Saylorville Church responds: "Could it be that Dr. Bauder has touched a nerve of fear? ... a fear of 1,000 'what ifs'?"

32998 reads

There are 132 Comments

JD Miller's picture

Thank you for the history lessons on "Regular Baptists."   Our church is not officially part of the Regular Baptists, but our beliefs match up with the Regular Baptists so when people ask what kind of Baptist I am, I am not ashamed to identify with them.   For example I talked to a pastor a few weeks ago and asked him if he was familiar with the Regular Baptists (he had a Baptist background but the church did not have Baptist in its name).  He was familiar with them, so by identifying with them, it gave him an idea of the sort of things I believed.  BTW, his response to the term was not negative so that was encouraging.

G. N. Barkman's picture

I have a friend who pastors a Regular Baptist Church in central Pennsylvania that was founded in the 1700's.  The name "Regular" has always been a prominent part of its name.  According to my friend, the "regular" in their name refers to their Calvinism.  Regular Baptist means the same as Particular Baptist, and different from General Baptist, which refers to belief in a General Atonement (universal) as opposed to Particular Atonement (sometimes referred to as Limited Atonement, Definite Atonement, or Particular Redemption.)

This, of course, long predates the GARBC.  When I first heard the name of his church, I assumed it was GARBC.  It is not, and has never been.  However, it is a still surviving testimony to the original meaning of "Regular Baptist" in American history.

It is therefore with some justification that Calvinists within the GARBC believe that "Regular" is a testimony to the historic Calvinist roots of the GARBC.  (Also attested to by the adoption of the New Hampshire Confession, which is Calvinist, though not as conspicuously so as the Philadelphia Confession.)  Non Calvinists prefer to emphasize the historic orthodoxy of the GARBC manifested by the term "Regular."  I see a measure of justification in this perspective as well.

It may be similar to the history of the Southern Baptist Convention.  There can be no doubt that the most prominent founders were doctrinal Calvinists.  It is also true that many of the pastors were poorly educated, and not all shared the theological Calvinism of the founders.  The "Founders Movement" within the SBC exists to call Southern Baptist back to their doctrinal heritage, which was largely lost in the 20th century.

It would appear that the GARBC was from the beginning, a mixture of Calvinists and those who were more Arminian.  (I do not say five-point Arminians, but leaned in a more "Arminianly" direction.)  Because the main issues was orthodoxy verses modernism, both Calvinists and non Calvinists joined together to oppose apostasy.  In many ways, the formation of the GARBC was a microcosm of broader Fundamentalism, ie, the joining of those of orthodox persuasion from many denominational backgrounds to offer united opposition to modernism.  In the GARBC as in Fundamentalism generally, Calvinists have played a prominent role.  I trust our more Arminian brethren will allow us to continue that role without the all too frequent periodic declamations regarding the heresies of Calvinism from platforms designed to promote Fundamentalism.

G. N. Barkman

G. N. Barkman's picture

That the "Regular" in the name of the GARBC refers to Regular Old Fashioned Baptists in contrast to modern, liberal Baptists is beyond dispute.  However, it should be noted that this phrase also probably meant different things to different people.  To some, "Regular Old-Fashioned Baptists" referred to the historic orthodoxy of American Baptists that were not associated with the Free Will Baptists, who first appeared in New Hampshire in the early 1800's.  In other words, "Regular Baptist" meant Calvinist Baptist to them.

But by the early 1900's, "Regular Baptist", simply meant "Old fashioned Baptist" as opposed to liberal Baptists.  This is similar to differing understandings of the world "orthodox."  To some, an "Orthodox Baptist" is a successor to the doctrine of the mainstream Baptists of the 18th and 19th centuries, represented by the Philadelphia Confession and the New Hampshire Confession.  In other words, "orthodox" in this context means Calvinist.  But to others, "orthodox" refers only to adherence to the basic fundamentals of the faith, in contrast to "liberal" or "modernist."  (The basis for the Fundamentalist movement.)

Thus two people can hear the term "Regular Baptist" and be thinking of entirely different concepts.  One hears "Calvinist Baptist."  The other hears
"Old Fashioned Fundamental Baptist."  In a sense, this second meaning represents a deterioration of the original meaning of "Regular."  But it was undoubtedly the understanding of many at the time of the formation of the GARBC, and the reason why debates over Calvinism, and the correct meaning of "Regular" in the General Association of Regular Baptist  Churches occur from time to time.

G. N. Barkman

Kevin T. Bauder's picture

As has been noted, the term "Regular Baptist" was originally used to designate Baptists that adhered to the Philadelphia (or Second London) Confession. It enters Fundamentalist history through T. T. Shields of Jarvis Street Baptist Church in Toronto, Canada. Shields was a thoroughly Calvinistic Baptist who went all the way with the Second London Confession. As Baptist Fundamentalists left the Baptist convention in Canada, they organized the Union of Regular Baptist Churches.

One of Shields's very good friends was Oliver W. Van Osdel of Wealthy Street Baptist Church in Grand Rapids. Van Osdel is the original Baptist separatist in what eventually became the Fundamentalist Conflict. In 1909 he led a separatist movement from the Grand Rapids Baptist Association over the liberalism of Fountain Street [Baptist] Church. The new fellowship included the vast majority of the churches from the older association, and it called itself the Grand River Valley Baptist Association. By the late teens, it had grown to the point that it was renamed the Michigan Orthodox Baptist Association, and promptly thrown out by the state convention, which viewed it as a rival convention.

Van Osdel was never really happy with the name "Orthodox Baptist." He was also unhappy with the name "Fundamentalist," because he considered the Fundamentalism of J. C. Massee and the Fundamentalist Fellowship (now the FBFI) to be a compromise position. He was casting about for a better label, and Shields provided it in the form of "Regular Baptist."

O. W. Van Osdel, together with R. E. Neighbour and William L. Pettingill, organized the Baptist Bible Union in 1922 (they had wanted to organize it in 1920, but agreed to wait until Massee, who was organizign the Fundamentalist Fellowship at the same time, had taken his shot at cleaning up the NBC). In 1930, Van Osdel led in beginning the reorganization of the BBU into what became the GARBC in 1932. By that time, most of Van Osdel's younger proteges had picked up the name "Regular Baptist" as well.

The GARBC was dominated by a mild version of Calvinism from the very beginning. This perspective operated as an assumption on the part of many fellowshipping churches and pastors, but no one attempted to make it official until the 1970s. The result was an explosion heard as far as the Biblical Evangelist circulated. But that is another story.

At an rate, in GARBC usage the expression "Regular Baptist" lost some of its Calvinistic connotations, retaining the emphasis upon loyalty to historic Baptist principles. It's worth noting that the GARBC was built more upon principles than personalities. Ketcham used to talk about not having any "Big Men," and he meant it. He himself refused to be a Big Man, designing a structure that would keep any one person from gaining too much power. This was one of the key distinctions between the Regular Baptist Movement and some other versions of Fundamentalism.

Greg Linscott's picture

Kevin,

Would the doctrinal terms of the BBU work today, or do you think that was a contributor to its demise and would be again? As I am understanding it from Delnay's book (but it's been a while since I read it, and its at my office, so I can't verify at the moment), there was a wider latitude in the BBU on Eschatology than there ended up being in the GARBC, especially with T.T. Shields.

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

Mark Mincy's picture

Given the original topic of this thread combined with some of the other discussions going on right now, it is interesting to note that FBBC is hosting the 2013 annual conference of the FBFI.  One of the keynote speakers is from a church that does not have Baptist in their name.  Furthermore, I believe that the FBFI accepts conservative Bible churches/individuals into their membership.  For the record, I don't have an issue with either of those things.  In fact, I think of them very positively.  But it seems relevant to the conversation involving Saylorville and FBBC.

Mark Mincy

Greg Linscott's picture

Shaynus wrote:

"Wealthy Street Baptist Church" - They probably needed better PR too.

I understand, but it is a real street name- corner of Wealthy SE and Eastern SE. The connotation, at least originally, would have been no more unfortunate, at least locally, than "Hampton Park"  or "Capitol Hill." It was quite influential in its heyday. Even at Faith, I had a professor (from my grandparent's generation) who was saved and sent out from there as a missionary. What is now Cornerstone U started in the church's basement. The radio program Children's Bible Hour had a lot of initial support from Wealthy (Uncle Charlie still is a part of the congregation). Henry Bosch, one of the regular contributors to Our Daily Bread, was a member. David Otis Fuller, author and compiler of Which Bible?, was pastor there for 40+ years. The old building is still there- you can see it here:

http://goo.gl/maps/oxmFn

The church still exists, though they moved. They retained the historic identification, though the moved to another part of the city, and became Wealthy Park Baptist- something that is more obscure as time goes on, and has more of the unfortunate connotation you hint at. That's the church my wife grew up in, and my wife and I were married in. 

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

Kevin T. Bauder's picture

Shaynus,

The church was originally Wealthy Avenue Baptist Church. Later on the city renamed the avenue and made it a street, so the church changed its name. The avenue was originally named after a man whose surname was Wealthy. Van Osdel used to explain this periodically to people who had the wrong idea about the socioeconomic status of the congregation.

When Van Osdel went there in 1909, the congregation was crammed into a little building that was hardly more than a shack. He drew the plans for a new building himself. The first section to be built was the education wing--three stories high, long, and narrow, the end faced the street. By itself it was an odd structure that people called "Van Osdel's Folly." Eventually the church completed the auditorium and the administrative wing. The building served the congregation into the 1980s, when the church moved into a new facility and renamed itself Wealthy Park Baptist Church.

Van Osdel's successor was David Otis Fuller, eventually the pioneer of the King James Only movement. He went to Wealthy Street in--what?--1934? He was a young man, a recent graduate of Princeton Seminary, where he studied under  J. Gresham "Das" Machen. The two maintained a correspondence until Machen's death. Interestingly enough, the young Fuller tangled with Edgar J. Goodspeed over the inerrancy of Scripture. In his correspondence with Goodspeed, he maintained that the ASV of 1901 is a more accurate translation than the KJV.

KTB

Greg Linscott's picture

Machen was also the best man at Fuller's wedding, FWIW.

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

Kevin T. Bauder's picture

Mark,

Actually, I would not be surprised to see FBBC invite Pat Nemmers to occupy its pulpit at some point. Since at least the 1960s (and probably before) the school has taught that fellowship occurs at multiple levels, with the corollary that a limitation on fellowship at one level does not necessarily entail a limitation on fellowship at every other level.

For example, FBBC would not allow its students to be members of a Grace Brethren church, but they regularly have John Whitcomb teach and preach on campus.

So the FBFI is not necessarily inconsistent when it has a non-Baptist in the pulpit. Didn't they used to feature Ian Paisley at some point? I'm not sure.

Sometimes, shared platforms simply do not entail a full mutual endorsement. Let the word go forth.

Kevin

Shaynus's picture

yeah. . . but still the irony still doesn't escape me. The whole topic is whether the name communicates to those outside the know or not, and whether that communication is important. Baptist or Wealthy Street, the point remains that its easy to see how the name matters in a way that outsiders have a different impression than insiders. 

JVDM's picture

FBBC would also not let an incoming student join a PCA church, but they did have Paul S. Jones in for lectures and a Hymn Festival 5 years ago. He is the organist/music pastor at 10th Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia. 

Ron Bean's picture

We had a big wind last night and it blew away my church sign. 

My church holds to the fundamentals of the Christian faith, is independent and autonomous, practices baptism of believers by immersion, has two offices-pastor(elders) and deacons, holds to the individual priesthood of believers. We believe Jesus is coming back but we're not dispensational. Can we put Baptist on our new sign?

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Shaynus's picture

Pastor Ron, 

We also have that pesky allowance that those who have been baptized before as a believer with another mode (pouring) may join our church, though we only practice immersion. Do we count as baptists? We should.

 

Shayne

Mark Mincy's picture

Kevin T. Bauder wrote:

 ...a limitation on fellowship at one level does not necessarily entail a limitation on fellowship at every other level.

...Sometimes, shared platforms simply do not entail a full mutual endorsement. Let the word go forth.

The problem with the word going forth in this way is that it will continue to cause great confusion.  

People's lives are affected by such philosophical positions.  The tragic irony in the FBBC/Saylorville case is that by June 30, 2013 (not but 3 weeks after FBBC hosts a conference where one of the keynote speakers is from a church that has chosen to keep Baptist out of its name in order to more effectively reach their community) employees of FBBC will have to make a gut wrenching decision to either remain in (and lose their jobs) or leave a church that has chosen to keep Baptist out of its name in order to more effectively reach their community.

If I may be so bold, I believe that too often our fundamentalist institutions of higher learning wield far too much power.  

Mark Mincy

Larry's picture

Moderator

We also have that pesky allowance that those who have been baptized before as a believer with another mode (pouring) may join our church, though we only practice immersion. Do we count as baptists?

The Baptist response is "No," because there is no such thing as "baptized ... with another mode." Baptism is immersion. It is impossible to be "baptized by another mode" unless you mean by "mode," something like forwards or backwards, hot or cold, running or still, etc (Was that Strong?). Whatever happened, it isn't NT baptism unless it is immersion.

I would argue this ties in with the regulative principle. We do not have the liberty to confess Christ any way we choose. We are to do it the way Christ ordained, which is by baptism, and in the NT that is immersion.

What you have in this description is believers without a credible public confession of faith. (Remember, Dever's comments on this in response to the question about public invitations and how people would profess their faith in Christ without one? "I suggest we do it the way they did in the NT ... by baptism.") Baptism is one way that you guard a regenerate church membership. It's not a foolproof way, but it is part of the equation.

 

Larry's picture

Moderator

 

Most churches, however, have found it a bit cumbersome to call themselves the First [or whatever] New-Testament-Authority-Believer-Immersion-Pure-Church-Membership-Individual-Christian-Responsibility-Congregational-Polity-Separation-of-Church-and-State Church. They have found it much more useful to use the label that reflects the idea. That label is Baptist.

Isn't the biblical label that encompasses these things "church"? Of course this goes to the definition of "church," and there is some debate about the minimal qualifications (i.e., not a church vs. a church out of order vs. a properly ordered church). "Baptist" is necessary only because others have (illegitimately, IMO) misappropriated the label "church" for things that don't match the list you give. So if we have a biblical definition of church, it will be the things you list above, and no other label will be needed. Of course, it's not so simple because we don't all share a biblical definition, so the ship of simplicity has sailed long ago, but nonetheless I would argue that the biblical label for these things is "church."

What I have argued is that all of the reasons for not claiming the name Baptist also apply to other labels like Christian and Church.

But do they? I am not sure I am convinced yet, though perhaps I misunderstand you. For one, I have not encountered anyone who thinks the same way about "church" as they do about "Baptist." For two, the label "church" and "Christian" are NT labels; the label "Baptist" is a label that describes NT teaching about what "church" means. So in NT terms, "Baptist church" is redundant, or as one person said, "It's like deja vu all over again." Or to quote Jack Nicholson, "Is there any other kind?" (Someone told me he said that once.)

So, in a sense, the use of "Baptist" in a church name is already an accommodation, brought on by those who have adopted "church" to mean something else. Is it a good and necessary accommodation? In some cases, yes. But in all cases? That is the question.

Kevin, I think you would say, "yes, it is important in all cases of church names." No?

If the argument for dropping the name is persuasive in the one instance, then it ought to be equally persuasive in the other instances, or, indeed, in any instance whatever in which someone somewhere finds a label to be either offensive or meaningless.

That assumes that the argument is the same (see above). But even if this is so, would you agree that there are differing levels of meaning and offensiveness, and that not all levels are equal (or else even the word "level" would have no meaning). Even the word "offense" needs meaning. For some, it means "makes me mad." Or "rubs me the wrong way." For others it means "cause to sin." In this particular instance, I think the better word to use is "stumblingblock." Is the label "Baptist" a stumblingblock to people hearing the gospel? If so, is it a biblical stumblingblock? 

Or to put it differently, is the label "Baptist" so important that it is worth turning people away from hearing the gospel over it? Now, I write that as a firmly committed sovereigntist in salvation who believes that objections over labels are not real reasons, and as one who hasn't considered it important enough to lead our church to remove it. But is a question worth asking.

Kevin, if I understand you correctly, you would answer that question affirmatively: Yes, the label "Baptist" is so important that it is worth turning people away from hearing the gospel over it. No?

One last thing, I think at some level, we are discussing whether to have a conversation about Baptist distinctives up front, that is, prior to the gospel, or later, after the gospel. To use the name Baptist as a leading identifier requires that I explain that to at least some people prior to explaining other things. And indeed, that has been the response of some, though I don't recall who: "Just explain that Fred Phelps is not part of us because we are independent and autonomous." Is that an opening conversation? Or a later one?

 

Ron Bean's picture

Assuming that a church holds the the seven or eight Baptist distinctives, which of the following would disqualify them from being considered a Baptist church?

Multiple elders

Not being dispensational

Being something other than pre-mill and pre-trib

Not having Baptist in the church name.

Can a Baptist church do any one of these four things and still be a Baptist church?

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

G. N. Barkman's picture

I was hoping someone else would answer Ron Beam's question, but as several hours have passed with no response, I'll give him my reply.

If we view this historically, none of the above are contrary to Baptist distinctives.  Most Baptist churches before the 20th century conformed to your second and third description, and most of the larger churches would subscribe to the first.  Spurgeon, for example, had multiple elders.  Which brings us back to the point of this thread, the "Baptist" name.  Historically, it would be difficult to find a "Baptist" church without the Baptist name.  I believe our Baptist forefathers would have thought that a strange idea.  Why would a Baptist church not want to call itself "Baptist"?  Why indeed.

If you drop the Baptist name, no one would question any of the first three, or an almost limitless list of other doctrines.  If you don't call yourself "Baptist," you are free to believe what you will, but as soon as you attach the name "Baptist", you narrow the range of beliefs that people expect of you.  Admittedly, the list of expectations is generally shaped by people's personal experiences, and knowledge of history, but the possibilities are certainly fewer than without the label.  Which may constitute a reasonable argument for maintaining the name.

G. N. Barkman

ChrisC's picture

Ron Bean wrote:
…seven or eight Baptist distinctives…
it seems to me the only baptist distinctive is dunking unless you start adding more qualifiers to baptist or deny that some people who have called themselves baptist in the past were "real" baptists.

Don Johnson's picture

G. N. Barkman wrote:

If you drop the Baptist name, no one would question any of the first three, or an almost limitless list of other doctrines.  If you don't call yourself "Baptist," you are free to believe what you will, but as soon as you attach the name "Baptist", you narrow the range of beliefs that people expect of you.  Admittedly, the list of expectations is generally shaped by people's personal experiences, and knowledge of history, but the possibilities are certainly fewer than without the label.  Which may constitute a reasonable argument for maintaining the name.

What is the point of having the name? Is it for the lost or for Christians? I'd suggest it is primarily for Christians who do have a clue about what the name means. For the lost, the word church is probably a bigger turnoff than Baptist.

That doesn't address the question of whether we need the name for other Christians or not, I think we do. But the point I am trying to make in this post is that the argument that non-Christians are clueless about the term Baptist is really irrelevant. I really doubt that any non-Christian is seriously hindered from listening to the gospel simply because you have the word Baptist on your sign. Some disgruntled Christians might not like it, but it might be a good idea that they looked somewhere else anyway, eh?

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Ron Bean's picture

I've tried to pose this question in many forms for a reason. At my ordination council 30 years ago (5 hours of questions, even with a 30 page doctrinal statement), I was grilled on these questions. Starting then and over the years I have been told by too many people that a church having multiple elders or not being dispensational and pre-trib pre-mill was not a true Baptist church. As you said, historically that is not the case but I have been left with the general impression that today these are additional Baptist distinctives. I've always hoped that one of the notables in IFB circles would comment or that some Baptist fellowship would acknowledge baptist history. At my council, I said that I believed that the New testament spoke of multiple elders in a single church and the response looked like the Pharisees and Saducees arguing about the resurrection.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Chip Van Emmerik's picture

Ron, G.N., Chris,

Whenever I teach Baptist distinctives, one of the things I stress is the unique combination of beliefs they represent. Immersion is probably the singular distinction, but the combination of the 6 mentioned traits is also unique (not just because of the immersion).

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Ron Bean's picture

In my conversations with Christians, Baptists seem to have a reputation of not getting along with one another. While being nominally united in their distinctives, they are often strongly divided from each other in their differences. 

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Mark Mincy's picture

Ron Bean wrote:

In my conversations with Christians, Baptists seem to have a reputation of not getting along with one another. While being nominally united in their distinctives, they are often strongly divided from each other in their differences. 

I would assume that Ron’s question about church splits being a Baptist distinctive was probably at least somewhat tongue in cheek. But I think he is on to something. His statement about Baptists having “unity in distinctives but division in differences” is all too often accurate. That is what is so troubling to me about the situation being discussed in this thread and other similar discussions going on. It’s like we believe in the priesthood of the believer only until someone disagrees with us :).  It just seems like separation has been (and in many cases remains) the default mindset in much of fundamentalism. Separation over music. Separation over eschatology. Separation over polity. We could go on and on.

Now I understand that disagreement in some of these areas will disallow some types of joint endeavors.  That is just common sense.  But we don’t need to announce to the world that we “separate” from our brother over ________ (whatever the issue is). This is where separation has been taken to unbiblical extremes, in my opinion.  We have people “separating” from brothers that they’ve never met - and probably never will meet.  We have people “separating” from brothers over issues that the Scripture is silent on.  We have people “separating” from brothers over issues that would fall into the Scriptural category of “let each one be convinced in his own mind”.  As time goes along, it is interesting to observe how militant separatists change.  For example, what happens when an individual who separates over music has a child that grows up to embrace Christian rap.  Do they separate from them?  Do they “call them out” in front of the whole fundamentalist world and announce that they are breaking fellowship with their own child?  Not that I’ve seen.  And that's a good thing.  Because I believe good things happen when we are finally forced to deal with these types of issues in the realm of “family” which is what should have been done all along.

I have a very simplistic resolution for these things is my mind. When I am dealing with unbelievers, I go back to the beginning - “In the beginning, God...” - and I work forward from there. When I am dealing with believers, I go to the end - to heaven, where I will be worshipping the Creator God of the universe alongside my brother (who I may have major disagreements with) for all of eternity. And when I work backwards from that point I find myself much less likely to separate over meaningless things.  I find myself much more likely to find points of agreement and unity so as to promote pure gospel work and impact communities for the kingdom of God.  At the end of the day, I think we are too often fragmented unnecessarily.  I think we need to be more zealous for true, Christian unity and holiness than we are for separation.  Our message should be first and foremost about what we've been called to rather than what we separate from.

Mark Mincy

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

Chip Van Emmerik wrote:

Ron, G.N., Chris,

Whenever I teach Baptist distinctives, one of the things I stress is the unique combination of beliefs they represent. Immersion is probably the singular distinction, but the combination of the 6 mentioned traits is also unique (not just because of the immersion).


I guess you could see that combination as unique, but it's only immersion that makes the difference between Baptists and some others.

In the fundamental Methodist church in which I spent a good part of my childhood, we would have held to 5 of those 6 distinctives, and even the 6th one (Believer immersion) we weren't opposed to. We did practice believer's baptism at our church, but the mode was open. Most commonly, it was by sprinkling, but our pastor was not opposed to immersion, and we would occasionally have immersion services for those who wanted to be immersed (of course, they weren't held at our church, since we didn't have a baptistry).

My experience would pretty much echo Chris' -- if you are looking at those 6 distinctives, we were not that different from the fundamental Baptist churches we were in fellowship with, except that they were immersion *only*.

Dave Barnhart

Shaynus's picture

I'm really interested in the die in the wool baptist take on what my church does, which is to baptize by immersion only, but to accept those who have been baptized as believers by another mode (e.g. pouring). We think scripture is clear enough that our consciences are bound to what we will do, but not that someone well meaning in the past was baptized by a different mode wasn't truly making the same basic sign that regular immersion Baptists are. So our view is that immersion is the very best overall picture of water baptism, but we won't make that a test of local church fellowship if someone has already made public profession in a different way as a believer. Does this exist in any other baptist churches you know of?

Greg Linscott's picture

Shaynus,

The closest situation I can think of that was "high profile" was the controversy a few years ago with Piper's church taking in sprinkled members, but not considering them eligible for leadership as elders (a policy that was eventually rescinded, as I recall). Sam Storms blogged on it here if you need a refresher.

Larry's reply was well-put as to why Baptists, if consistently applying principles, could accept nothing other than believer's immersion.

I can think of no Baptist church in Fundamental circles that would consider what you have proposed. I am curious- why only pouring, and not sprinkling? Is it because sprinkling is so tightly associated with paedobaptism?

 

BTW- the phrase is "dyed in the wool..."

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

Pages