Messiah promised by the prophets, and that he is the Son of God and the Saviour of the world." -- History of the Early Baptists: from the 'Beginning of the Gospel' to the rise of affusion as baptism, and of infant baptism 28 A.D.--250 A.D., William Cecil Duncan, New Orleans, LA: Alex Duncan & Co., 1857pp. 162, 163
Friday, March 16, 2007
How do teachers make their students feel?
Seen posted in a school: In years to come, your students may forget what you taught them. But they will always remember how you made them feel.
What does this mean? Is it correct? If so, what does it suggest to teachers?
What does this mean? Is it correct? If so, what does it suggest to teachers?
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Landmarkism under Fire
I just ran across this book online -- Landmarkism Under Fire: a Study of Landmark Baptist Polity on Church Constitution by J. C. Settlemoir.
The book deals with what is termed (at least in this book) "Essential Mother-Daughter Authority" for the purpose of constituting a church. According to Settlemoir, "EMDA is a doctrine concerning church constitution" that "maintains authority must be given by a mother church in order to constitute a group into a new church. It teaches the authority of Christ was transferred to the church and consequently only a church can pass this authority on to another group." Or, as stated by a proponent of the idea, "Therefore I believe that all true churches were founded or established on the consent of a mother church." [7 Questions and Answers as to Church Authority, by Robert Ashcraft]
I believe this will prove fascinating reading to those interested in the polity of church constitution, whether or not one is a "Landmarker".
The book deals with what is termed (at least in this book) "Essential Mother-Daughter Authority" for the purpose of constituting a church. According to Settlemoir, "EMDA is a doctrine concerning church constitution" that "maintains authority must be given by a mother church in order to constitute a group into a new church. It teaches the authority of Christ was transferred to the church and consequently only a church can pass this authority on to another group." Or, as stated by a proponent of the idea, "Therefore I believe that all true churches were founded or established on the consent of a mother church." [7 Questions and Answers as to Church Authority, by Robert Ashcraft]
I believe this will prove fascinating reading to those interested in the polity of church constitution, whether or not one is a "Landmarker".
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
March 14th in History
March 14, 1794: The cotton gin was patented by Eli Whitney.
March 14, 1804: Johann Strauss, Austrian composer, was born.
March 14, 1879: Albert Einstein, Austrian scientist, was born.
March 14, 1883: Karl Marx, German philosopher and communist revolutionary, dies.
March 14, 1961: Revised version of the New Testament published.
March 14, 1964: Jack Ruby found guilty of killing Lee Harvey Oswald, and sentenced to death.
March 14, 1980: Members of the US Olympic boxing team are among the 87 killed in a plane crash in Warsaw.
March 14, 1804: Johann Strauss, Austrian composer, was born.
March 14, 1879: Albert Einstein, Austrian scientist, was born.
March 14, 1883: Karl Marx, German philosopher and communist revolutionary, dies.
March 14, 1961: Revised version of the New Testament published.
March 14, 1964: Jack Ruby found guilty of killing Lee Harvey Oswald, and sentenced to death.
March 14, 1980: Members of the US Olympic boxing team are among the 87 killed in a plane crash in Warsaw.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Daylight saving time
Who decided we need more Daylight saving time?
According to Wikipedia, the idea of Daylight saving time began in 1905 with Englishman William Willett, and he published a proposal for it in 1907 (evidently Benjamin Franklin raised the idea as early as 1784).
"Everyone appreciates the long, light evenings. Everyone laments their shortage as Autumn approaches; and everyone has given utterance to regret that the clear, bright light of an early morning during Spring and Summer months is so seldom seen or used." -- William Willett "The Waste of Daylight" 1907
"DST was first enacted by a national government by Germany during World War I...On March 19, 1918, the U.S. Congress established DST from the last Sunday in March to the last Sunday in October." This was unpopular and was repealed in 1919. (Wikipedia)
Of course, we all understand (don't we?) that no daylight is actually saved, the amount of daylight being governed by the God-created sun rather than our watches. So the running back & forth of clocks and watches doesn't really save "daylight". Does it actually save energy? I don't know. I am simple enough to know that the "time change" associated with DST will increase the use of electricity in the morning and reduce its use in the evening. If the reduction of energy use in the evening reduction in greater than the increase of energy use in the morning, then a savings could occur. According to United States DOT, such a savings does occur -- about 1% each day.
"I don't really care how time is reckoned so long as there is some agreement about it, but I object to being told that I am saving daylight when my reason tells me that I am doing nothing of the kind. I even object to the implication that I am wasting something valuable if I stay in bed after the sun has risen. As an admirer of moonlight I resent the bossy insistence of those who want to reduce my time for enjoying it. At the back of the Daylight Saving scheme I detect the bony, blue-fingered hand of Puritanism, eager to push people into bed earlier, and get them up earlier, to make them healthy, wealthy and wise in spite of themselves." -- Robertson Davies, "The Diary of Samuel Marchbanks" 1947
To me, Daylight saving time seems to be a government-imposed lifestyle change for all its citizens.
According to Wikipedia, the idea of Daylight saving time began in 1905 with Englishman William Willett, and he published a proposal for it in 1907 (evidently Benjamin Franklin raised the idea as early as 1784).
"Everyone appreciates the long, light evenings. Everyone laments their shortage as Autumn approaches; and everyone has given utterance to regret that the clear, bright light of an early morning during Spring and Summer months is so seldom seen or used." -- William Willett "The Waste of Daylight" 1907
"DST was first enacted by a national government by Germany during World War I...On March 19, 1918, the U.S. Congress established DST from the last Sunday in March to the last Sunday in October." This was unpopular and was repealed in 1919. (Wikipedia)
Of course, we all understand (don't we?) that no daylight is actually saved, the amount of daylight being governed by the God-created sun rather than our watches. So the running back & forth of clocks and watches doesn't really save "daylight". Does it actually save energy? I don't know. I am simple enough to know that the "time change" associated with DST will increase the use of electricity in the morning and reduce its use in the evening. If the reduction of energy use in the evening reduction in greater than the increase of energy use in the morning, then a savings could occur. According to United States DOT, such a savings does occur -- about 1% each day.
"I don't really care how time is reckoned so long as there is some agreement about it, but I object to being told that I am saving daylight when my reason tells me that I am doing nothing of the kind. I even object to the implication that I am wasting something valuable if I stay in bed after the sun has risen. As an admirer of moonlight I resent the bossy insistence of those who want to reduce my time for enjoying it. At the back of the Daylight Saving scheme I detect the bony, blue-fingered hand of Puritanism, eager to push people into bed earlier, and get them up earlier, to make them healthy, wealthy and wise in spite of themselves." -- Robertson Davies, "The Diary of Samuel Marchbanks" 1947
To me, Daylight saving time seems to be a government-imposed lifestyle change for all its citizens.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Salvation.....When?
Have any of you read Salvation.....When? by Conrad Murrell [G.A.T.E. Publications, Bentley, LA, 1993] Murrell is a preacher, writer, and conference speaker. He pastors Grace Church of Bentley, is about 77 years old, and has been preaching for over 50 years.
According to Grace and Truth Enterpises, Salvation....When is a "mind-jarring, searching recovery of the biblical doctrine of Salvation" that " Shockingly reveals the problems spawned by defining and limiting salvation in an experience."
He has a Calvinistic belief system. Just wondering what you all think, if you've read Murrell? Here's a few quotes:
"The basic error is in viewing salvation as an experience - that is, an in-time experience to which past, future, and eternity are all subjective...Soon, one who had been delighted in his experience is convinced he was deceived and needs another experience...Salvation includes the complete deliverance of the saint...There would be no difference of brethren over the doctrine of eternal security if Bible salvation were understood. The division exists solely because of the idea of salvation being in an experience...Salvation is not an experience: it is an act of God that has its origin and consummation in eternity, and includes all the experience in grace of the object of salvation in his entire lifetime." - from pages 17-22
I found his explanation of the harmonization of certain verses on perseverance and some that seem to teach apostasy unique and interesting.
According to Grace and Truth Enterpises, Salvation....When is a "mind-jarring, searching recovery of the biblical doctrine of Salvation" that " Shockingly reveals the problems spawned by defining and limiting salvation in an experience."
He has a Calvinistic belief system. Just wondering what you all think, if you've read Murrell? Here's a few quotes:
"The basic error is in viewing salvation as an experience - that is, an in-time experience to which past, future, and eternity are all subjective...Soon, one who had been delighted in his experience is convinced he was deceived and needs another experience...Salvation includes the complete deliverance of the saint...There would be no difference of brethren over the doctrine of eternal security if Bible salvation were understood. The division exists solely because of the idea of salvation being in an experience...Salvation is not an experience: it is an act of God that has its origin and consummation in eternity, and includes all the experience in grace of the object of salvation in his entire lifetime." - from pages 17-22
I found his explanation of the harmonization of certain verses on perseverance and some that seem to teach apostasy unique and interesting.
Friday, March 09, 2007
The Tailor-King
In my post on The argument of theological differences, I mentioned that was reading The Tailor-King by Anthony Arthur. I finished it last night.
Arthur's book is a "popular" telling of the Münster Rebellion in Germany. It is well written and seems to keep to historical accuracy. It is not written with the "serious" historian in mind, and would be a good introduction to the story for those not familiar with it. Some Anabaptists set up a kingdom in Münster in the 1530s, and were beseiged and eventually overthrown by Franz von Waldeck, the "prince-bishop" of the area.
Arthur is not particularly sympathetic to the Münster Anabaptists, but also does not find evil in everything they did (as was the standard line for many years). In his last chapter he makes some comparison to recent "millennial movements", such as that of David Koresh and the Branch Davidians, Jim Jones & Jonestown, etc..
Overall, I would recommend it.
Arthur's book is a "popular" telling of the Münster Rebellion in Germany. It is well written and seems to keep to historical accuracy. It is not written with the "serious" historian in mind, and would be a good introduction to the story for those not familiar with it. Some Anabaptists set up a kingdom in Münster in the 1530s, and were beseiged and eventually overthrown by Franz von Waldeck, the "prince-bishop" of the area.
Arthur is not particularly sympathetic to the Münster Anabaptists, but also does not find evil in everything they did (as was the standard line for many years). In his last chapter he makes some comparison to recent "millennial movements", such as that of David Koresh and the Branch Davidians, Jim Jones & Jonestown, etc..
Overall, I would recommend it.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Ponder anew what the Almighty can do
Praise to the Lord, the Almighty, the King of creation!
O my soul, praise Him, for He is thy health and salvation!
All ye who hear, now to His temple draw near;
Praise Him in glad adoration.
Praise to the Lord, Who doth prosper thy work and defend thee;
Surely His goodness and mercy here daily attend thee.
Ponder anew what the Almighty can do,
If with His love He befriend thee.
Praise to the Lord, O let all that is in me adore Him!
All that hath life and breath, come now with praises before Him.
Let the Amen sound from His people again,
Gladly for aye we adore Him.
Hymn written by Joachim Neander in 1680 (translated by Catherine Winkworth).
See Praise to the Lord, the Almighty in the Cyber Hymnal for all the verses. Thanks to Julian Smithe for sending this via e-mail.
O my soul, praise Him, for He is thy health and salvation!
All ye who hear, now to His temple draw near;
Praise Him in glad adoration.
Praise to the Lord, Who doth prosper thy work and defend thee;
Surely His goodness and mercy here daily attend thee.
Ponder anew what the Almighty can do,
If with His love He befriend thee.
Praise to the Lord, O let all that is in me adore Him!
All that hath life and breath, come now with praises before Him.
Let the Amen sound from His people again,
Gladly for aye we adore Him.
Hymn written by Joachim Neander in 1680 (translated by Catherine Winkworth).
See Praise to the Lord, the Almighty in the Cyber Hymnal for all the verses. Thanks to Julian Smithe for sending this via e-mail.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Today in 1836
Early in the morning of March 6, 1836, Santa Anna ordered his troops to storm Misión San Antonio de Valero, the Alamo.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Smith Memorial Singing
Saturday (only) before Second Sunday — March 10, 2007 (d.v.)
28th Annual Smith Memorial Sacred Harp Singing
New Harmony Community Center, on FM 724 in the NewHarmony Community, between State Hwys 64 & 110,northwest of Tyler, Texas.
More info: Myrl Jones, (903) 593-0955.
Books: 1991 Revision/Cooper Revision
For map, follow this link:Smith Memorial Singing
28th Annual Smith Memorial Sacred Harp Singing
New Harmony Community Center, on FM 724 in the NewHarmony Community, between State Hwys 64 & 110,northwest of Tyler, Texas.
More info: Myrl Jones, (903) 593-0955.
Books: 1991 Revision/Cooper Revision
For map, follow this link:Smith Memorial Singing
Saturday, March 03, 2007
The argument of theological differences
Something I'm reading and something I re-read this week intersected in a way to cause me to write down these thoughts. I'm reading The Tailor-King, which is a re-telling of "the rise and fall of the Anabaptist kingdom of Munster" by Anthony Arthur. The Anabaptist kingdom of Munster is a story of radical Anabaptists run amuck, but Anabaptists nonetheless. This unfortunate series of events was used for centuries to "tar and feather" all Anabaptists. I have no intention of doing so. But to deny any connection between the peace-loving non-resistant Anabaptists and the radicals at Munster who defied a feudal war-lord (aka Bishop von Waldeck) and proposed to violently set up the Kingdom of God on earth is an historical mistake. In fact, a disciple of Jan Matthias (the instigator of Munster) baptized Obbe Philips, who ordained and probably baptized Menno Simons.
A popular trend in Baptist studies is what might be called the "argument of theological (or doctrinal) differences." This "argument of theological differences" is used to support the idea that there was no connection between the early English Baptists and the Continental Anabaptists -- their doctrines are different, therefore there is no connection. Winthrop Hudson provides a good example of this line of thinking. Hudson stresses the Baptists' rejection of certain features of Anabaptist life and thought -- opposition to civil magistracy, the holding of public office, military service, oaths, and going to court -- as evidence that "Baptists Were Not Anabaptists" (The Chronicle, Vol. XVI, No. 4, Oct. 1953, p. 172.).
Mark Osgatharp puts this in perspective in "Twisted Historical Logic" (Baptist Board, 3 Aug 2003): By applying the modernist revisionist historical "logic" to more modern circumstances, we can see just how absurd their conclusions are.
1. Campbellites and Baptists are at theological odds - therefore Campbellites didn't originate among the Baptists. But Campbellites did originate among the Baptists. There are many Campbellite churches existing today which were originally Baptist churches.
2. Charismatics and Baptists are at doctrinal odds - therefore Charismatics didn't originate among the Baptists. But the reality is that there are many charismatic churches that were at one time Baptist churches. As a matter of fact, when the Assemblies of God denomination was first organized there was a whole local association of Missionary Baptist churches in north Arkansas that went over in mass into it's organization.
3. The "General Baptist" denomination in America is an Arminian body - therefore they did not originate among the Calvinistic Baptists. But they did originate among the Calvinistic Baptists. The founder of this group [Benoni Stinson] was sent as a missionary out of a Calvinist Baptist church in Indiana. After establishing a new church he openly declared his opposition to Calvinism. Later, the churches that grew out of this movement abandoned the doctrine of eternal security as their founder had abandoned Calvinism.
4. Modernist Baptists and Bible Believing Baptists are at diametrical odds, therefore they have no historical kinship. But, as we all know, they do have historical kinship. Baptist churches that were once doctrinally sound are now theologically bankrupt. There are even churches where the membership is split between Christians and modernists.Ironically, the Baptists who are the most theologically destitute are the very ones who would disown some group in the past because they don't pass Baptist doctrinal muster! -- [Excerpt from the thread "Twisted Historical Logic", Mark Osgatharp, on www.baptistboard.com]
I find it amusing that often the most narrow Baptists in faith and practice -- who will not fellowship those who do not dot their "i's" and cross their "t's" in the same manner -- are often the quickest to embrace any old heretical group as an ancestor if they practiced adult immersion; while, on the other hand, the most theologically diverse and ecumenical Baptists reject some quite similar ancient baptistic folks as not meeting their criteria to be "real" Baptists.
Hudson's "argument of theological differences" may rest partially in a bias and certainly fails to entertain the complexity of the Anabaptist movement on the European continent. Bro. Osgatharp illustrates the failure of this argument to the meet the muster. It is a prop that needs to be pulled out of the English Separatist descent theory. If one cannot prove a tie between the English Baptists and Continental Anabaptists -- or can prove there is not one -- then discuss the historical evidence. But the historically untested use of the "argument of theological differences" might just as well prove that some Baptist church of the same name in the same place is not the one that was begun there 200 years before.
A popular trend in Baptist studies is what might be called the "argument of theological (or doctrinal) differences." This "argument of theological differences" is used to support the idea that there was no connection between the early English Baptists and the Continental Anabaptists -- their doctrines are different, therefore there is no connection. Winthrop Hudson provides a good example of this line of thinking. Hudson stresses the Baptists' rejection of certain features of Anabaptist life and thought -- opposition to civil magistracy, the holding of public office, military service, oaths, and going to court -- as evidence that "Baptists Were Not Anabaptists" (The Chronicle, Vol. XVI, No. 4, Oct. 1953, p. 172.).
Mark Osgatharp puts this in perspective in "Twisted Historical Logic" (Baptist Board, 3 Aug 2003): By applying the modernist revisionist historical "logic" to more modern circumstances, we can see just how absurd their conclusions are.
1. Campbellites and Baptists are at theological odds - therefore Campbellites didn't originate among the Baptists. But Campbellites did originate among the Baptists. There are many Campbellite churches existing today which were originally Baptist churches.
2. Charismatics and Baptists are at doctrinal odds - therefore Charismatics didn't originate among the Baptists. But the reality is that there are many charismatic churches that were at one time Baptist churches. As a matter of fact, when the Assemblies of God denomination was first organized there was a whole local association of Missionary Baptist churches in north Arkansas that went over in mass into it's organization.
3. The "General Baptist" denomination in America is an Arminian body - therefore they did not originate among the Calvinistic Baptists. But they did originate among the Calvinistic Baptists. The founder of this group [Benoni Stinson] was sent as a missionary out of a Calvinist Baptist church in Indiana. After establishing a new church he openly declared his opposition to Calvinism. Later, the churches that grew out of this movement abandoned the doctrine of eternal security as their founder had abandoned Calvinism.
4. Modernist Baptists and Bible Believing Baptists are at diametrical odds, therefore they have no historical kinship. But, as we all know, they do have historical kinship. Baptist churches that were once doctrinally sound are now theologically bankrupt. There are even churches where the membership is split between Christians and modernists.Ironically, the Baptists who are the most theologically destitute are the very ones who would disown some group in the past because they don't pass Baptist doctrinal muster! -- [Excerpt from the thread "Twisted Historical Logic", Mark Osgatharp, on www.baptistboard.com]
I find it amusing that often the most narrow Baptists in faith and practice -- who will not fellowship those who do not dot their "i's" and cross their "t's" in the same manner -- are often the quickest to embrace any old heretical group as an ancestor if they practiced adult immersion; while, on the other hand, the most theologically diverse and ecumenical Baptists reject some quite similar ancient baptistic folks as not meeting their criteria to be "real" Baptists.
Hudson's "argument of theological differences" may rest partially in a bias and certainly fails to entertain the complexity of the Anabaptist movement on the European continent. Bro. Osgatharp illustrates the failure of this argument to the meet the muster. It is a prop that needs to be pulled out of the English Separatist descent theory. If one cannot prove a tie between the English Baptists and Continental Anabaptists -- or can prove there is not one -- then discuss the historical evidence. But the historically untested use of the "argument of theological differences" might just as well prove that some Baptist church of the same name in the same place is not the one that was begun there 200 years before.
Friday, March 02, 2007
Pejorative terms
"It would seem more appropriate in academic debate, and indeed a simple matter of common courtesy, to refer to positions by the terms that the representatives of those positions choose for themselves rather than by pejorative terms that they reject." -- from Should We Move Beyond the New Testament to a Better Ethic? by Wayne Grudem
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Baptist history search engine
Today I entered into a experiment concerning something I discovered on Google -- creating a customized search engine. I have created Baptist History Search Engine and invite you to visit, try a search, and give me your comments on it. I don't know how good this will be, but can see some possibilities. Your comments might help me improve it.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Godliness and contentment
“But godliness with contentment is great gain,” 1 Timothy 6:7
By definition, ‘godliness’, means ‘God-fearing’ or revering. The problem with our generation is that ‘there is no fear of God before their eyes,’ Romans 2:18. True God fearing begins with the revelation of His character and attributes as revealed by the Spirit of God in the Word -- Proverbs 9:10. It continues with the revelation of God’s mercy and justice being met together in Christ Jesus (typified by the mercy seat with the blood) -- Psalm 32:6. David pleads not his innocence before God, but the forgiveness of God based on the non-imputing of sin to his account, as grievous as it was -- v. 2. Romans 3:25 uses the term --‘the forbearance of God,’ toward sin yet to be remitted. In Psalm 32:6, the word ‘godly’ has a Hebrew root meaning of ‘mercy.’ Therefore, true godliness is not out of any walk, character, or conduct obligating God to bless, but rather an acknowledgement in humility of one’s constant need for mercy, based on a just satisfaction by the Substitute, Jesus Christ -- e.g. the publican -- Luke 18:13.
The contentment that comes from this revelation of God’s mercy in Christ Jesus is the satisfaction of needing or wanting nothing else than Jesus blood and righteousness as ALL our salvation, redemption, justification, and sanctification. Ye are complete in Him -- Colossians 2:10. -- Ken Wimer, Shreveport Grace Church bulletin, February 11, 2007
By definition, ‘godliness’, means ‘God-fearing’ or revering. The problem with our generation is that ‘there is no fear of God before their eyes,’ Romans 2:18. True God fearing begins with the revelation of His character and attributes as revealed by the Spirit of God in the Word -- Proverbs 9:10. It continues with the revelation of God’s mercy and justice being met together in Christ Jesus (typified by the mercy seat with the blood) -- Psalm 32:6. David pleads not his innocence before God, but the forgiveness of God based on the non-imputing of sin to his account, as grievous as it was -- v. 2. Romans 3:25 uses the term --‘the forbearance of God,’ toward sin yet to be remitted. In Psalm 32:6, the word ‘godly’ has a Hebrew root meaning of ‘mercy.’ Therefore, true godliness is not out of any walk, character, or conduct obligating God to bless, but rather an acknowledgement in humility of one’s constant need for mercy, based on a just satisfaction by the Substitute, Jesus Christ -- e.g. the publican -- Luke 18:13.
The contentment that comes from this revelation of God’s mercy in Christ Jesus is the satisfaction of needing or wanting nothing else than Jesus blood and righteousness as ALL our salvation, redemption, justification, and sanctification. Ye are complete in Him -- Colossians 2:10. -- Ken Wimer, Shreveport Grace Church bulletin, February 11, 2007
Monday, February 26, 2007
The song you sing
"The song that YOU sing does you the most good" -- credited to Frank Stamps at Southern Gospel Music Conventions
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Praise and honour
Psalm 71:8
Let my mouth be filled with thy praise and with thy honour all the day.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
5/4 time signature
Well, I'm at home today -- didn't get to attend our State Sacred Harp Singing Convention -- and so I'm mulling over music just a little bit. Since I knew I wouldn't be going to College Station, I went to a seven-shape singing convention in Jacksonville, Texas.
As we (really, they) were breezing through one song in 4/4 time, we ran up against 3 or 4 measures labeled 5/4?? Most everyone seemed to be familiar with it, or else didn't care.
Whoever heard of a 5/4 time signature?
As we (really, they) were breezing through one song in 4/4 time, we ran up against 3 or 4 measures labeled 5/4?? Most everyone seemed to be familiar with it, or else didn't care.
Whoever heard of a 5/4 time signature?
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Just when you think you know....
Just when you think you know all about Baptist
history, you learn something new!
The only distilled beverage native to the United States is bourbon. A Baptist preacher from Kentucky, Elijah Craig (1738–1808), is credited with the invention of bourbon whiskey. He and his brother Lewis and the “Traveling Church” came from Virginia and arrived in central Kentucky circa 1781. Apparently, a number of Kentucky churches trace their lineage to this beginning.
According to Wikipedia, “He was ordained a Baptist minister in 1771, and was imprisoned briefly in South Carolina, apparently for disturbing the peace with his sermons. He then moved to what was then Bourbon County, Kentucky and settled in the area of Frankfort, Kentucky in 1785. In 1777, he became pastor of Blue Run Church.”
The first Baptist college founded west of the Allegheny mountains – Georgetown College (in Georgetown, KY) – has a connection back to Elijah Craig. He founded the Rittenhouse Academy in 1798. Silas Noel, a Frankfort, KY lawyer and minister, helped persuade the Kentucky legislature to charter the Kentucky Baptist Education Society in 1829. Citizens of Georgetown offered to raise $20,000 and donate the assets of Rittenhouse Academy for a new college. Therefore, Georgetown’s roots are fed from Craig’s school.
I ran across the bourbon info in “The excommunication of wine” in the Searcy, Arkansas Daily Citizen (Thursday, February 8, 2007 6:38 PM CST) That article carried this interesting paragraph:
The only distilled beverage native to the United States is bourbon. A Baptist preacher from Kentucky, Elijah Craig (1738–1808), is credited with the invention of bourbon whiskey. He and his brother Lewis and the “Traveling Church” came from Virginia and arrived in central Kentucky circa 1781. Apparently, a number of Kentucky churches trace their lineage to this beginning.
According to Wikipedia, “He was ordained a Baptist minister in 1771, and was imprisoned briefly in South Carolina, apparently for disturbing the peace with his sermons. He then moved to what was then Bourbon County, Kentucky and settled in the area of Frankfort, Kentucky in 1785. In 1777, he became pastor of Blue Run Church.”
The first Baptist college founded west of the Allegheny mountains – Georgetown College (in Georgetown, KY) – has a connection back to Elijah Craig. He founded the Rittenhouse Academy in 1798. Silas Noel, a Frankfort, KY lawyer and minister, helped persuade the Kentucky legislature to charter the Kentucky Baptist Education Society in 1829. Citizens of Georgetown offered to raise $20,000 and donate the assets of Rittenhouse Academy for a new college. Therefore, Georgetown’s roots are fed from Craig’s school.
I ran across the bourbon info in “The excommunication of wine” in the Searcy, Arkansas Daily Citizen (Thursday, February 8, 2007 6:38 PM CST) That article carried this interesting paragraph:
“It took less than one hundred years for the majority of American Churches to end eighteen centuries of the virtually universal use of wine and begin serving grape juice at communion services. This swift change in public perception is akin to the drop in sales of orange juice and bread caused by the recent Atkin’s Diet brouhaha. In this sense, Prohibition can be viewed as one of history’s most successful marketing campaigns.”
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Two hymns I hadn't heard
A couple of interesting hymns from an old Mormon hymn book (which probably explains why I hadn't heard them). What do you think of them?
1. Though in the outward church below,
The wheat and tares together grow;
Jesus ere long will weed the crop,
And pluck the tares in anger up.
2. Will it relieve their horrors there,
To recollect their stations here;
How much they heard, how much they knew,
How much among the wheat they grew?
3. No! this will aggravate their case,
They perish'd under means of grace;
To them the word of life and faith
Became an instrument of death.
4. We seem alike when thus we meet,
Strangers might think we all were wheat;
But to the Lord's all-searching eyes,
Each heart appears without disguise,
5. The tares are spared for various ends,
Some for the sake of praying friends;
Others the Lord, against their will,
Employs his counsels to fulfil.
6. But though they grow so tall and strong,
His plan will not require them long;
In harvest, when He saves his own,
The tares shall into hell be thrown.
1. Salem's bright King, Jesus by name,
In ancient times to Jordan came
All righteousness to fill;
'Twas there the ancient prophet stood,
Whose name was John, a man of God,
To do his Master's will.
2. The holy Jesus did demand
His right to be baptized then,
The prophet gave consent;
On Jordan's banks they did appear,
And lo, John and his Master dear,
Then down the bank they went.
3. Down in old Jordan's rolling stream;
The prophet led the holy Lamb,
And there did him baptize:
Jehovah saw his darling Son,
And was well pleas'd in what he'd done,
And own'd him from the skies.
4. The opening heaven now complies,
The Holy Ghost like lightning flies,
Down from the courts above:
And on the holy heavenly Lamb,
The Spirit lights and does remain,
In shape like a fair dove.
5. This is my Son, Jehovah cries,
The echoing voice from glory flies,
O, children, hear ye him;
Hark! 'tis his voice, behold he cries,
Repent, believe, and be baptiz'd,
And wash away your sin.
"Salem's bright king" may have first appeared in the 4th edition (1810) of Smith & Jones' Hymns and Spiritual Songs, for the Use of Christians.
Let Us Sing
1. Though in the outward church below,
The wheat and tares together grow;
Jesus ere long will weed the crop,
And pluck the tares in anger up.
2. Will it relieve their horrors there,
To recollect their stations here;
How much they heard, how much they knew,
How much among the wheat they grew?
3. No! this will aggravate their case,
They perish'd under means of grace;
To them the word of life and faith
Became an instrument of death.
4. We seem alike when thus we meet,
Strangers might think we all were wheat;
But to the Lord's all-searching eyes,
Each heart appears without disguise,
5. The tares are spared for various ends,
Some for the sake of praying friends;
Others the Lord, against their will,
Employs his counsels to fulfil.
6. But though they grow so tall and strong,
His plan will not require them long;
In harvest, when He saves his own,
The tares shall into hell be thrown.
1. Salem's bright King, Jesus by name,
In ancient times to Jordan came
All righteousness to fill;
'Twas there the ancient prophet stood,
Whose name was John, a man of God,
To do his Master's will.
2. The holy Jesus did demand
His right to be baptized then,
The prophet gave consent;
On Jordan's banks they did appear,
And lo, John and his Master dear,
Then down the bank they went.
3. Down in old Jordan's rolling stream;
The prophet led the holy Lamb,
And there did him baptize:
Jehovah saw his darling Son,
And was well pleas'd in what he'd done,
And own'd him from the skies.
4. The opening heaven now complies,
The Holy Ghost like lightning flies,
Down from the courts above:
And on the holy heavenly Lamb,
The Spirit lights and does remain,
In shape like a fair dove.
5. This is my Son, Jehovah cries,
The echoing voice from glory flies,
O, children, hear ye him;
Hark! 'tis his voice, behold he cries,
Repent, believe, and be baptiz'd,
And wash away your sin.
"Salem's bright king" may have first appeared in the 4th edition (1810) of Smith & Jones' Hymns and Spiritual Songs, for the Use of Christians.
Let Us Sing
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
State Convention
The 15th Annual Texas State Denson Book Sacred Harp Convention* will be held in College Station, Texas (d.v.) on Saturday & Sunday, February 24-25, 2007.
The location of the convention will be:
Wellborn Community Center
4119 Greens Prairie Rd. W.
College Station, Texas
Time: Saturday, 10:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m.
Sunday, 9:30 a.m. - 2:30 p.m.
For more info: Kevin Powell
*Click link above for map
The location of the convention will be:
Wellborn Community Center
4119 Greens Prairie Rd. W.
College Station, Texas
Time: Saturday, 10:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m.
Sunday, 9:30 a.m. - 2:30 p.m.
For more info: Kevin Powell
*Click link above for map
Monday, February 19, 2007
Our Sufficiency
"Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God." - 2 Corinthians 3:5
HE is our SUFFICIENCY in the court of heaven. “Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.” (Rom 5:9-10)
HE is our SUFFICIENCY in the court of our accusers. “Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.” (Rom 8:33-34)
HE is our SUFFICIENCY in the court of man’s opinion. “As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.” (Rom 8:36-37)
HE is our SUFFICIENCY in any ministry to which we are called. “But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.” (2Cor 4:7)
HE is our SUFFICIENCY in faith. “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” (Gal 2:20)
HE is our SUFFICIENCY in sanctification. “But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.” (1Co 1:30)
HE is our SUFFICIENCY in assurance. “I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.” (2Tim 1:12)
HE is our SUFFICIENCY in life and death. “For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.” (Rom 14:7-8)
by Mark McInnis, excerpt from Grace Gazette, Volume V, Issue 6
HE is our SUFFICIENCY in the court of heaven. “Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.” (Rom 5:9-10)
HE is our SUFFICIENCY in the court of our accusers. “Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.” (Rom 8:33-34)
HE is our SUFFICIENCY in the court of man’s opinion. “As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.” (Rom 8:36-37)
HE is our SUFFICIENCY in any ministry to which we are called. “But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.” (2Cor 4:7)
HE is our SUFFICIENCY in faith. “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” (Gal 2:20)
HE is our SUFFICIENCY in sanctification. “But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.” (1Co 1:30)
HE is our SUFFICIENCY in assurance. “I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.” (2Tim 1:12)
HE is our SUFFICIENCY in life and death. “For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.” (Rom 14:7-8)
by Mark McInnis, excerpt from Grace Gazette, Volume V, Issue 6
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Presidents Day tomorrow
Tomorrow is "Presidents Day" in the United States, so I got online to look up some of its history. According to Patriotism.org "The original version of the holiday was in commemoration of George Washington's birthday in 1796." "Washington's Birthday was originally implemented by the federal government in 1880 in the District of Columbia and expanded in 1885 to include all federal offices." (Wikipedia). "In 1968, legislation was enacted that changed Washington's Birthday observation to the third Monday in February each year whether or not it fell on the 22nd. This act took effect in 1971."
Here are a few bits of trivia:
"George Washington, according to the calendar that has been used since at least the mid-18th century, was born on February 22, 1732. According to the old style calendar in use in 1732, he was born on February 11."
Abraham Lincoln's birthday was never a federal holiday like Washington's, but it did become a legal holiday in several states.
"The holiday in February is still officially known as Washington's Birthday (at least according to the Office of Personnel Management); it has become popularly (and, perhaps in some cases at the state level, legally) known as 'Presidents Day'."
Situated closely to the time of the birthdays of Washington and Lincoln was the inaguration of Jefferson Davis as President of the Confederate States of America, which happened on this day, February 18th, in 1861.
Happy holidays to some of you "lucky ones" who'll be home taking it easy tomorrow! ;-)
This post refers to Presidents Day as known in the United States. Several other countries also observe a "Presidents Day."
Here are a few bits of trivia:
"George Washington, according to the calendar that has been used since at least the mid-18th century, was born on February 22, 1732. According to the old style calendar in use in 1732, he was born on February 11."
Abraham Lincoln's birthday was never a federal holiday like Washington's, but it did become a legal holiday in several states.
"The holiday in February is still officially known as Washington's Birthday (at least according to the Office of Personnel Management); it has become popularly (and, perhaps in some cases at the state level, legally) known as 'Presidents Day'."
Situated closely to the time of the birthdays of Washington and Lincoln was the inaguration of Jefferson Davis as President of the Confederate States of America, which happened on this day, February 18th, in 1861.
Happy holidays to some of you "lucky ones" who'll be home taking it easy tomorrow! ;-)
This post refers to Presidents Day as known in the United States. Several other countries also observe a "Presidents Day."
Friday, February 16, 2007
The Gospel in Isaiah
Isaiah 9:6-7 is a great prophecy of Christ. It shows HOW He came into the world, WHO He really is, WHY He came, and WHAT He accomplished--
“For unto us a child is born,”- This speaks of His holy, sinless humanity, conceived in the virgin’s womb by the Holy Spirit. Christ is the ‘seed of woman,’ (Genesis 3:15).
“unto us a son is given:” This speaks of His eternal deity. His godly nature was not created or born. He is the eternal Son of God, Alpha and Omega, having no beginning and no end. He is the great ‘I AM’ (John 8:58).
“and the government shall be upon His shoulder,”- This speaks of WHY He came. It was to fulfill ALL THE CONDITIONS and REQUIREMENTS of the salvation of God’s elect. This is the government of grace, and all grace is in Christ (John 1:17).
“and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.” This describes His Person in all the facets of His glory as the Redeemer and the Lord of His people (Colossians 1:19; 2:9; 2 Corinthians 4:6).
"Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon His kingdom,”- This describes the ASSURED FRUIT AND RESULT OF HIS FINISHED WORK, for “He SHALL save His people from their sins,” (Matthew 1:21). The ‘throne of David’ is the messianic throne of Christ our Redeemer. ‘His kingdom’ is His church whom He redeemed by His own blood.
"to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever." THIS DESCRIBES HIS FINISHED WORK ON THE CROSS. God is both just and justifier as the sins of God’s elect were imputed to Christ and His righteousness was imputed to them (Romans 3:24-26; 2 Corinthians 5:21).
“The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.” This shows how ALL of salvation is of the Lord, by His power, and for His glory.
-- Bill Parker, Ashland, KY, from the Bulletin of Shreveport Grace Church, 14 January 2007
“For unto us a child is born,”- This speaks of His holy, sinless humanity, conceived in the virgin’s womb by the Holy Spirit. Christ is the ‘seed of woman,’ (Genesis 3:15).
“unto us a son is given:” This speaks of His eternal deity. His godly nature was not created or born. He is the eternal Son of God, Alpha and Omega, having no beginning and no end. He is the great ‘I AM’ (John 8:58).
“and the government shall be upon His shoulder,”- This speaks of WHY He came. It was to fulfill ALL THE CONDITIONS and REQUIREMENTS of the salvation of God’s elect. This is the government of grace, and all grace is in Christ (John 1:17).
“and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.” This describes His Person in all the facets of His glory as the Redeemer and the Lord of His people (Colossians 1:19; 2:9; 2 Corinthians 4:6).
"Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon His kingdom,”- This describes the ASSURED FRUIT AND RESULT OF HIS FINISHED WORK, for “He SHALL save His people from their sins,” (Matthew 1:21). The ‘throne of David’ is the messianic throne of Christ our Redeemer. ‘His kingdom’ is His church whom He redeemed by His own blood.
"to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever." THIS DESCRIBES HIS FINISHED WORK ON THE CROSS. God is both just and justifier as the sins of God’s elect were imputed to Christ and His righteousness was imputed to them (Romans 3:24-26; 2 Corinthians 5:21).
“The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.” This shows how ALL of salvation is of the Lord, by His power, and for His glory.
-- Bill Parker, Ashland, KY, from the Bulletin of Shreveport Grace Church, 14 January 2007
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Predestination of things?
"God predestinated his people, not things." "Predestination as taught by the true church teaches us that God predetermined the destination of his people, not things." -- Elder Claude Mckee,* Anniston, Alabama
From time to time I hear or read the idea that predestination refers only to people and not things. This "doctrine" is making a distinction where there is no difference (and thereby possibly causes division where there should be none). Consider the following factors.
1. The English meaning of the word "predestinate". It means "to foreordain or predetermine" (our common usage of "destination" is not bound up in the meaning of the word).
2. The Latin root of the word "predestinate". It comes from the Latin root déstinàre, which means "to establish or determine" (see the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © 2006, for example)
3. The meaning of the Greek word proorizo. According to most concordances, Bible dictionaries, etc., it means "to predetermine or decide beforehand", "decreeing from eternity", "to foreordain or appoint beforehand". (IOW, our modern idea of "destination" is not bound up in the word, as usage will show)
4. The use of the Greek word proorizo. It is translated "predestinate", "ordain" and "determine before" in the following verses, and is not restricted from referring to things.
Acts 4:28 - For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel /determined before/ to be done.
Rom 8:29 - For whom he did foreknow, he also did /predestinate/ to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Rom 8:30 - Moreover whom he did /predestinate/, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
1Co 2:7 - But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God /ordained/ before the world unto our glory:
Eph 1:5 - Having /predestinated/ us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Eph 1:11 - In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being /predestinated/ according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
To define "things" out of what God has determined before is to ignore the totality of Scripture, place too much weight a few verses without due consideration of the whole, and to ignore the meaning of the word. Too much rests on reading back into it one of the meanings of our word "destination" -- "the place to which one is going". This ignores other meanings of the word, such as "an act of appointing or setting aside for a specific purpose". To say that God does not "predestinate" things is to say He does not "predetermine" things.
This is an area in which we need to allow the Bible to interpret itself, rather than to apply our own distinctions. As noted, the Greek word proorizo is translated "predestinate" and "determine before", which is a Biblical way of defining the meaning of predestinate -- it is that which God has determined before. For example, in Acts 4:28 - "For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done." What had God here determined before? That Herod, Pontius Pilate, Gentiles and the people of Israel would crucify Jesus Christ. See verses 24-27 and also Acts 2:22-24.
* Essential Baptist Principles I do not intend to "pick on" or debate Elder Mckee. His site is the first one I found by google search that stated this idea plainly.
From time to time I hear or read the idea that predestination refers only to people and not things. This "doctrine" is making a distinction where there is no difference (and thereby possibly causes division where there should be none). Consider the following factors.
1. The English meaning of the word "predestinate". It means "to foreordain or predetermine" (our common usage of "destination" is not bound up in the meaning of the word).
2. The Latin root of the word "predestinate". It comes from the Latin root déstinàre, which means "to establish or determine" (see the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © 2006, for example)
3. The meaning of the Greek word proorizo. According to most concordances, Bible dictionaries, etc., it means "to predetermine or decide beforehand", "decreeing from eternity", "to foreordain or appoint beforehand". (IOW, our modern idea of "destination" is not bound up in the word, as usage will show)
4. The use of the Greek word proorizo. It is translated "predestinate", "ordain" and "determine before" in the following verses, and is not restricted from referring to things.
Acts 4:28 - For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel /determined before/ to be done.
Rom 8:29 - For whom he did foreknow, he also did /predestinate/ to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Rom 8:30 - Moreover whom he did /predestinate/, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
1Co 2:7 - But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God /ordained/ before the world unto our glory:
Eph 1:5 - Having /predestinated/ us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Eph 1:11 - In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being /predestinated/ according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
To define "things" out of what God has determined before is to ignore the totality of Scripture, place too much weight a few verses without due consideration of the whole, and to ignore the meaning of the word. Too much rests on reading back into it one of the meanings of our word "destination" -- "the place to which one is going". This ignores other meanings of the word, such as "an act of appointing or setting aside for a specific purpose". To say that God does not "predestinate" things is to say He does not "predetermine" things.
This is an area in which we need to allow the Bible to interpret itself, rather than to apply our own distinctions. As noted, the Greek word proorizo is translated "predestinate" and "determine before", which is a Biblical way of defining the meaning of predestinate -- it is that which God has determined before. For example, in Acts 4:28 - "For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done." What had God here determined before? That Herod, Pontius Pilate, Gentiles and the people of Israel would crucify Jesus Christ. See verses 24-27 and also Acts 2:22-24.
* Essential Baptist Principles I do not intend to "pick on" or debate Elder Mckee. His site is the first one I found by google search that stated this idea plainly.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
True Love
I CORINTHIANS 13
1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, 5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; 6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; 7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. 13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
This day in England -- 1542
Queen Catherine of England (Catherine Howard) died on this day -- February 13 -- in 1542. She was beheaded on the grounds of treason. Catherine was the fifth queen/consort of Henry VIII. This bit of "this day" trivia reminds me that last fall in Austin, while at the Southwest Texas Sacred Harp Singing Convention, Sonny Erwin taught me a mnemonic for remembering the fates of Henry's wives -- "divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived". Now most of you probably already knew that, but it was new to me.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Christ and the cross
The rationalist says: "Give me Christ without the cross."
The ritualist says, "Give me the cross without the Christ!"
However, the redeemed sinner says:
"A crossless Christ, my Savior could not be;
"A Christless cross is no refuge for me;
"But Oh, CHRIST CRUCIFIED, I rest in Thee!"
-- Copied from the Shreveport Grace Church bulletin, February 11, 2007
The ritualist says, "Give me the cross without the Christ!"
However, the redeemed sinner says:
"A crossless Christ, my Savior could not be;
"A Christless cross is no refuge for me;
"But Oh, CHRIST CRUCIFIED, I rest in Thee!"
-- Copied from the Shreveport Grace Church bulletin, February 11, 2007
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Mount Carmel history book
I have agreed to let Carolyn Ericson and Ericson Books print and sell my book, Minutes of the Mt. Carmel Baptist Church Rusk County, Texas October 1867--November 1871. This should make them more widely accessible. I don't have the time to print and put together very many of them, and they are set up to do so. If you are interested in ordering a copy, visit their web site, which is linked above. Click on the "catalog" and then "new items". You may also type in "Carmel" on the Search by any Keyword function at the bottom of the "catalog" page and it will find it.
The cost is $7.50, plus postage (and tax if you are a Texas resident).
The cost is $7.50, plus postage (and tax if you are a Texas resident).
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Unbelief in an Elder's Children by Taylor
“May a man have children who are unbelievers and yet be appointed or continue as an elder? First Timothy 3:4-5 and Titus 1:6 provoke the question....all of the requirements for eldership that are listed in this passage (being married once, being temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, a good teacher, not a drunkard, not a lover of money, and not a recent convert) are actions of personal responsibility. We would expect the requirement regarding his children to be in the same category. Requiring that his children have genuine saving faith is to require personal responsibility for the salvation of another, something I don’t see taught in Scripture.” – From Unbelief in an Elder’s Children by Justin Taylor (click link to read the entire article)
Friday, February 09, 2007
Baylor singing tomorrow
Saturday before Second Sunday in February (February 10th)
6th Annual—Baylor Sacred Harp Singing
This will be held in the Great Hall at Truett Theological Seminary, Baylor University, Waco, Texas.
Time: 10:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m.
More info: David Music, (254) 710-2360. The 1991 Denson Revision will be used.
6th Annual—Baylor Sacred Harp Singing
This will be held in the Great Hall at Truett Theological Seminary, Baylor University, Waco, Texas.
Time: 10:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m.
More info: David Music, (254) 710-2360. The 1991 Denson Revision will be used.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
HoBgoBlinS
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and hence clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." I'm not a big fan of Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956), but he seems to have gotten that right. Viewing with cynicism in 1920, how would he view politics in the 21st century? If politicians can't find a problem to save us from, they'll create one.
I also like this quote of his: "The ideal Government of all reflective men, from Aristotle onward, is one which lets the individual alone—one which barely escapes being no government at all." Oh, for less government!
I also like this quote of his: "The ideal Government of all reflective men, from Aristotle onward, is one which lets the individual alone—one which barely escapes being no government at all." Oh, for less government!
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Jack the Huckster
I was first introduced to this story three or four years ago by Elder Jimmy Hamrick of Lindale. This version copied and presented below is from Charles H. Spurgeon, who told it a number of times in his sermons.
This Huckster Jack was a poor, wicked fellow, who had gone about from village to village, swearing, drinking, huckstering and perhaps pilfering. Some thought him half-witted, but the story would show his mind to be sound enough. He heard a poor woman sing somewhere— "I'm a poor sinner, and nothing at all; But Jesus Christ is my all in all."
He remembered the words, and what was better, he felt their sense; and he kept on humming them to himself till God's good Spirit engraved them on his heart. There they were recorded, and Jack was a new man and a saved man. So he assayed to join himself unto the church, but the brethren looked suspiciously at him and enquired, "What is your experience?" He said he had no experience but this— "I'm a poor sinner, and nothing at all; But Jesus Christ is my all in all."
The good elders very properly asked, "Are you converted? Have you been born again?" and Jack replied, "I do not know much about these things; but this I do know and am sure of— "I'm a poor sinner, and nothing at all; But Jesus Christ is my all in all."
They put him back for awhile, to try if he would grow in his knowledge, but he never went an inch beyond the first standard. He knew what he did know, and to that he held fast— "I'm a poor sinner, and nothing at all; But Jesus Christ is my all in all."
Well, they must take him into the church; they could not well refuse a man with such a confession of faith; and when he was in the church, walking with the brethren, he was happier than the rest of them, at which they greatly marvelled, and one said to him, "Brother Jack, don't you sometimes feel doubts and fears?" "Doubts," he said, "what do you mean? I never doubt that 'I'm a poor sinner, and nothing at all;' for I have daily proofs of it, and why should I doubt that 'Jesus Christ is my all in all'? for he says he is, and I must believe him."
"Ah, well," said one, "sometimes I enjoy good frames and feelings, and feel very happy, and then I lose them, and sink in spirit." Jack answered, "I never get lower than I am, for I am down at the bottom— 'A poor sinner, and nothing at all.' I cannot get lower than that, can I? But I am also at the top, 'for Jesus Christ is my all in all,' and I cannot get higher than that, can I?"
They tried him many ways with their blessed experience, of which you and I have got cart-loads, perhaps wagon-loads; but he could not be drawn out of his one firm position. They tried him with their various attainments, depressions, anxieties, quibbles, and questions; but still the huckster would not budge. He had bought the truth and would not sell it, and so he stuck to— "I'm a poor sinner, and nothing at all; But Jesus Christ is my all in all."
This Huckster Jack was a poor, wicked fellow, who had gone about from village to village, swearing, drinking, huckstering and perhaps pilfering. Some thought him half-witted, but the story would show his mind to be sound enough. He heard a poor woman sing somewhere— "I'm a poor sinner, and nothing at all; But Jesus Christ is my all in all."
He remembered the words, and what was better, he felt their sense; and he kept on humming them to himself till God's good Spirit engraved them on his heart. There they were recorded, and Jack was a new man and a saved man. So he assayed to join himself unto the church, but the brethren looked suspiciously at him and enquired, "What is your experience?" He said he had no experience but this— "I'm a poor sinner, and nothing at all; But Jesus Christ is my all in all."
The good elders very properly asked, "Are you converted? Have you been born again?" and Jack replied, "I do not know much about these things; but this I do know and am sure of— "I'm a poor sinner, and nothing at all; But Jesus Christ is my all in all."
They put him back for awhile, to try if he would grow in his knowledge, but he never went an inch beyond the first standard. He knew what he did know, and to that he held fast— "I'm a poor sinner, and nothing at all; But Jesus Christ is my all in all."
Well, they must take him into the church; they could not well refuse a man with such a confession of faith; and when he was in the church, walking with the brethren, he was happier than the rest of them, at which they greatly marvelled, and one said to him, "Brother Jack, don't you sometimes feel doubts and fears?" "Doubts," he said, "what do you mean? I never doubt that 'I'm a poor sinner, and nothing at all;' for I have daily proofs of it, and why should I doubt that 'Jesus Christ is my all in all'? for he says he is, and I must believe him."
"Ah, well," said one, "sometimes I enjoy good frames and feelings, and feel very happy, and then I lose them, and sink in spirit." Jack answered, "I never get lower than I am, for I am down at the bottom— 'A poor sinner, and nothing at all.' I cannot get lower than that, can I? But I am also at the top, 'for Jesus Christ is my all in all,' and I cannot get higher than that, can I?"
They tried him many ways with their blessed experience, of which you and I have got cart-loads, perhaps wagon-loads; but he could not be drawn out of his one firm position. They tried him with their various attainments, depressions, anxieties, quibbles, and questions; but still the huckster would not budge. He had bought the truth and would not sell it, and so he stuck to— "I'm a poor sinner, and nothing at all; But Jesus Christ is my all in all."
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Jesus freely gives us all
Jesus is the chiefest good;
He has saved us by His blood;
Let us value naught but him;
No one else deserves esteem.
Jesus, when stern Justice said,
"Man his life has forfeited,
"Vengeance follows by decree,"
Cried, "Inflict it all on me."
Jesus gives us life and peace,
Faith, and love, and holiness;
Every blessing, great or small,
Jesus freely gives us all.
-- From today's Shreveport Grace Church bulletin (but without attribution; anyone know who wrote this?)
He has saved us by His blood;
Let us value naught but him;
No one else deserves esteem.
Jesus, when stern Justice said,
"Man his life has forfeited,
"Vengeance follows by decree,"
Cried, "Inflict it all on me."
Jesus gives us life and peace,
Faith, and love, and holiness;
Every blessing, great or small,
Jesus freely gives us all.
-- From today's Shreveport Grace Church bulletin (but without attribution; anyone know who wrote this?)
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Three hopeless cases
In the Gospel of Mark, chapter 5, we find three hopeless cases.
1. A man who could be neither tamed nor bound -- no man could bind him, no, not with chains...neither could any man tame him.
2. A woman who could not be healed -- a certain woman, which had an issue of blood twelve years, And had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse...
3. A girl who died "while help was on the way" -- Thy daughter is dead: why troublest thou the Master any further?
Hopeless. Yes! "With men this is impossible..."
Hopeless? I think not! "...with God all things are possible."
Out of his head, crazy, hopeless: "And they come to Jesus, and see him that was possessed with the devil, and had the legion, sitting, and clothed, and in his right mind..."
Money gone, health gone, hopeless: "...she had heard of Jesus...and touched his garment...And straightway the fountain of her blood was dried up; and she felt in her body that she was healed of that plague."
Life gone, hopeless: "And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise. And straightway the damsel arose, and walked..."
No head. No health. No breath. No hope. NO PROBLEM!!
1. A man who could be neither tamed nor bound -- no man could bind him, no, not with chains...neither could any man tame him.
2. A woman who could not be healed -- a certain woman, which had an issue of blood twelve years, And had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse...
3. A girl who died "while help was on the way" -- Thy daughter is dead: why troublest thou the Master any further?
Hopeless. Yes! "With men this is impossible..."
Hopeless? I think not! "...with God all things are possible."
Out of his head, crazy, hopeless: "And they come to Jesus, and see him that was possessed with the devil, and had the legion, sitting, and clothed, and in his right mind..."
Money gone, health gone, hopeless: "...she had heard of Jesus...and touched his garment...And straightway the fountain of her blood was dried up; and she felt in her body that she was healed of that plague."
Life gone, hopeless: "And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise. And straightway the damsel arose, and walked..."
No head. No health. No breath. No hope. NO PROBLEM!!
Friday, February 02, 2007
An holy kiss
Romans 16:16 -- Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.
It was a kiss; a form of greeting (salute).
It was holy and chaste; not lascivious as the woman in harlot's attire (Prov. 7:13ff. So she caught him, and kissed him, and with an impudent face said unto him...).
It was sincere and open; not false and treacherous as Judas (Luke 22:48 Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?).
It was mutual; salute one another (Rom. 12:5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another).
Unlike the Dead Sea, which is constantly receiving but never giving, a mutual expression flows in both directions. This mutual expression was one of love -- By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. Of respect -- Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another. Of familial bonds -- Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee...for we be brethren. And I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another.
John 15:12 -- This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
It was a kiss; a form of greeting (salute).
It was holy and chaste; not lascivious as the woman in harlot's attire (Prov. 7:13ff. So she caught him, and kissed him, and with an impudent face said unto him...).
It was sincere and open; not false and treacherous as Judas (Luke 22:48 Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?).
It was mutual; salute one another (Rom. 12:5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another).
Unlike the Dead Sea, which is constantly receiving but never giving, a mutual expression flows in both directions. This mutual expression was one of love -- By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. Of respect -- Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another. Of familial bonds -- Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee...for we be brethren. And I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another.
John 15:12 -- This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
At ease in Zion
Amos 6:1 - "Woe to them that are at ease in Zion, and trust in the mountain of Samaria..." In Israel and Judah existed a false security and complacency. Because of this the truth of matters were not clearly seen. This is often true of us in our own situations
At ease, complacent, secure, careless, asleep -- all describe well much of 21st century American Christianity. Two complimentary and parallel truths expose the error of complacency.
1. Christ's Kingdom is not of this world. John 18:36 - "My kingdom is not of this world." His Kingdom is not earthly, but heavenly; not fleshly, but spiritual.
2. God's children are temporary residents of this world. Hebrew 11:9,10 - Descriptive terms that the Bible uses for Christians emphasize this fact. We are foreigners, aliens, wanderers, sojourners, strangers, pilgrims. Our citizenship is in heaven. Citizenship here on earth is usually determined by birth -- where and to whom. Citizenship in the kingdom of God is also determined by birth -- by whom -- a second, spiritual birth (John 1:12,13; 3:7; Col.1:13). As citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven, we are ambassabors OF heaven TO earth.
From these two truths we conclude:
Be not entangled in (caught up in) the affairs of this life; II Tim. 2:4ff.
Lay up treasures in heaven; Matt. 6:19-21, Col. 3:2
Love not the world; I John 2:15-16, Jas. 4:9
Our weapons must be chosen carefully; II Cor. 10:4
What Kingdom do you stand for, invest in, love and fight for?
At ease, complacent, secure, careless, asleep -- all describe well much of 21st century American Christianity. Two complimentary and parallel truths expose the error of complacency.
1. Christ's Kingdom is not of this world. John 18:36 - "My kingdom is not of this world." His Kingdom is not earthly, but heavenly; not fleshly, but spiritual.
2. God's children are temporary residents of this world. Hebrew 11:9,10 - Descriptive terms that the Bible uses for Christians emphasize this fact. We are foreigners, aliens, wanderers, sojourners, strangers, pilgrims. Our citizenship is in heaven. Citizenship here on earth is usually determined by birth -- where and to whom. Citizenship in the kingdom of God is also determined by birth -- by whom -- a second, spiritual birth (John 1:12,13; 3:7; Col.1:13). As citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven, we are ambassabors OF heaven TO earth.
From these two truths we conclude:
Be not entangled in (caught up in) the affairs of this life; II Tim. 2:4ff.
Lay up treasures in heaven; Matt. 6:19-21, Col. 3:2
Love not the world; I John 2:15-16, Jas. 4:9
Our weapons must be chosen carefully; II Cor. 10:4
What Kingdom do you stand for, invest in, love and fight for?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)