OnTuesday, October 20, 2009 the Iowa Baptist Heritage Minsitry of Spencer, Iowa hosted an Iowa Baptist Heritage Day celebrating the 175th anniversary of the first Baptist Church in Iowa.  The event started with a preaching service at the Heritage Baptist Church of Burlington and ended with the unveling of a new historical marker at the First Baptist Church of Danville. 

In 1834, William and Hepzibah Manly moved to Iowa from Green County, Kentucky.  When they arrived they found other settlers of like faith and with the assistance of Elder John Logan from Illinois organized a church of eleven members in the cabin of Noble Hously with the Articles of Faith that the Manlys brought with them from the Brush Creek Baptist Church of Green County, Kentucky.  This new church was named the Regular Baptist Church at Long Creek and is now called the First Baptist Church of Danville – the first Baptist Church in Iowa.

At the Iowa Baptist Heritage Day, over 200 were in attendance from 7 different states, including almost 30 pastors and 2 Christian school groups.  We were able to present a plaque of appreciation to a member of the Brush Creek Baptist Church of Kentucky which did not until recently know of their historical participation in Iowa Baptist History.  We were also stirred by the preaching of Bro. Jeff Faggart of the Baptist History Preservation Society.  The day ended with the unveling of the marker at Danville which commemorated the 175th anniversary to the day, stated that it was the first Baptist Church in Iowa and explained its connection with the Kentucky Baptists.

What was done at the Iowa Baptist Heritage Day is just a scratch on the surface of what needs to be done in reattaching other Baptists with our heritage.  Most states have much more Baptist history than Iowa does and therefore much more can be done around the nation.  How much do you know about the Baptist heritage in your area?

Below is an 8 minute video presentation created by Bro. Davenport that was premiered at the beginning of the Iowa Baptist Heritage Day.

Aside from all of the confusion about this issue in charismatic circles, there is much confusion among Baptists on this doctrine.  Is the baptism of the Holy Ghost salvation?  Is it the filling of the Holy Spirit?  Is it the baptism OF or the baptism WITH the Holy Ghost?  Is it something we can still experience today?  There is one thing for sure, and that is that it DOES matter.  Let me clearly state my position but before I do so, let me preface by saying in context of the Holy Ghost there is a difference between the indwelling, the baptism and the filling thereof.  Also, we never see that we are baptized BY the Holy Ghost but WITH the Holy Ghost.  That is key!  The phrase, “baptism of the Holy Spirit” does not exist in the Bible.  The Holy Ghost does not baptize anyone but God did baptize a people WITH the Holy Ghost.  My position is that we are indwelt with the Holy Ghost at salvation, we partake of the baptism with the Holy Ghost when we become members of a true New Testament church and are filled with the Holy Spirit when we are totally surrendered to His will individually.  Jesus said in Acts 1:5 “For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence”.  Jesus is speaking to already-saved and water baptized church members and he tells them that they will be baptized WITH the Holy Ghost NOT MANY DAYS HENCE.  What was just a few days away?  Pentecost!  God the Father is the one doing the baptizing and He would baptize them WITH the Holy Ghost – earthly empowerment for the Great Commission.  Acts 1:8 says, “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me….”  Seven days after the ascension we have Acts 2.  Verses 1 thru 4 say, “And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.  And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.  And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.  And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongeus, as the Spirit gave them utterance.”  The “filling” in verse 4 is a result of the baptism in verses 1 thru 3.  This baptism was foretold in Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16 and John 1:33.  Now this situation included only Jews and then we find the baptism with the Holy Ghost confirmed on the Gentiles in Acts 11 but after Acts 11 we find no more mention of being baptized with the Holy Ghost.  We do however see water baptism mentioned and explained several times thru the rest of the New Testament and Ephesians 4:5 says there is now only ONE baptism.  If the baptism with the Holy Ghost is mentioned only in Acts but water immersion is spoken about throughout the New Testament and is part of today’s Great Commission then that one baptism is water baptism.  This confirms that the baptism with the Holy Ghost only needed to happen in the early church for the purpose of Holy Ghost empowerment of the church for the work of the Great Commission.  Read Acts 1:8 again.  Because of what the Bible teaches about church perpetuity in Matthew 16:18; 28:20 and Ephesians 3:21, the baptism with the Holy Ghost has passed onto all true New Testament churches and does not need to happen a second time.  Some teach that when we are saved we are baptized in, with or by the Holy Spirit and often cite I Corinthians 12:13 as the ONLY proof text for this false doctrine.  Within context, this verse is referring to the local church body and the Spirit leading in that church when one is water baptized into the membership.  The danger of this belief is that this would put all of the saved into the “body” – the commonly referred to “body of Christ”.  The problem is that Ephesians 1:22,23; Colossians 1:18 and 24 all plainly teach us that the “church” is the “body” and we believe that a church is only a local assembly.  So the “Holy Spirit baptism at salvation theory” is a support teaching for the universal, invisible, mystical church/body of Christ heresy.  Ephesians, written after the events of Acts, says that there is “one baptism”.  According to those who believe in Holy Ghost baptism at salvation MUST believe in TWO baptisms!   Sadly, most Baptists did not believe this universal church support-doctrine until the Fundamentalist movement.  Those fundamental protestants didn’t like all of those proof texts for water baptism so they spiritualized them to our demise.  The baptism with the Holy Ghost is nothing spooky or mysterious but was a one time event explained in Acts 1 for the purpose of empowering the church for the work of the Great Commission.

When did the church start?  Baptists, being dispensationalists and not replacement theologians, believe that the church is a New Testament institution so we know that we can find its origins within the borders of the New Testament Scriptures.  Historically, Baptists have believed that the church is a local assembly and so when we refer to “the church” we are not speaking of all the saved but of an organized body of scripturally baptized believers.  (When we use terms as “the church” we are speaking in an institutional sense – much compared to the phrase “the home”.)  Most people who read this article already understand that Matthew 16:18 is not teaching that Peter was the first pope.  With that being said, it is a popular tradition to quote this verse when speaking of the beginning of the church.  Was this time of Christ’s conversation with Peter the exact time that Christ started His church?  Was the church started at Pentecost?  Was it started after the resurrection of Christ or before?  These are questions that need to be answered because they are the most repeated when addressing this particular issue.  First let me say that the church was not started on the day of Pentecost.  If you disagree, give me one scripture (or five if you wish) that prove or even elude to the fact that the church was started on Pentecost.  Acts 2:41,47 teach that saved people were “added” to the church when baptized.  It is hard to add to something that did not already exist.  According to Acts 1:4-8, what happened on the day of Pentecost was the empowering of the church with the power the Holy Spirit – the baptism with the Holy Ghost (not salvation).  The biggest problem with the Pentecost theory is the fact that if the church did indeed start at Pentecost, then the Great Commission previously given in the gospels has been given to more than just ”the pillar and ground of the truth”.  There are other people who say that Matthew 16:18 is the beginning of the church but I disagree because I believe He already had His church with Him.  When Christ said “I will build my church” it meant that He would continue to build the church that He had already started.  You can have a foundation laid and still say, “I will build my house”.  Now we know that Christ is the Head and the Cornerstone of the church (Ephesians 2:20) but whom does Scripture say was the foundation for the church (or its first members)? I Corinthians 12:28  And God hath set some in the church, first apostles….. Ephesians 2:20 And are BUILT upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone. Who did Christ have with Him in Matthew 16:18?  His apostles.  Again, the problem with the Matthew 16:18 theory is the same as the Pentecost theory and that is the fact that if the church did indeed start in Matthew 16:18 then all of the ministry work done prior to then was in direct violation to the fact that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth – a true para-church ministry.  There are others who say that the church started in Matthew 10 when Christ made apostles out of His disciples but may I make the obvious statement that these men who were made apostles were the same men who existed before Matthew 10.  Christ knew that Peter, John and the others would be His disciples.  So when did the church start?  Matthew 4  This is where Christ began to “call out” His assembly.  They were saved and already baptized by the right authority (read previous article “An Old Testament Baptist?”).  Christ was baptized in Matthew 3, thus making Him eligible (not by need but for example) to be a church member (Christ was an apostle Hebrews 3:1) and do church work.  It is no coincidence that in the very next chapter, Christ begins to “call out” His church.  These men would become apostles and be considered the foundation for the first church.  Others object to a pre-resurrection assembly because of Hebrews 9:16,17.  They say that the New Testament church could not have started before the resurrection of Christ because the Testator had not died yet but I believe this is referring to the fact that the New Covenant was COMPLETED in the death of Christ. But that does not mean that pre-crucifixion scripture is not A PART of the New Covenant/Testament. The Testator was a person and the beginning of the gospels reveal the Testator (Mark 1:1).  If nothing about the New Covenant could be certain until after the resurrection of Christ then the OT saints could not have been saved. (we know they were)  The New Testament period started with the revealing of the Testator (“Behold the Lamb of God”) and was fulfilled at the crucifixion (“blood of the new testament”).  The Old Covenant promised the Messiah and the New Covenant revealed the Messiah, the New Covenant started with the virgin birth of Christ, which amazingly is where the New Testament Scriptures begin.  There is a reason God gives us this scriptural division between the OT and the NT. If the new testament/covenant was not in effect until the crucifixion then therefore there could be no New Testament church prior to the crucifixion.  According to the logic of followers of the Pentecost theory these men were part of an OT church because if there were no true New Testament church baptisms until after the resurrection of Christ, then the baptisms of John’s disciples were OT baptisms. If so, when were they rebaptized and was John wrong in baptizing others before He baptized Christ?  Since the Lord’s supper and baptism were both introduced prior to the resurrection does that mean they are not really church ordinances?  We would clearly say, “No”.  John Leland, the great American Baptist of the 1700’s said this: “The New Testament is introduced with the history of a famous Baptist preacher and his order of baptizing.  John, the forerunner of Jesus, is called a Baptist fifteen times in the four Evangelists.  Is it ignorance or ill will, that so often reproaches the Baptists with novelty?  Is it not certain that the first preacher spoken of in the New Testament was a Baptist?  Why should they be called a new sect, when they can name their founders antecedent to the founders of any other society?  Did not Jesus submit to John’s baptism, to fulfill all righteousness?  Was not Jesus, therefore, a Baptist?  These things are so.”  Because I believe that baptism makes one a member of a church and because of what I believe about the role of John the Baptist, I believe the church started in Matthew 4. 

Is there a universal church?  Is there an invisible church?  What is the so called “mystical body of Christ”?  One’s answers to these questions are usually determined by one’s understanding of the word “church”.  As you know, the word church is derived from a Greek word meaning “a called out assembly”.  This was a common word in Bible times and did not have the preconceived notion of meaning a religious group in that day as it does to us today.  For example, the word church, because of its definition could be used to describe a city council meeting, a public organization board meeting or any public gathering that people were “called out” to attend.  However, in Matthew 16:18 we are introduced to a new kind of church.  Here Jesus uses the term “MY church”.  Who was this church that Jesus was referring to?  Based upon points which we have previously discussed in other articles and based upon scripture that we will not take the time to discuss at this moment, we understand that a New Testament church is an assembly of baptized believers (Acts 2:41,47).  This church was not just another assembly but was “MY” assembly with “MY” requirements – salvation and then baptism.  In order for a church to be THE New Testament church as modeled for us in the New Testament, there must be present a baptized church membership (I Corinthians 12), the practice of church discipline (Matthew 18:15-18), the observance of the two ordinances and the obeying of the great commission.  Now if you believe in a universal, invisible church then we will lose you at this point.  However, if you understand that the church must be local to be a church but have been falsely taught that all the saved of all ages make up the mystical body of Christ then you hold the key to properly understanding the body of Christ.  A simple viewing of Colossians 1:18,24 and Ephesians 1:22,23 will clearly show that the local church and the body of Christ are synonymous and are equal to one another by statement and definition.  Simply put, each church in its respected locality is the representative body of Christ in that locality.  Who makes up the body of Christ?  Well, what makes up your physical human body?  The answer is not several other bodies but MEMBERS.  A clear and beautiful picture of this truth is given to us in I Corinthians 12 where church membership (via the terms of “member” and “members”) is used 15 times.  Just as your physical human body is compiled by members, the body of Christ is made up of local church members.  If the body of Christ were made up of all the saved or even all baptized church members everywhere we would have a universal (catholic) church.  Scripture clearly proves this when Paul wrote his first letter to the Corinthian church (of which he was no longer a member of) and states in chapter 12 and verse 27, “Now YE are the body of Christ, and members in particular”.  Paul did not include himself in that particular body of Christ.  To say that the body of Christ is made up of all believers of all nations and of all ages is to add to the scripture.  Fundamentalism has influenced Baptists to believe in a universal body because Fundamentalists such as Torrey, Wesley and Sunday did not believe in immersion and are therefore not in a true local church which is the body of Christ.   The Bible clearly teaches that each local church is the representative body of Christ in that locality.

Have you said or been taught that John the Baptist was the last Old Testament prophet?  I have heard this for years and never thought anything of it until I began to study the life of John the Baptist and study the doctrine of his baptism.  Now the fact is true that John was a prophet – the Scriptures clearly state that.  But why do we say that he was an Old Testament prophet?  First of all, common sense should raise a red flag when we hear that he was an Old Testament prophet just because of the very simple fact that John is not found in, neither did God place him in the Old Testament Scriptures but in the New Testament Scriptures.  Now before I make my conclusion,  it has become popular to refer to John the Baptist as an Old Testament prophet, let me discuss briefly the purpose of John and his ministry.  First let me state that Christ started the first church and not John.  However, all four gospels start with the life and ministry of John and not with Jesus.  Luke 1:17 states that John was to “make ready a people prepared for the Lord” –  not “the people” but “a people”.  According to Matthew 21:23-27 and John 1:33 we understand that John had special authority from heaven to baptize.  Matthew 3 shows us that John’s candidates for baptism were repentant believers.  We also understand from Acts 2:41,47 and I Corinthians 12:13 that baptism makes you a member of a church.  These scriptures, along with others which we will not take the time to cover at this moment teach that the purpose of John’s ministry was to provide the members for Christ’s church which He would soon start.  This was the “a people” referred to in Luke 1:17.  John was not your average prophet but was indeed, as Jesus said, “much more than a prophet”.   After the account of John baptizing Jesus, John fades off the scene which shows us that the main purpose of John’s ministry was to not only prepare the first church members but to baptize Christ who needed to be baptized as an example for us that the great commission (church planting) cannot be done outside of the church (I Timothy 3:15) of which baptism is the door of membership into.  Now that we understand that John’s heavenly authorized baptism was important and necessary, why is John referred to as an Old Testament prophet?  Now John was a Baptist – Baptist was not John’s last name – he was called a ”Baptist” because he baptized.  It is interesting that Baptists never referred to John as an OT prophet until after the 20th century invasion of Fundamentalism (see previous post on this topic) which was ecumenical in nature and watered down our doctrine and made us sacrifice our ecclesiology on the altar of “The Fundamentals”.  Fundamentalists, which historically included many Methodists, Presbyterians and other Protestant denominations, did not like the fact that John was called “a Baptist” and so they tried to place John in a different dispensation than our own and thus diminish the importance of the name ”Baptist”.  Yes, I understand that Baptists have not always been called Baptists but I also believe that in our day we have returned to the ecclesiastical title of authority – BAPTIST.  Instead of listening to the Moodys, Wesleys, Torreys and Ironsides about John the Baptist, maybe we should consider the writings of our own Baptist forefathers on this subject.  John Leland, the great American Baptist of the 1700’s said this: “The New Testament is introduced with the history of a famous Baptist preacher and his order of baptizing.  John, the forerunner of Jesus, is called a Baptist fifteen times in the four Evangelists.  Is it ignorance or ill will, that so often reproaches the Baptists with novelty?  Is it not certain that the first preacher spoken of in the New Testament was a Baptist?  Why should they be called a new sect, when they can name their founders antecedent to the founders of any other society?  Did not Jesus submit to John’s baptism, to fulfill all righteousness?  Was not Jesus, therefore, a Baptist?  These things are so.” (The Writings of the late Elder John Leland, 1845)  Protestants don’t like the fact that John was a Baptist which therefore made Jesus a Baptist (read previous post on “Why be a Baptist”) and therefore they attempted to do away with John by placing him in the Old Testament.  To place John in a different dispensation diminishes the value of this Baptist baptism in the history of the first church.  Proponents of the “John was an OT prophet” theory often quote Hebrews 9:16,17 which says, “For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth”.    These verses teach that the testament or promise of Christ’s salvation could not be fulfilled without the death of Christ (the testator).  If these verses teach that John was an Old Testament prophet just because his ministry existed prior to Christ’s crucifixion then the church that Christ started prior to His crucifixion was an Old Testament church and the church ordinances that He instituted were Old Testament ordinances.  Just because John’s ministry occurred prior to the crucifixion does not mean he was an Old Testament prophet.  Remember, it is the “testament” (referring to the hope of our salvation) and not the first church that could have no “strength at all while the testator liveth” (meaning the act of eternally obtaining it was not fulfilled yet).  If you wanted to make an application to the first church you could say that the first church definitely existed prior to the crucifixion but would have ended up null and void if there would have eventually been no death of the testator.  For those who say that the gospels are a part of the New Testament, may I remind them that the very first words in the gospel of Mark are, “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ.”  The need of the hour on this subject is to make the division between the Old and New Testaments where God has preserved them for us in the scriptures – very simple.  Luke 16:16a says, “The law and the prophets were UNTIL John” (emphasis mine).  This verse is not saying that there were no prophets during New Testament times (Jesus was a Prophet) but that the law AND the prophets together in their coinciding old covenant prophetic purpose existed in force UNTIL John.  It can be proven from scripture that there were prophets in the New Testament but have you ever heard of an Old Testament Baptist?

If you pay attention to various circles of Baptists in the U.S. and surf the blogosphere you have noticed a significant increase in the number of “Reformed Baptist Churches” and individual pastors/theologians who are claiming to be Reformed Baptists or Baptists that have embraced and attempt to promote Reformed theology.  Just to clear the air, a reformed Baptist is not one who wants to reform churches out of the trends of compromise.  This chosen title is referring to reformed theology which is a belief system that is foundational in how they interpret the whole of scripture.  However, “reformed” is more of a historical claim than a doctrinal.  The most informative observation that can be made about “reformed theology” is in the name itself.  The name “reformed” is derived from the Protestant Reformation of the 16th Century.  Obviously, the studious Baptist will understand that the title “Reformed Baptist” is not only offensive but is impossible.  “Reformed” and “Baptist” should not be in the same description of a believer or of a church.  Now, when “Reformers” refer back to the Reformation, they are not referring to Lutheranism but rather Calvinism.  John Calvin is the instigator of reformed theology.  Although the next statement lacks much detail, it is meant to be straight forward.  Where you find reformed theology, you will find calvinism and, for the most part, covenant theology as well.  Although Calvin taught a few good things, what is taught as “Calvinism” in its entirety is dangerous.  Covenant theology teaches that God is done with Israel regardless of His eternal promises to them and that the “universal church” has replaced Israel (often referred to as replacement theology).  Although the creed of reformed theology is “sola scriptura” which means “by scripture alone”, some “buzz words” by means of their doctrinal documents to watch out for are the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, the Wesminster Confession of Faith and the Heidelberg Catachism (so much for “sola scriptura”).  It is also a fact that reformed theology goes hand in hand with postmillenialism.  So, while the Catholics believe they are the Kingdom, and Baptists are preaching the gospel because Christ is going to set up His Kingdom, the Protestants are busy building a Kingdom thru protestant means so the Lord can come back.  This is why Protestants have slaughtered Baptists by the millions – burn the heretics so this world will be good enough for King Jesus to come back to.  Although reformed theology is prominently Presbyterian, there are many Southern Baptist Churches who are embracing this false framework of theology.  There are also droves of ex-Fundamental Baptists who have left their churches for various reasons (sometimes good and sometimes bad) and are embracing Reformed Theology because it makes them comfortable in their evangelistic effort and makes them feel intellectually deep (which helps them cope with their bitterness – I can see that all over their blogs).  However, the only thing “Baptist” about a Reformed Baptist Church is that they baptize by immersion but so do the Pentecostals and Seventh-Day Adventists.  Just because you baptize by immersion does not make you a Baptist.  Immersion is good but it is not good enough – there must be the right authority and that authority is found in correct doctrine.  The fact that someone or some church would choose the title of “Reformed Baptist” proves that they do not believe in church perpetuity as taught in Ephesians 3:21; Matthew 16:18 and Matthew 28:20.  And this is where I believe the key issue falls.  Aside from the dangers of Covenant theology and Calvinism, the harmless-looking reformed theology movement is a ploy of Satan to trick Baptists into believing that their roots are found in the Protestant Reformation.  A studious Baptist understands that there is no need for a Baptist to “reform” the “universal” catholic church (from which the protestants came out of) because we were never in the church of Rome.  Baptists can trace their beginnings back to the days of Jesus Christ.  Call this position what you want but it is simply Biblical.  When a Baptist begins to sway towards Calvinism they are more likely to embrace Reformed heritage than Baptist heritage.  When a Baptist brother says they are embracing reformed theology, ask them what reformed theology doctrines they agree with and how they differ from Baptist doctrine.  What you will get is a stutter and the run-around because they are not so much embracing protestant doctrine as much as they are associating themselves with an historical movement.  Hey, everybody wants to be a part of something and so many “main-line” Baptists and ”Fundamentalists” are making heroes of slaughterers such as Swingli, Calvin and Luther in ministerial education to a point that they become doctrinal mavericks to young impressionable minds who want to go against the grain of what seems to them to be just Baptist tradition (sometimes it is and sometimes it isn’t – we must be Biblical).  Nevertheless, once you claim the Protestants as your heritage, it is that much easier to embrace their theology.  Beware of so-called “Reformed Baptists”.

As you may know, there are some so-called Baptists and Baptist churches that will baptize a convert, but because of the by-laws of their church government or because of a lack of understanding about the workings of a local church from the New Testament, the baptized convert does not become a member until they are voted into the membership or until a certain amount of time has gone by.  The problem with this is that we find no New Testament model to support such actions.  We understand that the spiritual meaning of baptism is that it is an outward expression of our inward decision and is a picture of the three-stage testimony of the gospel. (Romans 6:3,4)  But the practical (and Biblical) purpose of baptism is church membership. (Acts 2:41,47; I Corinthians 12:13)  Now one might argue that church membership is not Biblical but I challenge you to read I Corinthians 12 and count how many times the word “member” is used.  If church membership is not a Biblical principle then how are we to determine upon whom we have the authority to practice church discipline upon, as taught to us in Matthew 18:15-18 and I Corinthians 5?  To Baptists, church membership is very important because it is only thru the local church that one can fullfill the great commission. (Matthew 28:16-20; I Timothy 3:15)  Now, the difficult scenario is always brought up that there might be someone who gets saved and of course they need to get baptized but they are living a life of open sin and of course, we would not want to bring sin into the church.  (example - a man and woman who are living together who are not married, get saved and want to join the church before marriage) The proponets of such a scenario are those who baptize anyone immediately after salvation (which is not ALWAYS a bad thing – Philip baptized the eunuch immediately but John the Baptist waited for spiritual evidence and fruit) but do not want to allow them church membership because they don’t want a little leaven in the church lump.  The Biblical solution for this problem is to help the new child of God get over their open life of sin before they get baptized into the church membership.  One might also argue that a new convert will not grow until they get baptized.  It is true that a child of God will not grow to their fullest potential without first getting baptized but nowhere in the Bible does it say that a child of God cannot grow at all until he gets baptized.  As a matter of fact, a child of God will not grow at all until they get rid of the sin in their life first.  (Psalms 66:18)  Because of the aforementioned situation, some churches have come to the decision to baptize people and then later bring them into church membership.  This, of course, is not only unscriptural but is belittling the importance and purpose of baptism in regards to church membership and therefore distorts many people’s view of the church and how it functions.  How did such practices ever start?  Probably the most prevelant reason is our fleshly desire to have a large number of baptisms as notches on our gospel gun belt.  Others practice so, for the sincere reason of helping the new convert grow.  (this malpractice we have already proven wrong)  If we know that we are to deal with sin in the church (I Corinthians 5) and we baptize someone into church membership knowing of their open sin, then we are in violation of allowing sin into the church and soon a little leaven will leaven the whole lump.  This would make the the new member automaticly qualified for church discipline.  Our problem is, just like the church of Corinth, we want to be somewhat tolerant and be known as a helpful church.  However, if you stand back and look at this scenario you will see that in the area of baptism and church membership, such a church is more interested in pleasing people than pleasing God.  Also, if the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance and baptism is the prerequisite to the Lord’s Supper, how could you explain why a non-member could not partake of the Lord’s supper if he has already been baptized.  (A proposer of such a practice would not see the need in taking such a position for the reason that such churches are usually close or even open when it comes to the Lord’s Supper anyway.)  The Bible teaches that baptism makes one a member of the local church body and because we are to keep the body pure of any schism or leaven we need to help the new child of God get rid of their open sin before they get baptized.  In fact, if we do this, it will demonstrate to the new convert and to the current members, the importance of a pure church.  After all, if a new convert does not have to get rid of their open sin to get into the church, why would it be important for them to get rid of it after they are in.  Tolerance never works.  The ordinances of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are God’s way of maintaining purity in His churches because one day they will be presented collectively to Him as a bride without spot or blimish.

I recently viewed the course section in a Baptist college catalog and noticed something very interesting.  I had seen this before but this time it really caught my attention.  I noticed that there were two different courses offered: one entitled “Church History” and the other “Baptist History”.  Now, let me just say that there is something wrong when a so-called Baptist college recognizes non-Baptist organizations as legitimate churches of the Lord.  Yes, protestant “churches” may be churches in the practical sense of the definition (a called out assembly), but “Church History” historians have something more in mind and in their writings promote the idea that a protestant church is just as much approved by God as a Baptist church. (although they would teach that Baptists are Protestants thus make the problem even more foggy)  In “Church History” you would learn about the protestant reformation and would be taught that Martin Luther, John Knox and Zwingli were wonderful Christians …. but (truthfully) they were just rebelious catholics that slaughtered Baptists by the thousands.  If the man-made religious organizations that you would learn about in “Church History” taught extra-Biblical doctrine … such as sprinkling, unregenerate church membership and works salvation via no eternal security, then such groups should rather be learned about in a course entitled “History of the Cults”.  For you see, a ”church” cannot believe or teach false doctrine and still be a legitimate church of the Lord Jesus Christ.  My point is that there should be no difference between a course called “Church History” and a course called “Baptist History” because there are no true, legitimate churches outside of those churches who have held to Biblical Baptist doctrine down thru the ages.

What are the Baptist Distinctives? 1. Bible as only authority 2. Autonomy of the local church 3. Priesthood of the believer 4. Two ordinances 5. Individual soul liberty 6. Saved church membership 7. Two church offices 8. Separation of church and state.  These distinctives make Baptists distinct from any other religious group or denomination.  Now for the point I would like to make.  I asked a man one day why he was a Baptist and he said, “Because I believe in the Baptist Distinctives”.  That sounded good on the surface but there was just something not right with that response.  I didn’t have peace with that particular answer because not just anyone who agrees with these things is a Baptist.  I think the Baptist distinctives are great and they are truly distinct to Baptists, but my agreeance with a list of beliefs does not determine my identity as a Baptist.  Now as I have stated before, I believe I should be a Baptist because Jesus was a Baptist.  May I clearly say that the practical reason why I am a Baptist is because I am a member of a Baptist church and I became a member when I received Baptist baptism.  I was a Baptist before I knew the Baptist Distinctives and there were Baptist churches in existence before this list was “set in stone”.  SO, I am a Baptist because of my baptism.  Like I said, I have nothing against the Baptist Distinctives – I will preach and teach them, but I believe my identity as a Baptist has more to do with church membership (because you can’t be a Baptist without being a member of a Baptist church) than with my verbal agreeance to a few choice beliefs.  After all, I wouldn’t want to be part of a church that was founded on just a list of beliefs compiled by men.  Now I am not belittling the importance of knowing what you believe but when I got baptized it was not only a testimony of my salvation but also an identification with that local church and its doctrine (distinctives already included).  So let’s make our baptism the reason we are Baptists and not the distinctives.  If we don’t, we are belittling the significance of baptism (practical reason being church membership – Acts 2:41-47; I Corinthians 12) and lifting up a man made list of beliefs which is similar to the ways of Fundamentalism (see previous post).

We have often heard that we are, for example, “Independent, Fundamental, Premillinial, Biscuit eating, sweet tea drinking, pulpit pounding Baptists”.  We know, from my previous blog post, why we are Baptists but what does it mean to be a Fundamentalist?  Now we today understand that if someone says they are a Fundamental Baptist it pretty much means they are King James only, have dress standards, use conservative music and are not Calvanistic.  But what is the history of Fundamentalism?  Around 1900, modernism, theological liberalism, German rationalism and textual criticism was showing up in our churches and seminaries.  Just like our big battles today are the KJB issue, the contemporary “Christian” music issue and separation in believer’s lives, the big issues that modernism brought about were attacks against the virgin birth of Christ, the deity of Christ, the substitutionary death of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, the second coming of Christ and the verbal inspiration of the scriptures.  When all of this hit the fan, Baptists who still believed these truths joined hands with Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, etc who also believed the same way on these choice issues.  One of the products of this effort was a series of booklets called “The Fundamentals”.  THIS is where the term “Fundamentalist” really came from.  Some of the most prominent men behind this movement were R.A. Torrey, A.T. Pierson, C.I. Scofield and B.B. Warfield.  Most of these men were postmilleniel, pedobaptist (infant baptism) Protestants and not Baptist.  Why was Eternal Security or Baptism by Immersion never mentioned in “The Fundamentals”?  These doctrines were under attack as well but many of the aforementioned leaders did not believe in these two doctrines.  These booklets of essays on the fundamentals can now be purchased in a hardback, two volume set entitled “The Fundamentals”.  So you can see that Fundamentalism was mostly Protestant and definitely non-denominational in its conception.  From this same movement we saw Protestant institutions started for the purpose of training preachers such as Bob Jones University, Moody Bible College and Wheaton.  Fundamental?  Yes, but not Baptist AND para-church ministries.  (we’ll save that issue for another blog)  The problem is that it almost seems that Fundamentalism has become its own denomination.  May I say that I believe in the Fundamentals but to say that I am a Fundamentalist would be a cop-out and a compromise because I am more than a Fundamentalist … I am a Baptist.  If you are a Baptist you are already a “Fundamentalist” and then some.  You might say, “Well I know Baptists that deny the Fundamentals”.  Well, then they really aren’t Baptists.  Now we know what we mean when we use the term “Fundamentalist” but the danger is that we begin to accept the theology of others who were “Fundamentalists” in the past.  We make heroes out of baby baptizers such as Billy Sunday and murderers such as Savonarola and Martin Luther.  When we held hands with the Scofields and Torreys we put our Baptist history on the back shelf and watered down our ecclesiology just to be accepted by the Protestants (those who murdered us in the past and support infant-baptism and a church-run state where there is no religious liberty).  A Dr. Feinberg said, “The purpose of The Fundamentals was to unite those who stood squarely on the fundamentals of the faith and to make a powerful statement in face of the inroads of liberalism”.  Unity? At what cost?  May I say that unity should never be the goal.  Obeying God and His Word should be the goal.  Anytime we make unity the goal we will compromise to achieve unity among those who we differ with in doctrine.  Fundamentalism has watered down our ecclesiology, our eschatology and our Biblical stand on separation of church and state.  Curtis Hutson (who was a good man and I love his son’s preaching) wrote in his 1982 Sword of the Lord pamphlet “Who is a Fundamentalist”, “On the other hand, I know some godly Christians who do not call themselves Baptists but believe in the great fundamentals of the Christian Faith and are for soulwinning and revival.  I feel free to differ whenever necessary on some lesser matters and to say so, but I am for those who believe in the fundamentals of the Faith and are for Christ and the Bible and soulwinning.”  As you can see with the mention of “revival” and “soulwinning” (both of which are Biblical) numerical success and conversion statistics have been made more important then the “lesser matters” such as what you believe about baptism.  I mean … baptism is only a picture of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ!  A “lesser matter”?  I think not!  For this reason, great revivalists such as Billy Sunday and D.L. Moody (who said he didn’t have time for baptism) have become our heroes.  Curtis Hutson goes on to say on page 7, “So baptism is not a fundamental, not an essential.”  Now I would consider baptism to be a fundamental although it is not essential to salvation.  He says on page 6, “Certain doctrines are fundamental to the Christian faith.  I believe everything in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, but everything mentioned in the Bible is not essential to my salvation.”  But my question is “how is an understanding of the second coming of Christ essential to my salvation if it is one of these sacred Fundamentals?”  When I got saved I didn’t understand the verbal inspiration of the scriptures and that is one of these blessed fundamentals.  He later says, “There are things I would die for….. There are other things that I would fight for that I would not die for.  I am a Baptist and believe in baptism by immersion.  I would fight for that.  But a man could go to Heaven without being baptized”.  What he is saying is that he would not die for baptism but if he would have studied history a little more he would see that many people did!  Get the book and read it.  I bought it several years ago and thought it was great but after learning about our Baptist heritage and the doctrine of the local church I almost vomited when I read this booklet again.  May I clearly state that if it is in the Bible it is fundamental to what you believe.  To say that certain doctrines are not fundamental is to belittle God’s Word.  So if Fundamentalism is only holding to a few select doctrines and being a Baptist is submitting to the authority of the entire Word of God, I am going to take the high road and refer to myself as a Baptist and not a compromising, non-denominational Fundamentalist.  The “Fundamentals” aren’t even really an issue among Protestants anymore.  The line was drawn along time ago as far as who stands where on the “Fundamentals”.  What about other issues?  Try naming a “Fundamental” Protestant that is King James Only.  Fundamentalism was one of the wiles of the devil to attack God’s institution of the local New Testament church because it forced the participating Baptist churches to blur their lines of doctrine.  If you look back in history and learn from Baptists, your chances of remaining a Baptist are greater then if you look back and learn from Protestant Fundamentalism.  The scary thing is that many Baptists are waving the flag of Fundamentalism and don’t even know its history and negative affects.  What can we do about this?  First, we can quit calling ourselves Fundamentalists.  Secondly, we can quit quoting Fundamentalist Protestants and stop promoting them in our preaching and curriculum.  And thirdly, we can throw away our Protestant books and start searching for Baptist books.  They are out there.  Remember, you are or soon will become what you read.  What we often times do not realize is that the old-time Baptists looked at men such as Wesley and Torrey in the same way in which we look at Rick Warren today.  Popularity leads to exposure, exposure leads to apathy, apathy leads to acceptance and acceptance leads to practice.  I don’t know any ”Fundamental” Baptist who would let Rick Warren preach in their pulpit but I know many “Fundamental” Baptists who would let pedobaptist Protestants such as Wesley, Moody and Sunday preach in their pulpits if it were possible.  I hope you can see the danger of “Fundamentalism” and the adequacy of the name ”Baptist”.