Buy Xopenex No Prescription Oct 25, 2006
Medrol For Sale Oct 24, 2007
Where Can I Buy Allopurinol Dec 5, 2006
An interesting discussion developed on Wade Burleson's blog that I want to amplify a bit and continue here. In his post titled Can We All Agree To Disagree and Remain Friends?, Wade strongly affirms believer's baptism by immersion, but goes on to suggest that it is in no way tied to the observance of the ordinance of the Lord's Supper.
In the comments, he describes the practice of his church to welcome all who have been baptized to participate in the Lord's Table, even if their "baptism" was of a mode other than immersion, and even if that "baptism" took place before their conversion. I have no problem with his church, or any church, observing this ordinance according to their convictions, and would not suggest that this observance means that they cannot be Southern Baptist. But Wade goes on to say, "I still stand by the fact that the BFM 2000 does not exclude sharing the Lord's Supper with baptized evangelicals from traditions that are not Baptist." It is here that I find strong disagreement.
Here is the relevant portion of the Baptist Faith and Message, which the 2000 revision left unchanged from the 1963 version:
VII. Baptism and the Lord's Supper Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper. The Lord's Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming. Matthew 3:13-17; 26:26-30; 28:19-20; Mark 1:9-11; 14:22-26; Luke 3:21-22; 22:19-20; John 3:23; Acts 2:41-42; 8:35-39; 16:30-33; 20:7; Romans 6:3-5; 1 Corinthians 10:16,21; 11:23-29; Colossians 2:12.The first paragraph of the article is the focus of the disagreement. The first sentence thereof defines Christian baptism, and the last sentence calls baptism, thus defined, a prerequisite to the Lord's Supper. While I see in the statement room for interpretation between "closed" communion, which allows only members of a local congregation to participate, and "close" communion, in which all who are essentially Baptists may participate (the interpretation favored by the article's primary author, Herschel Hobbs), I see no way to allow those who were baptized as infants to participate in the Lord's Supper while at the same time affirming this article. Again, please understand that I am not suggesting that a church must practice closed or close communion in order to be Southern Baptist. But I simply don't understand how one can say they affirm this article of the Baptist Faith and Message while at the same time affirming a practice of the Lord's Supper that is contrary to the plain meaning of it.
Wes Kenney
Nathan Finn Oct 11 2006 - 10:39 am
CB,
Dorgan wrote 2-3 books about the Old Regulars–he is the leading “secular” scholar of that branch of the Baptist family. Sorry to hear about the whole heretic thing.
If I write one, you’ll be the first to know!
NAF
cb scott Oct 11 2006 - 11:41 am
Nathan,
It was kind of funny. They considered me a heretic due to the fact our church had a Sunday School and taught children the Bible. VBS was a terrible thing also. The fact that I visited lost people and tried to convience them of their need for salvation really set them off. When we did mass mailing for revival meetings I got mean phone calls and a few letters telling me I was sending people to Hell by pushing them into a false faith before God had “called” them.
I guess Wes will be ready to skin me for taking over his post. Therefore, I apologize to Wes for doing so.
Nathan, Maybe we will run into each other someday and will have tme to talk about these wonderful people known as Old Regulars.
cb
David Rogers Oct 12 2006 - 3:05 am
I’m arriving here a little bit late to this conversation. But, just in case anyone is still listening, I was wondering what some of you think about whether someone who believes in “open communion” or “modified open communion” (as Nathan calls it) should be allowed to be an IMB missionary.
David Rogers Oct 13 2006 - 2:15 am
Paul,
Thanks for the affirmation (I am a “modified open communionist” according to Nathan).
What I am really interested to hear is how some of those who are demanding that denominational employees sign the BFM without any caveats would respond to this.
I know that, on first consideration, it sounds like a good thing to be consistent with what we as a Convention have approved. But then, when you really start thinking about the implications, I think we’re going to find ourselves in some pretty awkward situations.
R. L. Vaughn Jun 5 2007 - 5:49 pm
Wes, I realize this is quite an old post. But I would like to offer a couple of thoughts to cb’s and Nathan’s thoughts on the Old Regular Baptists. I haven’t had the privilege of ministering with them, as cb has, but I have corresponded with both Old Regular Baptists and Howard Dorgan over a period of 25 or so years, as well as collecting documents such as minute books.
I would differ with cb’s assessment of them as a true Hyper-Calvinistic group. In theology they hold a “softer” Calvinism than the Primitive Baptists (except for possibly one association). They do not initiate any “effort” toward getting anyone saved, but rather wait on the Lord. So that may be what cb is talking about.
Also Nathan mentions the “No-Hellers” in connection with the Old Regulars. The “No-Hellers” of which I am aware, and on which Dr. Dorgan writes his book, operate under the name “Primitive” rather than “Old Regular”. I believe one association uses the terminology “Regular Primitive Baptist Association”.
Finally, cb mentioned their observance of “closed communion”, and Nathan also referenced that on his blog. I just want to say something about the Old Regular version of closed communion, at least as far as I am aware (IOW, some might differ, but this is general). Closed communion among Old Regulars usually consists of restricting participants in communion to churches that are in “correspondence”. For example, the New Salem, Northern New Salem, Old Friendship, Old Indian Bottom, Philadelphia, Sardis, and Union Associations are in “correspondence” (at least were, these relationships tend to change from time to time). For example, any member in good standing of a church in any one of these associations would be welcome to commune (and wash feet) at any of the other churches in these associations. But Thornton Union and Mud River associations, for example, are not in this correspondence and their members could not commune in churches in any of the first seven named associations. [I know what I mean, but hope this makes sense to those who are not familiar with associational correspondence.]
Dr. Dorgan’s books on Baptists in central Appalachia are: Giving Glory to God in Appalachia: Worship Practices of Six Baptist Sub-denominations; The Old Regular Baptists of Central Appalachia: Brothers and Sisters of Hope; and In the Hands of a Happy God: The “No Hellers” of Central Appalachia. Very good reading!
Buy Xopenex No Prescription Oct 25, 2006
Medrol For Sale Oct 24, 2007
Where Can I Buy Allopurinol Dec 5, 2006
Connect with me on the following social networks:
