Baptist, What Do You Believe? #11

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. (Verses conspicuously missing from the list: The baptism of Saul in Acts 9; the baptism of Lydia in Acts 16:13-15; the baptism of the Philippian jailer in Acts 16:25-33) Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are two ordinances instituted by Christ, and belonging to Him. They both have a rich meaning and significance, but so much controversy and misunderstanding has swirled around them. In many instances one or both of these two ordinances are what define a denomination. We as Baptists are a prime example. After all, we are Baptists. We wouldn’t be called Baptists if there wasn’t something very distinctive about baptism that we hold near and dear to our identity. That distinctive is that we believe that baptism is for believers only. During the time of the Puritans in the early 17th century in England there emerged a body of believers, who after careful study, came to the conclusion that nowhere in Scripture was infant baptism taught. Thus emerged the Baptists, of whom we as Southern Baptists draw our direct heritage from. One of the first notes of distinction that needs to be mentioned in regard to Article 7: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper is that we call them ordinances. In some other churches we hear them referred to as sacraments. What is the difference? Does it really matter? Well, it does matter, because how we label these two activities determine the significance of the practices. When referred to as an ordinance, which simply put, is a command, and that is exactly what Jesus did. He commanded first that we should "Do this in remembrance of Me" (Luke 22:19). Later, after His resurrection, just before Jesus returned to the Father, He commanded us to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). When referred to as sacraments, baptism and the Lord’s Supper take on a role that is greater than Baptists are willing to allow. A sacrament, strictly speaking, is considered a means of dispensing grace. Through a sacrament something is actually being received or changed. The extreme example here is in the Roman Catholic church, where an infant is baptized into the church, initially washing away the original sin inherited in Adam. Baptist do not believe that baptism has any meritorious value what so ever. It is the same with the Lord’s Supper. The taking of the Holy Communion, as Roman Catholics call it, takes away sin for the participant, by offering up Christ as a sacrifice to the Father for those sins. Again, Baptist do not hold to this, seeing the re-crucifying of Christ at each mass as an abominable act (Romans 6:10, Hebrews 7:27; 9:12, 26; 10:10). Now for the many Protestant denominations who use the term sacrament, these radical descriptions come nowhere close to what they believe. Suffice it to say Baptists do not believe that either of the ordinances do anything. So why do Baptists baptize by immersion? Why is sprinkling not enough? There are several reasons. First, the word itself is pulled directly from the Greek word baptidzo which means to immerse. Note at the baptism of our Lord, that John was doing it in the Jordan, and that Mark describes the end of the baptism as Jesus came up out of the water (Mark 1:9, 10). Baptism clearly involves more than just a few drops of water. Secondly, immersion more adequately and fully portrays the symbolism of baptism. Going down into the water signifies going into the grave. Christ died and went into a grave, and with Him we have died to our old life. Christ arose from the grave to live again, and with Him and in Him we too have been raised to newness of life (Romans 6:3-5, Colossians 2:12). Article 7 has this same kind of wording built into it, as you will notice. Why is baptism for believers only? Why do we not baptize infants? The answers are simple. To answer the first question, Christ only commands those who have believed (become disciples) to be baptized (Matthew 28:1-20). Lydia was baptized immediately after she believed (Acts 16:13-15), and the Philippian jailer did likewise (Acts 16:31-33). To answer the second question, we can find no better response than that given in Keach's Catechism: Q. 102. Are the infants of such as are professing believers to be baptized? A. The infants of such as are professing believers are not to be baptized; because there is neither command nor example in the Holy Scriptures, or certain consequence from them, to baptize such. Nowhere in Scripture is the practice of infant baptism shown to have happened, nor is it commanded anywhere in Scripture. Even in the two passages in Acts above where the household was also baptized, it is clearly in the context of conversion. One has to go beyond what Scripture states to assume that there were infants in those households. What is baptism? Does it save the recipient? We have already stated that baptism is only for those who have already believed. The rock-solid declaration of salvation by grace alone, as lined out by Paul in Ephesians 2:8,9, does two things. First, he proclaims what salvation is: a gracious gift of God through placing our faith in Christ. Secondly, Paul makes sure we know what salvation is not, by stating that is not of works. Baptism is a work, something you do, or rather, have done to you. By definition baptism cannot have anything to do with salvation. So what is the significance of baptism? Baptism is one of, if not the very first act of obedience to Christ. Baptism openly identifies the new believer as a follower of Christ. It shows that the new believer is willing to follow, to obey Christ. Baptism expresses the new believer's faith in a number of vital truths central to the Christianity:

• the triune nature of God
• sins having been washed away, cleansing by the blood of Christ
• being united with Christ in His death & resurrection
• Through Christ God has given you new life, now, and in the world to come at His return.

What about those passages in Scripture that seem to say that baptism is a part of salvation (Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16, John 3:5, Romans 6:3-5)? A principle of Bible interpretation called the Analogy of Scripture is helpful here. The Analogy of Scripture, simply put, states that we interpret Scripture with Scripture. If there appears to be contradiction between scripture, the more-clear passage interprets the ambiguous passage. To take this principle a step further, the didactic or teaching passages, such as found in the epistles, are to take precedence over the historical narratives of the Gospels and Acts. The last sentence on baptism marks an addition to, not the 1963 version, but the 1925 version of the Baptist Faith and Message, in which the phraseBeing a church ordinance", and also the word "membership" are added. Take a look at the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message: Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The act is a symbol of our faith in a crucified, buried and risen Saviour. It is prerequisite to the privileges of a church relation and to the Lord's Supper, in which the members of the church, by the use of bread and wine, commemorate the dying love of Christ. Have you ever heard the term alien immersion? No, it is not baptism by an extra terrestrial. Alien immersion is baptism by anyone other than a Baptist minister in a Baptist church at a duly scheduled business meeting, I mean, church service. An interesting example of this very thing occurred at the Southern Baptist Convention this year (and in years past, I am told). Numerous new believers from all over the country came with their pastors to be baptized at the convention. So that there would be no misunderstandings, this little asterisk was included in each bulletin: *Because baptism is an ordinance of the church, all baptisms will be conducted with full approval and support of a sponsoring home church, with members of each present to witness. Interesting, isn't it? The problem with this goes by a term called Landmarkism. Landmarkism states, basically, that Baptists constitute the only true Church, and baptism in any other church is no valid baptism. Also connected with this is the notion that baptism is membership. That is why many Southern Baptist vote to accept someone's profession, and to have them baptized. Have you ever noticed that there is never a subsequent vote to accept them as members. A fundamental problem with Landmarkism is the making of essentials out of nonessentials, thus narrowing the fellowship and cooperation between churches and believers. Baptism is important, and it needs to be administered in the right way, by immersion, and to only those who have professed faith in Christ. Beyond that, baptism can be administered by any other true believer, any where, and at any time. Now, I am sure that will raise a few eye brows. Certainly, the norm for baptism should be in the presence of a body of believers, a local church, but it should not be so organically connected with church membership. Now we will turn our attention to the second paragraph of Article 7, concerning the Lord's Supper. Much trouble can be avoided right at the start to emphasize that this is not the Church's Supper, it is the Lord's Supper. Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ instituted it by taking a Passover meal (Exodus 12) with His disciples and giving it a new meaning. On this occasion, Jesus Himself was the sacrificial lamb. The wine represented His blood poured out unto death, and the bread represented His body broken for His people. He commands His disciples to do it in remembrance of Him (Luke 22:14-20). There are warnings in Scripture concerning taking the Lord's supper in a light manner, or with open, unrepentant sin (1 Corinthians 11:17-34). Obviously, the Lord's Supper commemorates a very serious event, so we should treat it very seriously. How important is the Lord's Supper? Well, it is important enough for our Lord to command us to observe it. Therefore it should not be a mere feature of worship added on at the end of a service. It should be the centerpiece of a service, as it has the Gospel as the theme of its imagery. How often should we observe the Lord's Supper? That is a hard question that has no concrete answer. We should not do it so often that it becomes common or routine. On the other hand, we should not observe the Lord's Supper so seldom that we are not familiar with it. Its frequency of observance will vary from church to church. What did Jesus mean when He said "This is my body."? The Roman Catholic view of transubstantiation takes a very literal reading of this statement, and believe that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ at the consecration by the priest. The Lutheran view of consubstantiation believes that Christ is present with the bread and wine. We as Baptists do not believe either of these two views. The Lord's Supper is most commonly referred to as a symbolic memorial of Christ's death on the cross. We use it as a tool to remind ourselves of the consequences of sin, and the great price that was paid to redeem us from sin and misery. There is an added element that is far too often missing in Lord's Supper observances. In reaction to the errors of the Roman Catholic and Lutheran views, we fail to emphasize that in a very real sense Jesus is present. What is open and closed communion? Open communion is the policy that any baptized believer can participate in a Lord's Supper observance. Closed refers to the policy that some churches have, which limits participation to members only. This is just another symptom of Landmarkism mentioned earlier in this lesson. One of Landmarkism's main tenets is that the Baptist church is the one, true church. All others contain errors in doctrine, and are not true churches. Placing most, if not all of their emphasis on the local church, they have forgotten the larger context of the Church catholic, or the universal Church of all times and in every place. Certainly each local church can set their own policies concerning open or closed communion, but in opting for a closed policy they minimize, if not deny the rich truth of the larger body of the faithful. Previous Lessons: Baptist, What Do You Believe? #1 (An Introduction) Baptist, What Do You Believe? #2 (On the Doctrine of Scripture) Baptist, What Do You Believe? #3 (On the Doctrine of God) Baptist, What Do You Believe? #4 (On God the Father) Baptist, What Do You Believe? #5 (On God the Son Baptist, What Do You Believe? #6 (On God the Holy Spirit) Baptist, What Do You Believe? #7 (On the Doctrine of Man) Baptist, What Do You Believe? #8 (On the Doctrine of Salvation) Baptist, What Do You Believe? #8 (Continued) (On the Doctrine of Salvation) Baptist, What Do You Believe? #9 (On God's Purpose of Grace) Baptist, What Do You Believe? #10 (On the Doctrine of The Church)

Railroad Graffiti and the Imago Dei

I'm not sure why, but railroad graffiti intrigues me. Maybe it is because of its mobile nature, or the fact that it is essentially vandalism, or the fact that some one (or ones) created all of this by hand with just a few cans of spray paint. To say the least, it is very creative, reflecting a creative Creator who made us in His own image. Every one of us reflects the image of God at some point, no matter how debased or debauched. Although I have made it a practice to post one of my photos each Friday, this is my first official offering of Friday Photo, which is made up of several bloggers who set aside Friday's posts for posting their favorite photos of the week. You can see the groups offerings on Flickr.

Semantic Gymnastics and Scriptorture - Is Dr. Patterson Guilty of Blasphemy?

The presidents of Southeastern and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminaries have each weighed in on the alcohol issue, both taking a total-abstinence stance, each from different positions. In his article in Baptist Press on June 30, Dr. Danny Akin, president of Southeastern came from a personal, anecdotal position, thus effectively denying the sufficiency of Scripture. I wrote about alcohol and the sufficiency of Scripture in my post, The Sufficiency of Scripture - I'll Drink to That. Now, the July 7 issue of Baptist press features Dr. Paige Patterson's approach to the alcohol issue, in which he attempts to stay a little closer to Scripture. The only problem with the article is, well, that it's basically all wrong. Between Dr. Patterson's knowledge deficiency in the biological sciences, and his atrocious hermeneutics, there is very little of value in this article, except to point out a fine example of Fundamentalism on steroids. Let me point out just a few examples of what I am talking about by citing a few examples from Dr. Patterson's article.

The wines varied in kind and strength. However, four basic varieties may be distinguished, all of which are described indiscriminately by "oinos:"

If they are all indiscriminately described by one word, how is it that they are distinguished?

(1) Freshly pressed grape juice, which had been stomped out by the, hopefully, clean feet of a local family in their private wine vats, or else crushed in grape presses of stone. In the climate of Palestine, fermentation began within 24 hours, so pure unfermented grape juice was available only for a brief time.

The "four basic varieties" that Dr. Patterson speaks of is more of a bad description of the wine-making process. The grape is an amazing berry. In many ways it is quite unique. It has a low enough acidity, with a pH of about 3, to prevent spoilage bacteria from getting a foothold during the fermentation process. It also has a high enough sugar content to create a wine containing about 10 per-cent alcohol. There is one thing missing from the above description by Dr. Patterson. When a grape approaches ripeness, it begins to have a frosty look, the way a cold window pane looks when you breathe on it. You can see that frosty look on the grapes pictured above. That's called the "bloom", which is yeast. Now, the farmer doesn't"t put that yeast on the grape. God puts it there. He has put it there ever since Genesis 1:12. We need to be very careful not to throw around the term "pure" when we are talking about what God has made. An amazing thing happens when the skin on a ripe grape is broken: the yeast takes the sugar on the other side of that grape skin and immediately begins to turn it into alcohol. Man doesn't have to coax the yeast, or add some other "foreign" ingredient, to make it happen. It just happens. That is why man has been making wine for millennia. The grape was made to make wine. And Dr. Patterson is wrong: in Palestine fermentation doesn't happen within 24 hours. It happens immediately.

(3) Sometimes the wine would be left on the lees to ferment still further. This provided a real knock-out punch, one evidently imbibed by only a few since it often turned insipid and unbearable. (Jeremiah 48:11).

One would get the impression from this paragraph that the lees somehow cause fermentation, which is not true. As I have pointed out the yeast takes the sugar and converts it into alcohol. When the sugar has been consumed the fermentation process stops. To leave wine on the lees, even in the time of Christ would be an act of sloth. The lees is nothing more than solid matter from the pulp, seed parts, and bits of skin. The resulting impact of such a practice would be to make the wine bitter, not insipid. It had no "knock-out punch". The reference to Jeremiah 48:11 is ill placed. I cannot see why it is used at all. This is a example of terrible hermeneutics. Let's look at Jeremiah 48:11-13: "Moab has been at ease from his youth and has settled on his dregs [ or lees, KJV]; he has not been emptied from vessel to vessel, nor has he gone into exile; so his taste remains in him, and his scent is not changed. "Therefore, behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I shall send to him pourers who will pour him, and empty his vessels and break his jars in pieces. Then Moab shall be ashamed of Chemosh, as the house of Israel was ashamed of Bethel, their confidence. (Jeremiah 48:11-13 ESV) In this passage God is clearly using metaphor to describe Moab as having not experienced any chastisement from God, in spite of their gross wickedness. The punishment of Moab is being described in wine-making terms. Wine, after the initial fermentation period was poured off into new containers, leaving the lees, or dregs, behind. There is no stretch of the imagination that can make this mean what Dr. Patterson implies.

In strict fairness, one must acknowledge that the ancients, however noble, imbibed without reluctance. Evidently the prophets and the apostles did not view this as wrong, so long as it was a small glass of wine (see varieties Nos. 1, 2 or 4 mentioned above) taken with the noon or evening meal. These wines, of course, were locally produced.

From what source would Dr. Patterson conclude that the prophets and apostles did not view this as wrong? Scripture, maybe? I can't think of any extra-scriptural documents authored by the prophets or apostles. So if they expressed in the Scriptures that there was nothing wrong with consumption of wine, then I would guess that is what God wanted them to express within the pages of sacred Scripture. And this qualifier of a small glass . . . taken with the noon or evening meal - I didn't catch the reference to those passages of Scripture. But wait. It gets even more convoluted.

At this point, however, a significant difference exists between what is permissible and what is best for the child of God. In addition to the constant clear identification of drunkenness as a highly disreputable and debilitating sort of sin, please note the following: -- The Nazarite (one who was especially separated unto God) was prohibited from the use of wine altogether (see Numbers 6:3; Judges 13:4-7, 13-14). -- In Jeremiah 35:1-10, the Rechabites are highly commended by God and by Jeremiah for their total abstinence. -- John the Baptist, touted by Jesus as "the greatest born among men," was a total abstainer. He was evidently patterning his lifestyle after that of the Nazarite Law, and thereby expressing God's prescription for what is the best for a godly man.

I cannot read how Dr. Patterson can conclude that these instances show how total abstinence is the best for a godly man. Also consider the following problems with Dr. Patterson's treatment of these passages. 1. The passages Dr. Patterson quotes from Judges are in reference to the to-be mother of Samson, who was a Nazarite. Now wasn't he a fine example of a godly man? So I can be a womanizer and still be a godly man, just so long as I never drink wine. 2. The Numbers passage and one of the Judges passages also prohibits the consumption of grapes, raisins, and vinegar made from wine. Is it best for a godly man to abstain from these items as well? Do you think Dr. Patterson has never eaten a grape or a raisin? 3. If John the Baptist was the greatest born among men, simply on the basis of of his total abstinence, what does that say of Jesus, who did not abstain? At this point in Dr. Patterson's article he provides labels for a number of passages of Scripture that warn against strong drink. Many of these passages have to do with drunkenness and not merely the moderate use of alcohol. Here is just one example from this section:

-- Another result of strong drink is overindulgence. "Woe to those who rise early in the morning, that they may follow intoxicating drink; who continue until night, till wine inflames them!" (Isaiah 5:11).

Yes, I can see it. That strong drink pins you to the floor and pours itself down your throat until you have overindulged. The drink doesn't make you overindulge. A man's gluttony, which is sin, is what makes him to overindulge. Now, look at how Jesus making the water into wine in John 2 is explained away:

In Jesus' miracle at Cana of Galilee (John 2:1-11), one can neither affirm with certainty that Jesus turned the water into a non-intoxicating wine nor that He drank no wine Himself.

I think we can safely say that the wine which Jesus made was alcoholic. As I have pointed out at the first, that is what wine is all about: the grape and the yeast getting together. Dr. Patterson creates a stage-one oinos that is a myth. There is no such thing.

But the following evidences cannot be easily bypassed: -- The text nowhere indicates that Jesus participated. Either way the argument is from silence.

Jesus didn't participate? Heavens, he made the stuff. Silence under most circumstances is no argument. It usually indicates that something is so obvious that it doesn't need to be mentioned. Of course Jesus participated. It would be rude not to.

-- The governor of the feast obviously was able to identify "good wine" by tasting it, indicating that there was no intoxication on his part. On the other hand, by the governor's own testimony, by the last stages of such a feast participants generally had their senses sufficiently dulled so that they could not differentiate between good and bad wine. Was this feast different? Is this why Jesus agreed to attend?

John 2 says nothing about senses sufficiently dulled. John 2 doesn't indicate that the lesser wine comes out last because the participants can't differentiate between good and bad wine. Bad wine isn't even mentioned in this passage either. Dr. Patterson can't even recount what is in the passage accurately.

-- From a standpoint of logic, the "oinos" that Jesus produced was more likely pure, rather than fermented, grape juice, since that which comes from the Creator's hand is inevitably pure. Also, there was no time for fermentation to take place subsequent to the miracle. Furthermore, the ancients always acknowledged that the best "oinos" was the unfermented "oinos," i.e., that which came from the initial mixing of the grapes.

1. Logic and Dr. Patterson are not personally acquainted. 2. We have already dealt with this pure thing. I think I would be perfectly frightened of blasphemey if I kept talking about what came from the Creator's hand when I didn't know what I was talking about. 3. No time? Duh! Why do you think it was called a miracle? Duh, and double duh. 4. Where is the citation of these ancients always acknowledg[ing]?

-- The accusation that Jesus, in contrast to John, was a socialite, a glutton, and a winebibber is manifestly void of foundation (Matthew 11:19; Luke 7:34). Because Jesus enjoyed social contacts and openly mingled with the people, some assumed that He had a propensity for food and drink. If Jesus had been a winebibber, He must have also been guilty of gluttony, which is clearly identified as a sin. In fact, Jesus was neither, and again there is no evidence that He drank "oinos" or anything other than the fresh, natural fruit of the vine.

Yes, it was void of foundation, but just because Jesus was not a winebibber, doesn't mean He didn't drink wine. In the Matthew 11 and Luke 7 passages, Jesus clearly states that The Son of Man came eating and drinking. Read between the lines. If Jesus was accused of winebibbing, then it's probably because He was seen with a glass of wine in His hands, and He was drinking it. And here we go again with this fresh, natural and pure bit. We can't get away from this nightmare without "SOME ADDED OBSERVATIONS" to wrap things up.

-- In the accounts of the Lord's Supper in the Gospels and in 1 Corinthians, the word wine (oinos) is mysteriously absent. The disciples took "the cup" and drank the "fruit of the vine." The absence of the term "oinos" is curious, to say the least.

Acne, bad breath, and ear wax are also mysteriously absent from Scripture, but that doesn't mean Jesus didn't have them, and many other things I won't go into. None of those things seem curious by their absence (to me, anyway). In this article there was just way too much arguing from silence.

-- Wine has one, unqualified, good use in Scripture and that is as a metaphor for the wrath of God. This metaphor is utilized in both Old and New Testaments (see Revelation 19:15). The "oinos" of God's wrath is unmixed or undiluted, fresh from the wine press, unhindered by fermentation of any kind. Hence, purity of judgment is emphasized.

This is simply not true. Why does he not cite the following two passages? And there are many, many more. You do the work on your own. Do a word search on wine. Psalms 104:14,15 You cause the grass to grow for the livestock and plants for man to cultivate, that he may bring forth food from the earth and wine to gladden the heart of man, oil to make his face shine and bread to strengthen man's heart. Proverbs 3:9, 10 Honor the LORD with your wealth and with the firstfruits of all your produce; then your barns will be filled with plenty, and your vats will be bursting with wine.

-- The bishop (pastor) is to be free from wine (1 Timothy 3:3). One would presume that this admonition, at least in part, is for an example. If so, here again the ideal would be total abstinence for all who make up the body of Christ, i.e., the church.

Dr. Patterson must be referring to the King James here, where it says not given to wine, which is properly translated into modern English in most recent translations as not a drunkard, or not a brawler. Good grief, I am no Rhodes scholar, but I have enough grasp of Elizabethan English to know what not given to wine means. Come on, Dr. Patterson.

-- For the believer to say, "Let me get as close to sin as I can without being guilty," indicates a strange mentality indeed! The object should rather be to stay as far away as one can from even the appearance of evil, and as close to Christ as possible (1 Thessalonians 5:22).

What serious Christian ever says this? By this logic I need to stay as far away as possible from food, my wife, and my Ricky Skaggs CD's. it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person." (Matthew 15:11, ESV) The end is in site. Dr. Patterson concludes:

(1) Many of the most excruciating and debilitating events of history are associated with wine. The Bible has almost no good word about it and, in fact, usually associates tragedy and sin with the use of wine. For example, after a life of exemplary behavior, Noah became a stumbling block to his own children, necessitating a curse on his grandson, as a result of wine. This first mention of wine in Scripture is bad.

By this logic, we should ban airplanes, since airplanes dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We should also ban firearms, since they commit murder. Let's quit eating food, as it commits gluttony. Baptists need to become a monastic order, as sex causes adultery and fornication. We all need to become vegetarians, as meat clogs our arteries.

(2) To whatever extent wine was used by Jesus, clearly it was in small quantities and either at meals or for medicinal purposes. Certainly no tragic industry was supported by the selling and buying of wine. This latter point is crucial for the believer. A believer in no way can justify drinking if thereby he is contributing to the sustenance of an industry responsible for two-thirds of the violent deaths, two-fifths of all divorces, one-third of all crime, and untold millions of dollars in damage to private property. Such would violate all laws in the Bible, and especially the Corinthian principles outlined below:

Dr. Patterson does finally abandon the sufficiency of Scripture here at the last. After all, it is the industry that causes all of these evil things, and not the sinful heart of man. Conclusion: There is much more that I didn't touch on, but my time is limited. suffice it to say Dr. Patterson uses semantic gymnastics and scriptorture in his article, from first to last and everywhere in between. He may have stayed closer to Scripture than Dr. Akin, but he was never very close to the true meaning of the passages he cited. If I were a student at Southwestern, I would be embarassed. As I have said in my previous post on this subject, the issue is not about wine, but about rightly dividing the Word of God. What we have here is a prime example of fundamentalism deluxe and a gross lack of true scholarship, which amounts to the same thing. I am really sorry. I didn't intend to be mean. Believe me, I tried to hold back my sarcasm as much as possible. This kind of nonsense ought to make us weep, not laugh. I am not laughing. Your comments, please.

Baptist, What Do You Believe? #10

In this lesson we are going to look at Article six of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, concerning the doctrine of the Church. What is the church? Who makes up the church? When did the church begin? Who is in charge of the church? What is the duty of the church? Let’s see if we can answer some of these questions as we look at Article six: The Church. What is a church? Let’s begin by defining what a church is not. A church is not a building. There were no church buildings for the first 300 of the church’s history. Believers gathered in homes or barns or out in the open, or if they were being persecuted, even in caves and catecombs. The building is where the church meets – thus the New England Puritans spoke of the Meeting House – the house in which the church met. A church is not simply an organizational unit of any particular religion. You will never hear anyone talking about the Buddhist church or Jewish churches. In that sense the church is a thoroughly Christian term. The New Testament word for church is ekklesia. The prefix ek means out, and the root kalien means to call. Thus the church or ekklesia is literally the called out ones. Now, on the positive side. According to the NT, the church is primarily a body of people who profess and give evidence that they have been saved by God’s grace alone, for His glory alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. The church is the collection of people committed to Christ and to one another in a given area. (Acts 2:41-47) The word church also carries a broader meaning, which is reflected by the second brief paragraph of Article six. The word ekklesia appears in the New Testament 115 times, and 93 of those occurences refer to the local assembly of believers. The other 22 occurences refer to the church in a universal, or catholic sense. The word catholic, when used with a small c, is a very good word. It is used to signify the redeemed of Christ in every place, in all ages. In this way the church is divided into two categories: the church militant, and the church triumphant. The church militant is made up of all believers currently living; those who are still fighting the fight here on earth. The church triumphant is made up of all those believers whose rest is won, all those who have gone on to be with the Lord. Let us look now at Article 6, on the church.

A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the two ordinances of Christ, governed by His laws, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth. Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture. The New Testament speaks also of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.

A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ… The church is the possession of the Lord Jesus. It is the bride of Christ. We must not loose sight of the fact the church belongs to the Lord Jesus (Ephesians 5:22-32). is an autonomous local congregation… What is meant by autonomous? It literally means a law unto itself. Is each local Baptist church really its own boss? Well, yes and no. In the sense that there is no church hierarchyabove the local level, each individual church is autonomous. The associations and conventions a church might be member of have no authority over that local church. In the sense that Christ is the head of the church, then He governs over each and every local church, as the later phrase governed by His laws points out. Every local congregation is under the lordship of Jesus Christ. of baptized believers... This is one of the hallmarks of the Baptist church. We are a "believer’s" church, unlike some Christian denominations that baptize their infants and consider them members of that local church body. Granted, these denominations, Presbyterians most noteably among them, do not grant full membership priveledges, or consider these little ones to be saved, but they do consider them a part of the church family. Associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel… What does it mean to be in covenant? To be in covenant with a local body of baptized believers means that you are not there just for your own benefit, but for the benefit of others. We are agreed serve one another, as in Galatians 5:13, Colossians 3:16, and 1 Peter 4:10. We voluntarily unite ourselves to one another around common beliefs. In this way we are doing physically on earth what we are spiritually in Christ, that is united (Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 12). In our fast paced, mobile society, this is a fact that is very often overlooked in many churches. This short phrase in Article 6 could and should be strengthened by adding and union with Christ. Observing the two ordinances of Christ… And they are baptism and the Lord’s Supper, which will be discussed in our next article. Here the BF&M 2000 gets it right. The church belongs to Jesus Christ, and so too do these two ordinances belong to the Lord Jesus Christ. They are not ordinances of the church, as Article seven claims. In our next lesson we will look at the differences between these two views, and what difference it makes.. governed by His laws, We are governed by His word, the Scripture. Even this Baptist Faith and Message 2000, that we are studying, is not what governs us. exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth. This phrase continues the thought of our governance by God through His Scripture, and especially emphasizes our desire and responsibility to evangelize (Matthew 28:19) Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. Though the local church seeks the Lord’s will through prayer and study of His word, the day-to-day implementation of governance is carried out by its congregation in a democratic fashion. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. This sentence should be one that makes each one of us, as members of a local church, to take seriously the decisions we do make as a congregation. Nothing we do is without consequence, and we will have to give an account to our Lord for decision we make, both in church matters and elsewhere, therefore we should approach all church business prayerfully and carefully. (Romans 14:12) Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture. That second sentence is an addition to the 1963 edition, and has created quite a stir among some. Note first, that those officers which are prescribed from Scripture are pastor and deacons. That does not mean that the local church is limited to those two offices. The church can, as they see the need, have lesser officers such as Sunday-school directors, ministers of music, or other ministry administrators. Secondly, note that the limitation of men only to the office of pastor is not an issue of gifts or abilities, but rather an issue of Scriptural mandate (1 Timothy 2:9-14). Men are are further limited based on qualifications deliniated in Scripture. The pertinent passages on this subject are 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:6-9, and the role and origin of the office of deacon is found in Acts 6. The New Testament speaks also of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation. What a thought. The church is not only a local body of believers, but the body of all believers of all ages in every place. One of the practical implications of this concept is how we view the church thorughout all of history. Humanly speaking, what we have of our faith as Christians in general, and Baptists in particular, has been handed down from one generation to the next, many times at very great expense. Many have even lost their lives for the sake of the Gospel. We have a responsiblilty to treasure up what has been entrusted to us, and pass it on to the next generation. What a great responsibility and priveledge. Paul uses the word entrust(ed) twelve times in his epistles. Look how he instructs Timothy to pass on what has been entrusted to him by Paul, so that the process can continue on till the end of the age (1 Timothy 2:1,2). Also, the unity (again, Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12) that all believers have by virtue of all being in Christ, combined with his being in our midst (Matthew 18:20) when we gather in His name, then each and every local worship service is quite a gathering. That can best be described by quoting Hebrews 12:18,19,22-24:

For you have not come to what may be touched, a blazing fire and darkness and gloom and a tempest and the sound of a trumpet and a voice whose words made the hearers beg that no further messages be spoken to them. . . But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

I would again like to thank my pastor, Rod Harris, for supplying his study notes on The Baptist Faith and Message 2000, of which I have leaned heavily, especially on this lesson. You can listen to his Wednesday evening messages on The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 at http://web.mac.com/pwhatch Previous lessons in this series Baptist, What Do You Believe? #1 (An Introduction) Baptist, What Do You Believe? #2 (On the Doctrine of Scripture) Baptist, What Do You Believe? #3 (On the Doctrine of God) Baptist, What Do You Believe? #4 (On God the Father) Baptist, What Do You Believe? #5 (On God the Son Baptist, What Do You Believe? #6 (On God the Holy Spirit) Baptist, What Do You Believe? #7 (On the Doctrine of Man) Baptist, What Do You Believe? #8 (On the Doctrine of Salvation) Baptist, What Do You Believe? #8 (Continued) (On the Doctrine of Salvation) Baptist, What Do You Believe? #9 (On God's Purpose of Grace)

The alcohol resolution and the Dallas Morning News

Pastor Ben Cole of the Baptist Blogger, has bit down on this alcohol deal like a bulldog, and it appears he is not about to let go any time soon. Read his article in the Dallas Morning News, responding to the resolution on alcohol presented last month at Greensboro. I guess this ruins his chances for SBC president any time soon. God's blessings be upon him.

Rain Lilies

Rain lilies are one of my favorite summer flowering bulbs. Their common name comes from the fact that they have a tendency to bloom profusely right after a summer shower. Here in Oklahoma any summer shower is a welcome site, but this summer has been particularly dry. God blessed us with about three inches over a two-day period last week. Over the next few days the various Rain lilies in our flower beds were just a bustin’. The Rain liliy pictured here is Zephyranthes grandiflora, a standard pass-along plant in the south that has been shared over back-yard fences for ever. It is the first species of rain lily we started with more than a dozen years ago. The grandiflora, signifying this species of Rain lily as having a rather large bloom, in fact the largest bloom in the genus. The genus Zephyranthes gets its name from the fact that the delicate, paper-thin flowers dance in the lightest breeze, or zephyr. You can view the other species of Zephyranthes we grow over at Flickr.

Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound [and see what it does], but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” John 3:7-8 (ESV)

The Sufficiency of Scripture - I'll Drink to That

At Greensboro many of the "sermons", reports, and speeches used a common word: Inerrancy. It was almost always in connection with the conservative resurgence. I am very thankful that a faithful group of men fought that fight twenty-thirty years ago. Without that fight, at this year's convention we might have been voting on same-sex marriage and whether or not to ordain gay bishops (sorry Jeff), like some other conventions were doing. Inerrancy is very important, but it doesn't go far enough. As was evident by the wide popularity of the resolution on alcohol at this year's convention, the idea of the sufficiency of Scripture is in short supply among Southern Baptists. This one subject of alcohol is not really so important, in and of itself, but it is an indicator of bigger problems. Ignoring the sufficiency of Scripture (among some) is the source of a good deal of the problem(s) currently being experienced in the IMB. Back in April Wade Burleson cited a definition for Fundamentalism, which he cited from John Piper, who had in turn cited from J. Gresham Machen. It contained a list of seven indicators. It was quite a good definition. I would like to submit my own definition of Fundamentalism, one that contains just one point, but one, I believe that takes in most of the seven cited on Pastor Burleson's blog: Fundamentalism is inerrancy without sufficiency. The first four verses of Matthew 23 comes readily to mind, but that is probably too harsh for good men who probably do mean well. Perhaps Mark 7:1-16 would be a bit more appropriate, though still a bit harsh. A good number of the younger bloggers have argued against the alcohol resolution using the sufficiency argument, and they did quite a good job of it too; at least until they began to clarify and qualify themselves among the give and take of the comments after their post. They would virtually undo all they had argued for in their posts by "apologizing" their way out from under sufficiency. After an anecdotal challenge or two virtually all of them would respond with something like "Oh, the stuff has never touched MY lips." or "I teach my children that total abstinence is the best policy in today's society." This leads me to believe that they were holding to sufficiency only in theory. I ask you, are we just playing with ideas, or are we taking every thought captive to obey Christ? What better way to show our Miller-Time society how Christians can responsibly enjoy all of the good gifts that God has given us, and give Him glory in the process. You notice I have not laid out my argument for alcohol from Scripture. I don't need to. I failed to mention that there was one young man who did a superb job of defending the position of the normative use of alcohol from the Scriptures, without crawfishing, even from the remote recesses of the comments section. That young man would be Pastor Joe Thorn at Words of Grace. You can read his three straight-shooting posts here, here, and here, in that order, and don't skip the comments. So now, what to do? Let's all dig in and be men and women of the Word. Hold it not only as inerrant but also as sufficient. We should begin anew to ask "What does God's word say on a particular subject?", and cease from asking "What do the precious, long-held, beloved traditions of men say?" Alcohol is not the problem topic in the SBC today. Sufficiency of Scripture is. Let's get back on track and get as many laborers as possible into the field, for they are white for harvest. Sometimes I think there are many in the IMB who have lost site of this. Let's help them remember.

It Is Well With My Soul

When peace, like a river, attendeth my way, When sorrows like sea billows roll; Whatever my lot, thou hast taught me to say, It is well, it is well with my soul. It is well with my soul; It is well, it is well with my soul. Though Satan should buffet, though trials should come, Let this blest assurance control, That Christ has regarded my helpless estate, And has shed his own blood for my soul. My sin--O the bliss of this glorious thought!-- My sin, not in part, but the whole, Is nailed to the cross and I bear it no more; Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul! O Lord, haste the day when the faith shall be sight, The clouds be rolled back as a scroll, The trump shall resound and the Lord shall descend; "Even so"--it is well with my soul.

Horatio Spafford was a Presbyterian layman from Chicago in the 19th century. He was a lawyer by profession, and held considerable real estate on the shore of Lake Michigan just prior to the great Chicago Fire of 1871, which wiped those holdings out. He penned the words to this hymn sometime shortly after the drowning at sea of his four daughters late in 1873. "It Is Well With My Soul" is this week's offertory music (found in the sidebar), and was presented by David Hoyt.

Baptist, What Do You Believe #9

Introduction In this lesson we are going to look into the purpose of God in saving sinners. This article naturally flows out of the one that came before it, namely the article on salvation. Even at first glance, a common theme stands out in these two articles. The four terms that are defined at the end of article 4 are the same four terms that make up the gracious purpose of God in the first paragraph of this article. Those four terms are regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. We saw in last lesson that the process of salvation is made up of these four acts, and that all four of these acts are brought about by God and not man. That is why the two paragraphs in this article occur together. Salvation that begins with God, ends with God. One of the questions we asked in our last study concerned the nature of salvation as respects time. Are we saved all at once, in an instant, or is salvation a process that takes our whole lives? The basic answer to this question is yes. We are saved in an instant when God pronounces "Not guilty." at our justification, as our regenerate hearts believe in Christ, and we repent of our sins. We are also being saved the rest of our lives as the Holy Spirit is working in us, sanctifying, conforming us (Romans 8:29) to be more like Jesus, until one day, either at His return, or glorified in heaven, we will be like Him (1 John 3:2). In this lesson we will try to explain this mystery. V. God's Purpose of Grace

Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners.

God has a purpose, and it is to save a people for Himself. Why and how He saves is His business, and we really don't have the right to question Him(Romans 9:20,21 and 11:34) You cannot get around the word election because both the word and the concept are there in Scripture many times.

• The Concept: As we saw in the article on salvation, Jesus didn't make salvation possible, He purchased sinners with His own blood (Acts 20:28). This purchasing, by the very nature of purchasing, means that those who were saved had to be elected, or chosen, to be saved. Paul deals extensively with this concept, beginning in Romans chapter 9, and he touches on it numerous times elsewhere in his epistles.
• The Word: The word elect / election appears many times in the Bible. And don't forget the common use of the word choose / chosen.. (Mark 13:27, Luke 18:7, Romans 8:33, 2 Timothy 2:10, Titus 1:1, 1 Peter 1:1, Romans 9:11, Deuteronomy 7:6, 1 Thessalonian 1:4, 1 Peter 2:9)

Now, many people try to get around the election of God by arguing that God's foreknowledge allows Him to look down the corridor of time and tell who will and who will not believe in Jesus, thus determining who He will elect. That would be fine, but who would God see if He were to do such a thing? Would He see some with faith and some without faith? This simply does not work. Ephesians 2:8 tells that even the faith that we exercise is a gift of God. Romans 3:9-18 tells us that no one seeks after God. If God used his foreknowledge to elect, then nobody would be saved. Note that this purpose of God is gracious. God does not have to save any one, yet He does, and at the highest price imaginable, the death of His only begotten Son. We are all rebellious sinners, guilty of cosmic treason against God, and deserving of hell, yet God graciously is saving a people for His own possession from every nation, tribe, and tongue.

It is consistent with the free agency of man,

So how do you square God's sovereignty with this free agency of man? The basic answer is that God is Sovereign, and man is free, but not autonomous. Autonomy gets to the heart of original sin. Satan said to Eve "You will be like God" (Genesis 3:5). This has been the desire of mankind ever since, to be independent, to be autonomous. We want to be the captain of our own ship, the master of our own destiny. The key to it all is that God is God and we are not. Man is free. Unless physically forced by someone stronger, we always freely act according to our greatest affection. Every moment of every day of our lives our choices are driven by our greatest desires. The only thing that limits us in choosing God is our nature. All of us have a sin nature, which basically amounts to the fact that we are out to please ourselves and not God. The unregenerate individual has no concept of his greatest joy being found in God (Psalm 37:4).

and comprehends all the means in connection with the end.

One of the objections some people raise is that if I am elect of God, then I don't need to do anything. God is going to save me no matter what I do. The only problem with that is that we are commanded from God's word to repent and believe (Acts 2:38). We are commanded to come to Jesus (Matthew 11:28). As believers we are commanded to preach the gospel to the lost (Matthew 28:19, 1 Corinthians 9:16). Others will raise the objection that if I am not among the elect of God, then there is nothing I can do to change that situation. The Bible is full of Whosoever's (Luke 6:47, John 3:15, Acts 2:21, Acts 10:43, Romans 10:13, 1 John 4:15, Revelation 22:17). As we saw in Article 4 on the doctrine of salvation, the gospel is offered freely to all. Salvation doesn't happen in a vacuum. We are saved by the gracious act of God, but we are also saved when we hear the gospel of grace, are convicted of our sins, respond to the call of the Holy Spirit, and believe and repent (Romans 10:14-17). One of the counter objections that I would raise is that if God does not elect some, if salvation is up to us and not to God, then why should we ever bother to pray? Why pray for the salvation of a friend or loved one? Why ever pray for the Holy Spirit to come down and save? Why should we ever pray for revival and renewal?

It is the glorious display of God's sovereign goodness, and is infinitely wise, holy, and unchangeable. It excludes boasting and promotes humility.

The best commentary on this is found in the first chapter of Ephesians and the eleventh chapter of Romans. If salvation is all of God and none of man, then it naturally excludes boasting, and promotes humility. All we can do is fall on our faces and worship a great God who graciously has saved us.

All true believers endure to the end. Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never fall away from the state of grace, but shall persevere to the end. Believers may fall into sin through neglect and temptation, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, and bring reproach on the cause of Christ and temporal judgments on themselves; yet they shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.

This is the easy part. Since salvation is not a date on a calendar - the day you walked forward and gave your heart to Jesus - but rather the gracious four-part action of God spoken of in the article on salvation, then the God who regenerates you is the same God who justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies you. The God who has the power to bring the spiritually dead to life also has the power to faithfully keep us to the end. This endurance is not a passive thing. Surely it is God who saves us and keeps us saved, but we are also commanded to see to our salvation on an ongoing basis (Philippians 2:12, Hebrews 4:1, and 12:15). As I have said before, salvation is not a date on a calendar. Saving faith involves the ongoing question you must ask yourselves constantly: "What (Who) am I trusting in right now for my salvation?" Salvation is who you believed in and on back when you first believed, but salvation is also who you believe in and on right now. This paragraph emphasizes the firmness of our salvation to the end, but also points out the consequences of sin. Sin brings misery, always. That misery can come in a multitude of forms, but that misery always includes lost fellowship with God, and that is the worst misery the true believer can experience. Note the causes of sin in the believer: neglect and temptation. We must always be diligent to use the means of grace given to us. We should not neglect regular worship (Hebrews 10:25), prayer (Luke 21:36, Luke 22:40, Ephesians 6:18), and the regular reading of God's word (2 Timothy 3:16). What about those who once "followed Christ" but no longer do so? John says that those who no longer walk with us were never one of us, else they would never have left us (1 John 2:19). So, those who are God's children, God will keep, and God's children will be careful and diligent and use the means of grace to endure to the end. The old tongue twister I learned years ago was The faith that fizzles before the finish was never firm at the first. May we all be diligent and be found faithful in that great day. Previous Lessons: Baptist, What Do You Believe? #1 (An Introduction) Baptist, What Do You Believe? #2 (On the Doctrine of Scripture) Baptist, What Do You Believe? #3 (On the Doctrine of God) Baptist, What Do You Believe? #4 (On God the Father) Baptist, What Do You Believe? #5 (On God the Son Baptist, What Do You Believe? #6 (On God the Holy Spirit) Baptist, What Do You Believe? #7 (On the Doctrine of Man) Baptist, What Do You Believe? #8 (On the Doctrine of Salvation) Baptist, What Do You Believe? #8 (Continued) (On the Doctrine of Salvation)

Independence Day

In recognition of Independence day, and an overly political Southern Baptist Convention, here's a '49 Chevy shot March 1, 2006, in the middle of the night at a UPS facility near Vinita, Oklahoma. Happy fourth, everybody.

Baptist, What Do You Believe? #8, continued

Article 4: Salvation (Continued) Conclusion The beauty of this article on salvation, even with the one minor problem mentioned previously, is that it approaches salvation from a God-centered perspective, rather than a man-centered perspective. Salvation is initiated by the Holy Spirit in regeneration. Justification is the declaration of God the Father, declaring us righteous based on the righteousness of Jesus Christ, and accepting the atoning work of Jesus Christ on the cross in our behalf. Once declared righteous in Christ, we proceed to become righteous by the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. In glorification we enjoy all of the blessings of salvation in full, that up to that point were only "seen in a mirror dimly" (1 Corinthians 13:12). This article is also careful to point out two other very important aspects of salvation. First, that salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone (Acts 4:21 Acts 4:12). Many commonly view Jesus' illustration of the narrow gate and the wide gate in Luke 13 as a contrast between seeking God and not seeking God. What is really in view here is the difference between the narrow gate of Acts 4:21 Acts 4:12 and 1 Timothy 2:5, and the wide gate of "There are many ways to God.", or "It doesn't matter what you believe as long as you are sincere". The second very important detail found in this article is that repentance and faith must be found together. Repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ is only possible by that change of heart that is wrought, hammered out, by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit. There is none of this nonsense that we can believe in Jesus now for salvation, and at some later date, give our lives over to Him in obedience. So, as I asked in the beginning of this study on salvation: Is there enough in this article to point you to Christ for salvation? I think not. This is one reason why the articles are set up the way they are. Once the foundation of all authority is laid, namely God's word, we need to understand what is contained in the next two articles. Salvation really means very little until we have a knowledge of who this righteous, holy, and just God is. We also need to know who we are, and what our predicament as fallen creatures is. Last of all, to understand the significance of salvation, we need to know who the Savior is. The beginning of regeneration by the Holy Spirit is our conviction of sin, and then our seeing the need for a Savior. Only after all of this occurs does salvation make any sense. So, now for the other questions asked at the beginning.

• What are we saved from? We are saved from the wrath of God (Romans 1:18).
• What are we saved for? God's holy purpose, to the praise of His glorious grace (Ephesians 1).
• Is salvation a one-time thing, or does it take you your entire life to be saved? Answer: We have been saved. We are being saved. We will be saved. All of this is to say that salvation begins at justification, and you are saved. But that is not the end of it, for you are being saved by the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit, making you more and more like Christ. Still more is involved as you pass from this world, where you inherit all those blessings in their fullness.

In [Christ Jesus] you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory. (Ephesians 1:13,14 ESV) One question that continues to nag on me. If the Southern Baptist Convention is made up of a minority of believers holding to the doctrines of Sovereign Grace, then how has a strong particular-redemption phrase in the first paragraph of this article escaped the notice of the majority. Next week we will look at God's Purpose of Grace, where there will be even more wonders to behold. The more I study the BFM 2000, the more I wonder if anybody has bothered to read it. Maybe I should be happy and shut up. I know that when I teach it the way it is written, and back it up with Scripture, the class frowns and fusses a bit, but then they accept it because that is how God's word teaches it. Hopefully, some day it will all soak in and begin to cause them to see the power and majesty and beauty of a sovereign God and Savior. Previous Lessons: Baptist, What Do You Believe? #1 (An Introduction) Baptist, What Do You Believe? #2 (On the Doctrine of Scripture) Baptist, What Do You Believe? #3 (On the Doctrine of God) Baptist, What Do You Believe? #4 (On God the Father) Baptist, What Do You Believe? #5 (On God the Son Baptist, What Do You Believe? #6 (On God the Holy Spirit) Baptist, What Do You Believe? #7 (On the Doctrine of Man) Baptist, What Do You Believe? #8 (On the Doctrine of Salvation)

Baptist, What Do You Believe? #8

And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.’ Acts 2:21 (ESV) And Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord, “Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor. And if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold.” And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.” Luke 19:8-10 (ESV) Jesus, looking at him with sadness, said, “How difficult it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” Those who heard it said, “Then who can be saved?” But he said, “What is impossible with men is possible with God.” Luke 18:24-27 (ESV)

Saved? What are we saved from? And what are we saved for? How does one go about being/getting/finding saved/salvation? Is salvation a one-time thing, or is it a process that lasts all of our lives? Much confusion surrounds the doctrine of salvation. Get these questions wrong and you come up with something less than salvation in the reconciled-to-God sense of the word. This week we are looking at Article 4 of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, on the doctrine of salvation. What about the BF&M2000; does it accurately lay out the biblical doctrine of salvation? Does it say enough, and is it clear to the average reader? Is there enough in these brief paragraphs to lead a lost person to Christ? Is there enough here to teach you how to proclaim the gospel to a lost and perishing world? Does it accurately describe what Southern Baptists believe? Let's dig into the contents of the doctrine of salvation in the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. IV. Salvation Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, The word redemption involves the idea of buying something back. The most common illustration is one of someone buying another person out of slavery. God is described as redeeming Israel when He brought them out of the land of Egypt in 1Chronicles 17:21. Both Paul and Peter refer to the lost as being slaves to sin (Romans 6:16-20, Titus 3:3, 2 Peter 2:19). Salvation redeems us from the guilt and power of sin, through Jesus Christ. The whole man is redeemed, body and soul. Being in Christ makes us new creatures now (2 Corinthians 5:17), and at the resurrection in the life to come (1 Corinthians 15:52-54). Christ redeems his people from the curse of the law (which brings death) in Galatians 3:13. and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, I am sorry, but someone nodded off when this phrase was written. It should read something like this: and is offered freely to all, through Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour. I am assuming that this phrase was intended to express the idea of the gospel call and offer going out to all humanity. Neither Calvinist nor Arminian believes that the offer is limited in any way. As modified, we have in this phrase the free offer of the gospel (Matthew ll:28, John 7:37). The original wording implies, though probably not intentionally, that the offer goes out freely, but the all is limited by only those who believe. That is clearly not what Scripture says. who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer. Christ's blood, which represents his violent death on our behalf on the cross, is what has obtained (purchased) this redemption (1 Peter 1:18,19, Revelation 5:9). When you obtain something by paying for it, you are usually buying a set amount of something. Jesus did not merely make salvation possible, He saved a people (John 6:37, John 17:6-24) from every nation, tribe, and tongue (Revelation 5:9, Revelation 7:9). This one short phrase lends a particular, rather than a general flavor to the entire Baptist Faith and Message 2000. It was that way in 1963 version, as well. This redemption is eternal. We were not leased or rented, we were bought. It shall never end (John 6:58) In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord. Jesus Christ is the unique saviour, and that salvation comes through faith alone.

because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart othat God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. Romans 10:9,10 (ESV) Faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. Romans 10:17 (ESV) And there is salvation bin no one else, for cthere is no other dname under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” Acts 4:12 (ESV)

I underlined the word justification above, because it is the one word that is not present in the 1963 BF&M. The 1963 edition does go on to include justification in the definition list below, in effect combining point A and B into the first point. In every other respect, the 2000 and the 1963 are virtually identical. The 1925 BF&M, however, gives the doctrine of Justification its own separate article. Although the scope of this brief survey does not permit it, it would be interesting to study the changes also made from 1925 to 1963. A. Regeneration, or the new birth, (John 3:3) is a work of God's grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus (1 Corinthians 2:2). It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, The sinner is saved by a gracious work of God. The believer is a recipient, passive in the transaction. Yes, man has to repent and believe, but even that faith that wells up in the heart of man is a gracious gift of God.

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. Ephesians 2:8-10 (ESV)

The word wrought is considered an archaic word, not a word used in modern English much any more. Gramatically, wrought is the past tense of the verb to work. As it is most commonly used today, the word wrought is used in connection with the beating and shaping of metals with an anvil and hammer. to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace. Repentance is a genuine turning from sin toward God. Faith is the acceptance of Jesus Christ and commitment of the entire personality to Him as Lord and Saviour. Jesus is not just Savior, He is also Lord. You can't have one without the other. Repentance is just the first act of service (1 Thessalonians 1:9). B. Justification is God's gracious and full acquittal upon principles of His righteousness of all sinners who repent and believe in Christ. Justification brings the believer unto a relationship of peace and favor with God. Justification is a word act. The scene is the court room. God is the judge bringing the gavel down at the end of a trial, declaring the defendent not guilty. In justification, God doesn't make us just; He declares us just, based on the righteousness of Jesus Christ. This declaration is gracious and full. It is gracious because we don't deserve it. It is full because we do not need to bring anything to make it complete. It already is. Justification is the part of salvation that happens once, and only once, in an instant. C. Sanctification is the experience, beginning in regeneration, by which the believer is set apart to God's purposes, and is enabled to progress toward moral and spiritual maturity through the presence and power of the Holy Spirit dwelling in him. Growth in grace should continue throughout the regenerate person's life. This is the part of salvation that takes all of our Christian lives. It never ends until you die. The Christian walk is not easy. It is accompanied with trouble on every hand. We will fall many times, but by the power of the Holy Spirit, we will get up and continue on. Notice that the reason that we are set apart are to God's purposes, not ours. Sometimes it is impossible to know what God is doing in and through us, because it doesn't seem to make us happy, or it doesn't fit the way that we think would be best. D. Glorification is the culmination of salvation and is the final blessed and abiding state of the redeemed. Either when we die, or when Christ returns, we will no longer be limited by our sinful natures. Glorification is that final part of salvation in which the believer receives the full measure of all that has been promised. Up until this point the believer has to rely on faith, but in glorification, the believer sees, tastes, touches all the blessings promised of God, even God Himself.

But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him” (1 Corinthians 2:9 ESV) Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. (1 John 3:2 ESV)

Later this week I am going to try to post some conclusions to this lesson. We probably won't make it through this in one week, anyway. I apologize (if you noticed) for revising this post while online multiple times. Trying to patch the Ponderosa back together after our trip to Greensboro occupied most of Saturday, when I usually put the finishing touches on the lesson. Thanks for your patiences. Previous Lessons: Baptist, What Do You Believe? #1 (An Introduction) Baptist, What Do You Believe? #2 (On the Doctrine of Scripture) Baptist, What Do You Believe? #3 (On the Doctrine of God) Baptist, What Do You Believe? #4 (On God the Father) Baptist, What Do You Believe? #5 (On God the Son Baptist, What Do You Believe? #6 (On God the Holy Spirit) Baptist, What Do You Believe? #7 (On the Doctrine of Man)

SBC Day 2, Wednesday Evening

Well, what do you say. "It's over.", I guess. The only reason we came back this evening was to see if "anything" would develope out of the IMB report. There were a few ripples. At the point of "questions" two men stepped up to the mic and both each directed their question, not at Dr. Rankin, but the new chairman of trustees, John Floyd. Each messenger in his turn ask Dr. Floyd what he was going to do concerning "certain trustees" not being allowed to attend all meetings of the IMB, and of the excessive use of executive (closed) sessions. Dr. Floyd responded both times to the effec "I don't know what you're talking about." My pastor said afterward concerning the response, "What condescension. What an insult." The point was made, and publically, so the monkey is on the IMB's back, and they are going to have that monkey for the next 12 months. There was also the unveiling of a large bronze statue of the Rev. Billy Graham standing in front of a cross, holding up a Bible in one hand with the other arm raised, in his typical style of offering the gospel. There was also a brief appearance and address by Cliff Barrows. It was all nice, a nice gesture, but. . . Impressions Keep in mind, this was my first SBC ever. I was raised a Southern Baptist. I am a Southern Baptist now. The first twenty-five years of my adult life I raised a family of five in an independent, rural, reformed Baptist church. Three pastors and twenty-five years later, I woke up one day and found myself in a reformed Episcopal church, to which my wife and I said "Hey, what are we doing here? We're Baptists." So here are a few random impressions of my first convention. 1. The music was better than I thought it would be. My pastor's wife asked what kind of music do I like, to which I replied, "I don't know. I haven't heard it yet." More on this some day. Maybe. 2. Everybody clapped for everything. After praying, after preaching, after singing, after business. If we were doing God's business, why were we constantly applauding man for everything. 3. Too many frivolous resolutions and motions, especially the ones that passed. 4. Too much preaching. Now this comes from someone who listens each work day on an iPod to 25 min. of Piper, 26 min. of Sproul, 38 min. of Mohler. I also listen to my pastor's three messages twice, because I record and publish them, and want to make sure the audio quality is fit for the internet. Then there's the odd conference messages I pick up, and the audio of of other pastor's sermons. I guess I should have said "Too much shallow, man-centered, mediocre preaching. Some day I will tell you what I really think. 5. Words too often used: inerrency (without the accompanying "sufficiency"), ten percent, and baptism (without the accompanying "regeneration"). More on these later, maybe. 6. Words not used often enough: soli Deo gloria I'm sorry. It's late. I really did enjoy the convention. I will have to post a counterbalance soon. There was much good, much encouragement, if you looked for it, but I just can't get the phrase "Ringling Brothers" out of my head. Go to the blogs I linked to in the previous post. They've all updated this evening, all good stuff. Go to Wade's blog also. I'm going to paste his photo in the margin of my dictionary next to the words gracious, patient, and longsuffering. It's late. I've got to get to bed. We shove off at dawn.

SBC Day 2, Wednesday Morning

Well, despite heavy rains, there was a considerable crowd at the second day of the convention. It was an interesting morning, with a speech by Secretary of State Condelesa Rice, a report from Dr. Mohler on Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and debate and votes on a number of resolutions. Pastor Rod and I are on the bus now, headed for lunch with our wives. Dr. Mohler's address will probably proove be the high point of today. He spoke to the health of the seminaries in the SBC, and the role of truth as a reflection of God, and subsequently, the character of God. Dr. Mohler stated that SBTS existed for three things: 1. for the truth 2. for the church 3. for the world Again, what I love to hear from a minister of the gospel, Dr. Mohler spoke on these subjects in light of "how to deliver the maximum glory to God alone. Dr. Tom Ascol spoke from the floor, requesting that his resolution, which did not make it out of committee, be voted on to be considered anyway. This required a two-thirds majority, which it did not get. Dr. Ascol's resolution was one basically calling for honesty in reporting church membership numbers, which by implication is a call for churches to take the responsibility of church discipline seriously. A representative from the committee on resolutions responded by saying that the reason why the resolution didn't make it out of committee was because we don't want to get rid of those records of people who no longer attend, because we need them for contact and prayer purposes. It seems like a lame excuse to me. No body said anything about throwing three-by-five cards in the trash bin. Good grief, you can remove someone who never attends from a church roll, and still keep the "card" for information purposes. I grew up with this: "Oh, you can't take someone off the rolls, that might send them to Hell.", or something like that. A resolution which did make it out of committee, and indeed was passed by the convention, was one regarding the SBC making a strong statement discouraging the use of alcohol. Brave arguments were brought against this resolution by Ben Cole, Jeff Young, Marty Duren, and Dr. Ascol, but to no avail. We can pass a resolution to discourage something that Scriptures does not, but we cannot pass a resolution which promotes something that Scripture speaks plainly on. I haven't met any of these young men (Well, Dr. Ascol is older than myself.), but if this is a picture of the future of the SBC, I think we are going in the right direction. Judging from their deportment, articulation, and emphasis on the glory of God, the best years of the SBC are ahead. Go check these guys blogs out. Their reports are all interesting, much more detailed than mine. Art Rogers Tom Ascol David Phillips Marty Duren

SBC Day 1

I was going to post something on the road Sunday and Monday, but there really wasn't anything worth writing about. It was two days of driving with lots of pretty scenery. Though I have been to every state west of the Mississippi, I haven't been west of Arkansas in the south, so Tennessee and North Carolina were special treats. The landscape is hard to write about, so you will have to wait till I get some pics posted. . . some day. This morning at 6:30 Pastor Rod, Suzan and I went to the Founders breakfast, where Mark Dever was to preach on Romans 9 and 10, Why aren't my loved ones saved? . After Dever, the preaching was pretty much downhill the rest of the day. Pastor Dever gave three reasons from the text why those that Paul longed to see saved weren't: 1. Because God hadn't saved them. 2. Because they don't believe. 3. Because No one was telling them the good news. Under this last point Pastor Dever went on to answer the question "How should we tell the Gospes?" A. That it is an urgent decision. B. That it is a costly decision. C. That it is infinitely worth the cost. In conclusion several points were made, including, but not limited to, the following: 1. Pastor Dever gave examples from Scripture as well as church history, of those who were patient and persistent with their loved ones: God with Paul, and Monica with her son Augustine, for example. 2. "The Gospel is full of whoevers" 3. It is not up to us to limit the gospel. 4. We Calvinists often use our theology to excuse our laziness. The Convention 1. The preaching peppered throughout the business was energetic, loud, illustrated, emotional, innovative, but not half as good as Pastor Rod on his worst day. One bright spot was a report from a young man, I missed his name, during the NAMB report. He had a church plant in NYC, and he said several times that his goal was to "display the greatness of God to the world.", and not xx number of baptisms or decisions. 2. Frank Page from South Carolina was elected president, with 50.48 percent in a three way race, just barely avoiding the necessity for a runoff. Mark Dever got the most votes for 1st Vice President on the first vote with 29.72 percent, but lost to Jimmy Jackson in the runoff, 51.44 to 47.86 percent. We voted on 2nd vice president, but no results before we adjourned last night. I will try to post on this tomorrow, as there was a considerable amount of humor involved? 3. I was hoping to see some people I was familiar with. I saw the obvious: Tom Ascol, Mark Dever, Tom Nettles, Wade Burleson. I did not get to meet them, but it was nice to see a real face with familiar names. I did unexpectedly see Steve Parks (For you Tangleites/Trinitites). He brought a motion to the convention. Pastor (Bishop) Jeff Young brought a comment to a motion made. Ben Cole also raised a question on one of the reports. I've never met Cole, and have only traded a few emails with Young. Now Steve Parks: well I could tell stories for weeks about Brother Steve. I've got to get some snooze. Bus leaves at 7:30 in the morning.

Greensboro or Bust

I will not be posting a Baptist, What Do You Believe? installment this week. It won't be needed until next Sunday. Another brother will be leading a review lesson this Sunday morning in my Sunday-school class. By the title of this post I've already let the cat out of the bag. Yes, were going. My wife and I, along with our pastor and his family, are making the 16-hour trek from Tulsa, Oklahoma, to Greensboro, North Carolina. This will be my wife's and my first convention, so Pastor Harris is going to hold our hands. For the congregation back home and others interested, I plan to post some From-the-Laymans-View articles while at the convention, maybe with a few photos sprinkled in. They might not be worth a flip, but I will let you decide that. From all that has been going on lately, this year's convention could prove to be one not to miss. In going, we certainly want to help, to represent our home church, to give it a voice at the convention. The five of us from Trinity certainly have our opinions concerning the issues that are pressing this year, but I think that all of us want to hear the discussion and debate, if any, to try to get the whole story and everybody's point of view. I have been saving this picture since shooting it back in March, thinking I would write a post titled something like "Can It be Salvaged?" I am glad that never took place. I am inserting it now to illustrate the need for regular, faithful maintenance, so our great convention, and especially the IMB doesn't wind up like this old barn near Muskogee, Oklahoma. These past few months I have been so encouraged by the upbeat, optimistic words of Pastor Wade Burleson in his blog. He never misses a chance, as he did in this Friday's post to praise the efficiency and effectiveness of the IMB, and his fellow trustees, and the faithful missionaries that are sent out by them (and thereby all us all). My prayer for this coming week is that we all pack our hammers and nail aprons, and leave our wrecking bars at home. A word about the home front. Anybody thinking about burglarizing should be advised that the Marine will be at our house, and Barny (Fife) the attack Beagle will be guarding Pastor's home.

More Classical, More Traditional Music

Are you trying to resist that popular wave of modern worship music, but can't seem to find anything good to listen to? Well, Old Fashioned Christian Radio is the place you have been looking for. This site is different from all the other sites I have mentioned and placed in my sidebar, in that this is not a resource for mp3 files, music lyrics, or scores. This site provides streaming audio. In other words, it is an internet radio station. As far as web sites go, this one is "U-G-L-Y, you ain't got no alibi.", but it does a good job at what it does, which is stream classical-style traditional Christian music over the internet. The site has settings for dial-up, as well as broadband users, and you can purchase the cds of the music aired right there on the site. Go check it out.

Baptist, What Do You Believe? #7

Article III, Man Review Questions: 1. What is regeneration? 2. What is illumination? 3. Why is the Holy Spirit called the Holy Spirit? Introduction This week in the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 we turn our attention to Article 3: Man. What makes us different from the animals? Is there any difference, or are we just grown up germs? Is it simply that we have won the cosmic lottery, and wound up at the top of the heap? Or could it be, as Article 3 begins, that we are the special creation of God? At first glance, if we are His crowning work then something is very wrong with this picture. As we work our way through the doctrine of man, as laid out in the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, we begin to see the picture rightly, as God would have us see it. The Creation of Man Man is the special creation of God, made in His own image. He created them male and female as the crowning work of His creation. The gift of gender is thus part of the goodness of God's creation. In the beginning man was innocent of sin and was endowed by his Creator with freedom of choice. What is so special about man? Where in Scripture are we told that man as the crowning work of His creation?

• We are made in God's own image and likeness: Genesis 1:26
• God gave us dominion over all else that He had created on earth: Genesis 1:26; Psalm 8:6
• God blessed man: Genesis 1;28
• Only after the creation of Man did God say that His creation was very good: Genesis 1:31
• Man is the only creature that God breathed the breath of life into: Genesis 2:7
• We are made just lower than the angelic beings, and with glory and honor: Psalm 8:5
• God sent his only begotten Son to die on a cross and redeem His people: Romans 5:8

The underlined portion above is the only part of Article 3 that constituted a significant change from this article in the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message. Obviously, the societal mores in the 21st century are not what they were in the middle of last century. Even though homosexuality was a known sin in 1963, it was not an accepted practice in general society. Today, on the other hand, homosexuality has passed into, not only accepted practice, but is all but considered as perfectly normal in America. The added wording is intended to show that the creation story specifically includes gender, and in fact shows God to be kind and generous in providing complimentary companionship as a part of His crowning work of creation. It is only after the fall that prohibition against the perversion of homosexuality has to be spelled out (Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:27, 1 Corinthians 6:9). Man's Rebellion and Fall (Genesis 3:1-24) By his free choice man sinned against God and brought sin into the human race. Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation. Not long after being placed in the garden, Adam and Eve disobeyed the one and only command of God by, first desiring the benefits of the forbidden fruit (being like God: Genesis 3:5), and then taking and eating it (Genesis 3:6), thus bringing sin into the world. We are also told in this section that the temptation was prompted by Satan. All of humanity was represented in Adam, and consequently, all humanity inherited a sin nature. On a personal note, I believe that the phrase his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin is too weak. The next sentence leaves no doubt that all are indeed sinners by virtue of being the posterity of Adam, but the word inclined weakens the idea a bit. An inclination can be changed. while a nature cannot. David said in Psalm 51:5 "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." This verse points out the inherency of our sin nature, and as the next sentence of Article 3 states, as soon as we are capable of sin, we do so. As Christian parents, this should not make us wonder what the age of accountability is, but rather should cause us to raise our children as Timothy was raised, knowing from childhood the sacred Scriptures, which were able to save him (2 Timothy 3:15). What better blessing any parents could give their child, than for them to never know a time when they didn't have saving faith in Christ Jesus. God's Gracious Act of Redemption in Christ Jesus Only the grace of God can bring man into His holy fellowship and enable man to fulfill the creative purpose of God. Here we have a nutshell version of the gospel. Because man is a sinner by nature, that is all he is capable of. It takes a gracious God to bring man back (Ephesians 2:8,9). Man cannot and will not come to God (Romans 8:7), so God must do so by the power of the Holy Spirit, through His son Jesus Christ. Only then can we fulfill the creative purpose of God (Ephesians 2:10). The Dignity of Every Human Being The sacredness of human personality is evident in that God created man in His own image, and in that Christ died for man; therefore, every person of every race possesses full dignity and is worthy of respect and Christian love. Here we are where we started with the doctrine of man. Man being made in God's image makes him special, having full dignity, and sacredness. The article gives two proofs for the dignity of all mankind: being made in the image of God, and Christ dying for His people. Man bearing the image of God is the reason God condemns murder (Genesis 9:6). In Acts 17:26 Paul points out that all of the races have their origin in Adam and Eve, and later in verse 30 he tells his hearers that God has commanded all men everywhere to repent. Jesus, when He gives the great commission in Matthew 28:19 tells His disciples to make disciples of all nations. John, in Revelation 5:9 records that God has saved people from every tribe and language and people and nation. All peoples everywhere, therefore deserve our greatest effort to reach them with the gospel of grace. Previous Lessons: Baptist, What Do You Believe? #1 (An Introduction) Baptist, What Do You Believe? #2 (On the Doctrine of Scripture) Baptist, What Do You Believe? #3 (On the Doctrine of God) Baptist, What Do You Believe? #4 (On God the Father) Baptist, What Do You Believe? #5 (On God the Son Baptist, What Do You Believe? #6 (On God the Holy Spirit) Technorati Tags: The Baptist Faith and Message 2000