What Do You Think Scripturally of Clarence Sexton Speaking at the National Fundamental Baptist Fellowship Meeting?
I don’t know Clarence Sexton. I heard him preach one time. I’ve received his paper for many years. I hope the best for him. However, I’m judging this based upon Scripture. I think it is an appropriate situation for us to consider, analyze, and explore. This is very public, so it doesn’t stand as a whispering campaign and innuendo. We don’t want whispering and innuendo here. Let’s rely on Scripture for our evaluation.
Is the FBF consistent with its historic belief on separation by having Sexton? Is Sexton consistent with his position on separation by fellowshiping with the FBF guys (I realize it is a fellowship of men, not churches)? What does the Bible say about either? I’d like us to discuss this. To do so, let me bring in some thoughts.
- Is inerrancy a separating issue?
- Is the Bible only inerrant in the original manuscripts?
- In the statements of the Lord in the NT, do we have the very words of Christ (ipsissima verba) or merely the voice of Christ (ipsissima vox)? Is that a separating issue?
- Is Scripture clear on the nature of the church? Is that worth separating over? Is mixed swimming actually mixed nudity? Is mixed nudity a separating issue?
- Has Clarence Sexton ever taken a stand against Jack Hyles? Did he ever separate from Hyles?
- Tom Messer and Clarence Sexton are both on the BIMI board of trustees. Tom Messer fellowships with Southern Baptists (Jerry Vines). Evidence (more than three witnesses) says that Tom Messer knew about Bob Gray (child molestation) and covered it up. Does that matter?
Are these two groups really being true to what they believe? I think this is enough to consider with regards to a real-life situation and the teaching of Scripture on the doctrine of separation. If we are not going to apply what we believe here, do we really believe any of what we say we believe about ecclesiastical separation?
Last 5 posts by Kent Brandenburg
- The Musical Style We Offer to God: Can It Be Inherently Sinful? - July 19th, 2007
- The Place to Start in Evaluating Music - July 11th, 2007
- I Feel - June 28th, 2007
- Can Someone Be Consistent in the Matter of Separation? - June 8th, 2007
- What God Hath Put Together: The Bible on Divorce and Remarriage (part four) - May 30th, 2007
I have heard Pastor Sexton preach many times in the distant past. I thought it was interesting about the last point you brought up about Tom Messer and Bob Gray. The reason being, is there is a man on staff at Crown that was a former staff member at Fairhaven that I told about John Price and his advances towards me. My pleas of help were ignored and played down and thus I left Bible College, when I found out his buddy was being hired.
So the irony that Sexton will associate with Tom Messer and Bob Gray and also have on staff a member that was notified about a predator and the accusation was ignored, makes me really question this man (Clarence Sexton) role in the ministry.
I’m not saying that Sexton approves the above behavior, I am saying his choice of friends are questionable. That is scary for a layperson when they are considering a godly leader.
June 13th, 2007 at 11:03 pmQuite frankly, I want to stay as far away as possible from anyone who was in leadership at Trinity at the time of all this. The church and her leadership had the responsibility to “rebuke before all” the elder who was guilty, and they did not.
On the issue of “mixed swimming” I will relate a question I gave to someone in Bible college about this. This brother was from a more “progressive” and “loving” church than I was. I asked him if it would be proper for the youth minister at his church to have the teenage boys and girls to play in his living room, jump on each other, and play with each other wearing only their underwear. He said that of course it would not. To which I replied, “I guess that adding water makes it okay, then.”
Ecclesiastical separation has never been the strong point of the “big names” in so-called “Fundamentalism”. Hero-worship is the norm.
June 14th, 2007 at 6:37 amI would agree that all the points you listed are valied to separate over. If more of the “smaller named preachers” would seperate from these “big name preachers”, the big named ones would fall by the wayside. How many of the big named preachers have you ever heard take a strong stand on the more controversial issues, such as marriage as was covered last month. The Lord’s churches would be better off without these big names and all their conferences they hold trying to help us “little guys” do the Lord’s work better. As Art Dunham pointed out, there is much hero worship, which is making much of man, and the Lord is not glorified in that.
Thank you for letting me vent this morning. Job 32:19,20
June 14th, 2007 at 8:44 amI believe you all make valid points and interesting. Thanks. Good seeing you again Bro. Johnson. Thanks Art. Good point, Cathy.
June 14th, 2007 at 10:55 amSo for those of us who aren’t as connected as some of you, how do all of these points fit in? Does either Clarence Sexton or the FBF promote mixed swimming? Does Mr. Sexton take a different stance on the “nature of the church” than the FBF? There is a still a qualitative difference between using the KJV as the only acceptable translation and being KJV-only (there may be different reasons behind those positions). Maybe both the FBF and Mr. Sexton have already discussed this point.
June 14th, 2007 at 2:14 pmPastor Brandenburg,
June 14th, 2007 at 9:04 pmI really do appreciate you pointing this out about Pastor Sexton, when I was getting ready to leave Indianapolis and move to Chesterton to be apart of Fairhaven four years ago, I was reallly pressured by friends to consider Pastor Sexton’s church. The reasoning was that Dr. Voegtlin was too hard core, had too strong of a personality, hard nosed and such. All the reasons I was told not to go to Fairhaven, was many of the reasons that attracted me to the place. What I knew in Bible College, was Preacher, may be hard core, but he does it out of love, and what he does say is often said with the utmost humility. I need a leader that is not afraid to take a stand, and not be intimidated by me.
Thanks for your article, it really validated what I expected four years ago.
Anvil,
Here’s the connection.
Calvary Lansdale is represented on the speaker gauntlet in the FBF. They practice mixed swimming. I believe Clarence Sexton would say that is mixed nudity.
The FBF would make a big break from Jack Hyles, but did Clarence Sexton ever make a break from Jack Hyles. He may have “floated” away from him, but did he publically separate. Maybe he did, I don’t know. I do know he fellowshiped with those who did not break from Hyles.
I never said anything about the KJV, but I would think that Sexton believes in perfect preservation, so it seems this is a move away from that being a separating issue with him. He’s fine with those with Bibles with errors.
Vox is taught at Maranatha and Calvary Lansdale, again represented. This relates to those speaking and what the FBF accepts as non-separating. Sexton is moved into that.
Sexton is tied into Gray, among others, through Trinity and Messer, and how does that set with Bob Jones, Detroit, etc. in the FBF crowd.
I could have included more than ten others, and I barely touched on things.
What does separation as it has been practiced by the FBF and then as it supposedly was practiced by Sexton mean anymore to them?
I threw just a few issues out there
June 14th, 2007 at 10:08 pmI really like Sexton’s sermons (in his monthly letter and books), but I have noticed a distinct lack of separation with who he has let speak as Guest preachers in his church or college. Lee Roberson is somewhat ecumenical. While I do appreciate much that Ian Paisley stands for, I would have a problem letting him preach at my church or college - he is not a Baptist, but a Presbyterian; there are some differences - and I do not recall reading any public warning about those differences. He also has/had Ed Reese as a teacher (at his college, I think). He is the one who put out the Reese Chronological Bible, plus many 30 page biographies of various preachers - some of them quite ecumenical and definitely not people we would endorse (Billy Graham and some others - don’t have the list handy right now - Sword of The Lord endorses this series, but just doesn’t publish or advertise the few ones they have a problem with).
I just find these overall stands contradictory.
June 15th, 2007 at 4:58 amWhat about repentance? Denying repentance is a false gospel (Luke 13:3), and those who preach a false gospel are accursed (Galatians 1:8-9). Many in the Hyles crowd deny the doctrine of repentance, and a much greater number deny it in practice, and the Sword of the Lord has officially rejected repentance (see the pamphlets they publish on “repentance” and on “Lordship salvation”), rejecting the stand of John R. Rice. But I guess Paul was too narrow minded when he said Galatians 1:8-9 under inspiration; nowdays we know that one can deny the gospel and still be OK to preach with, as long as one holds to other more fundamental teachings, like being part of the same fellowship or assocation (1 FBF 3:4; 6 Macc 6:6).
June 16th, 2007 at 2:16 pmI agree with Brother Ross. What about repentance? The so-called “gospel message” of Hyles, etc is no better than the seeker-friendly silliness of Rick Warren.
They both deny the change that is mandated by true repentance.
June 18th, 2007 at 7:45 amThat is why we need to preach against both extremes - one is no better than the other.
Question: I thought the Sword of The Lord had done an about face with Shelton Smith (ie. once Curtis Hutson passed on). Have they reversed their stand on repentance again with the new editor?
June 18th, 2007 at 10:20 amI think the gospel is a major issue, a separating one, and the gospel is being perverted IMO at an epidemic level. Not everybody in “fundamentalism” is not on the same page on the gospel.
June 20th, 2007 at 9:24 amI must vehemently disagree with the innuendoes, insinuations, and outright falsehoods purported here.
I am NOT a member of FBCH - never have been. However, I have a drawer full of Jack Hyles’ sermon tapes. I and my family have visited FBCH numerous times and I attended the Pastor’s School in 1979. I am NOT out to make enemies or incite fellow Christians with inflamatory remarks. I only wish to relay what I believe to be the truth.
As I mentioned, I’ve listened to untold hours of Jack Hyles’ sermons. I’ve read countless hundreds of them as well. Jack Hyles was a man of God, pure and simple. It appears that some sought to ‘out’ him for what they believed his sermons to say. Though they got some mileage out of it, it wasn’t enough. A disgruntled Robert Sumner (disgruntled because Jack Hyles supported Curtis Hutson to edit the Sword Of The Lord rather than Robert Sumner…Dr. Hutson was John R. Rice’s hand-picked successor & Sumner a usurper) apparently wanted to get back at Dr. Hyles and thus, found willing accomplices in Victor Nischik, George Godfrey, Walt Handford, Voyle Glover, and D.A. Waite…among others.
It’s interesting to note that Nischik’s wife, Jennie accused her husband of extramarital affairs and once claimed to have caught him in bed with another woman….but nothing is made of that. Nischik has not, to my knowledge, denied her allegations. But let Nischik accuse Dr. Hyles of adultery and it’s a given that he did it. All based upon stones thrown by a handful of persons of, at best, dubious character and questionable motives.
Anyone who has taken the time to thorougly research this matter will quickly find that the FBI, the County Prosecutor for Hammond, and the Hammond Police Department found nothing in their investigation of the accusations of ethical misbehavior, misappropriation of funds, indiscretions (sexual and otherwise), and immoral conduct on the part of Jack Hyles (Northwest Indiana Times, May 19, 1993). These are people who are as thorough as can possibly be found in investigatory matters. This is especially true of the FBI. Had there been one iota of inappropriateness found, they’d have pushed for a bill of indictment against Dr. Hyles from the first moment.
It should be noted as well, that WJBK’s ‘documentary’ entitled “Preying From The Pulpit” has been debunked as the blatanltyl ratings grabbing attempt and disengenuous piece of yellow journalism it was by the Northwest Indiana Times in the article “Baptism By Innuendo”, May 19, 1993.
These articles can be found online. In addition, Wikipedia has extensive information including some heated editorializing by its editors regarding some posted material on its website that sought to demonize Dr. Hyles. One of the editors comes out and clearly says that he isn’t a Baptist, is not a fan of Hyles, FBCH or HAC…his only interest is to make sure both sides are presented, which he clearly says has not been done.
Now as to this position that Dr. Hyles did not preach repentance, I’ve heard and read his references to the necessity of it hundreds of times. Someone is sadly mistaken.
I find it sad that this goes on. Long after Dr. Hyles passed away. And some of the dirt is being dished second, third, fourth, and…..twentieth hand by people who claim to love the Lord. People who have not bothered to research the matter but readily repeat what they heard. I believe they call that gossip. Gossip is a form of lying because it is only what others have said and likely bears little resemblance to the truth. How very , very, very sad.
July 13th, 2007 at 7:17 amThanks Mr. Skinner for reading our blog. I don’t need to know one thing about Jack Hyles relationship with his employees to know that he is disqualified from the ministry. You should consider his son, Dave, the cover-up. I could point you to numerous messages that were blatant false doctrine. In the end, his view of repentance is seen in the unbelievable statistics, interviews with those dealt with in an unscriptural manner, the manner in which Hyles’ people characteristically deal with the lost, and on and on. He was clearly a promoter and strong advocate of easy-prayerism. I’m not surprised that he has his apologists out there. He still had a huge following and still does. You clearly are lacking in discernment if you don’t see the problems with Hyles.
July 13th, 2007 at 8:54 amNow as to this position that Dr. Hyles did not preach repentance, I’ve heard and read his references to the necessity of it hundreds of times. Someone is sadly mistaken.
Using the term and preaching what the Bible does about repentance are two different things. I know some Hyles graduates that very much redefine what “repentance” is - repentance is, to them, turning from their unbelief to belief - but the Bible’s definition is repentance from sin - a change of mind resulting in a change of conduct. If the life is not changed, there was no repentance.
Saying a prayer isn’t salvation. Getting your “fire insurance” isn’t salvation either.
…Oh, you don’t want to go to Hell, do you? Repeat this prayer after me… Don’t worry if you don’t believe Jesus is the only Saviour and that you do not believe He resurrected from the dead, just ask God to save you. God said if you called upon Him He would save you. Did you call upon Him? God didn’t lie, did He? You must be saved now… (Yes, I know of a pastor in the States who used this exact approach with my sister’s neighbour while she stood by and listened to the conversation - obviously there was a little more to it, but the person did not believe in Jesus nor in his resurrection, but was encouraged to say a prayer anyway. This man was told that he did not have to turn from (ie. repent of) his sins in order to be saved (in the conversation he quite clearly revealed he was a drunkard and a fornicator), that God did not want him to change anything in his life - then right after “getting saved”, the pastor is telling him he now needs to get baptized, to identify publicly with Jesus and as a picture of Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection - of course the man had a problem with that! He did not like to be told he needed to do something now - so he told the pastor to leave and not come back. Saved, eh?)
July 13th, 2007 at 10:47 amMr. Skinner,
Vehemence is not an argument. Bill Clinton has his vehement apologists. So does Barry Bonds. And when we posted, we knew that Jack Hyles did as well. You visited Pastor’s School 28 years ago? I grew up in the world of Hyles. You visited numerous times? I was a member of his church. You have his tapes? I listened to him in person.
And as a boy, I was enamored with Jack Hyles. Loyalty, I understand, is a doctrine with the Hyles apologists. But loyalty is important to me as well. We might say that in this discussion, loyalty is inescapable. You are loyal to Hyles. I am loyal to Scripture. Are we sadly mistaken about Hyles’ position on Repentance? Then explain why he called the doctrine of repentance, as clearly taught in Scripture, the enemy of soul winning. Explain why, in Personal Evangelism class at HAC, we were taught that all that was needed for a person to be saved was to pray a prayer? Explain why we were taught to tell people that all they needed to do is pray this prayer, and they could go out and do whatever they wanted… they could go commit adultery, or murder somebody… and they would still go to heaven. Such a deal!
Mr. Skinner, how much of Jesus must a person believe in if they are to go to heaven? One part? One fourth? One half? Do we get to bargain on this? Devils believe. Do they get to go to heaven? Or do they forget about the right part? Does “confessing with the mouth the LORD Jesus” mean confessing that Jesus is Lord? Or can a person deny the deity of Christ and yet be saved? Mr. Skinner, try to answer that question.
As far as the well-documented Hyles family immorality, Mr. Skinner, it doesn’t surprise me that you have your head in the sand on that one. I remember as a teen ager — 16 years old — reading Jack Hyles’ response to the allegations listed in Robert Sumner’s paper. In fact, Mr. Skinner, my church held a Preaching Conference soon after Sumner’s allegations surfaced. At that conference, Jack Hyles and Curtis Hutson preached. After the service concluded, Hyles and Hutson met in my pastor’s office to discuss how the allegations should be dealt with. My understanding was that Hutson strongly encouraged Hyles to answer the allegations publicly. I remember eagerly looking forward to Hyles’ answers to those allegations, and I remember anxiously devouring every word he said. And I remember my disappointment as I read and realized that he did not answer anything. He instead used diversions and innuendos and escape tactics. Mr. Skinner, was there a door, or not? Hyles said (quoting from the best of my memory), “I am sitting in my office right now. I cannot see a door in my office that goes to Jenny Nischik’s office.”
Mr. Skinner, the most devastating proof against Hyles is his own squirming to escape the charges. But of course, there is plenty more. Do I need to parade it all out here? I don’t think so. The clear-headed know the truth. The Hyles-a-holics will refuse to hear.
Which is why the Hyles-a-holics are doomed to face many more embarrassments at the hands of their graduates.
Mr. Skinner, we love the Lord, which is why we speak the truth on this issue. Loving the Lord means exposing wolves, especially when they dress in the shepherd’s costume.
July 13th, 2007 at 11:57 amYou are all ridiculous. I love Pastor Sexton. He is an awesome preacher of the gospel. Thousands have been saved in his ministry that the Lord has let him start. You are all pretty judgmental. That is pretty funny considering that God is the one who is going to judge the sin in EVERYONE’s life. I just think it is ridiculous that you all would make a web page about this.
July 26th, 2007 at 5:57 pmI agree with Joanie. Practice the “mote and beam” principle from the Bible, then write your blog!
July 27th, 2007 at 4:51 amHow about we take what Joanie said and substitute another name… say Billy Graham.
Do you still agree with your statement? Bruce the Bible lover, do you still agree with Joanie?
July 27th, 2007 at 11:31 amI have a big problem with FBCH let alone the morality of Dr Hyles. In their recent magazine they claimed 25,000 baptisms for the year 2006 (and also in 2005) which is a target set by their Pastor. Yet on their website they state that their church holds 7,500 people and only has one Sunday morning service. Now, bearing in mind that in 2003 there was a sizeable church at FBCH and the HAC students also attend where have all these 50,000 converts gone who were baptized?
If it was just a matter of egotism on behalf of FBCH, I would let it go but the more serious point is that 50,000 souls are running round Indiana believing they are going to heaven because they have been under the water at FBCH and the majority are probably on their way to hell. This we should all have a big problem with!
Re Clarence Sexton - I think he should watch who he hangs out with as the FBF contain a lot of Neo-Evangelicals like the Bauder/Janz crowd and he is only giving the rabid anti-KJVites there credibility.
As I am from UK, I don’t condemn him for hanging out with the Free Presbyterians as they are the only ones taking a stand for the KJV and the old paths of Biblical separation and as 95% of their ministers and congregations are Baptistic this issue should not be a big deal for Sexton.
I would urge caution on the Baptists with a capital “B” here on the issue of separation. America is blessed with many Baptist churches but in many parts of the world IFB do not exist or are carnal and the true churches taking a stand are Presbyterians or other non-Baptists. I have used the example of N.Ireland but I could also have mentioned much of Africa, Korea or Singapore. I would separate on inerrancy and the KJV but not on the subject of baptism as it is not a question that goes to the heart of the gospel whereas believing that the Bible today is the very Word of God is a basic fundamental. Before I get shot down here one illustration. I have attended Dr Ian Paisley’s Annual Conventions many times and on the platform were speakers like Dr Sexton, Dr Rod Bell etc. The issue about baptism never arises as it is a conference about Fundamentalism and for believers so a Baptist like Drs Sexton/Bell are not facing any issue of compromise on the subject of Baptism in those services. However, if Dr Paisley was to start sprinkling babies or to start using the NIV and claiming that today we don’t have the preseved text, then Drs Sexton/ Bell would face an issue they should separate over.
July 27th, 2007 at 6:40 pmDoesn’t matter who the preacher is or how “successful” they may be, if they are doing wrong, they are wrong. Sin or compromise isn’t justified just because someone is a big name preacher.
Speaking about Matthew 7:1 - look at the whole context. We are not hypocritically judging him, we are Scripturally judging him and his ministry - which we are commanded to do.
1 Corinthians 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
July 27th, 2007 at 6:58 pmI’ve enjoyed the discussion. It’s nice to read other people’s imput. Sam, I’m going to write about this kind of subject in the near future on my blog, What Is Truth. I’m not going to blow you out of the water, but I can show why the inconsistencies on separation occur. Just one question though: where does the Bible itself teach that the Gospel is the only issue of separation?
July 27th, 2007 at 7:22 pmKent, I respect the view that it is only right to fellowship with churches/pastors who share the same convictions rights across the board eg eschatology, baptism etc. As I intimated, I don’t share that view and I believe it is fine to fellowship and exchange pulpits with men who believe in historic fundamentalism within the boundaries where no offence is given by eg. preaching in areas that we disagree. This is especially true and needed, I believe, in these days when the remnant is shrinking because of the great global apostasy.
You can get yourself in problems by trying to be too clever on these things e.g. David Cloud (who I respect) states on his website that he will not preach in Bible Presbyterian Churches in Singapore because they are paedobaptist yet he shares a platform with them at the Dean Burgon Society Meetings and carries their literature and articles on his website. Br Cloud will speak at IFB churches in Singapore which may be KJV and Baptistic but in my opinion have much weaker standards on music and dress than the Bible Presbyterians.
Just to clarify, I do believe that we draw the lines of separation tighter than the simple gospel (although I believe that encompasses a lot more than most think). My personal definition of separation is to fellowship and work with believers on a para-church level who hold and practice to the historic Biblical Fundamentalist Faith. That would include opposition to CCM, non-KJV translations etc but would not include eschatology, baptism etc. Others may disagree honourably but I remain unconvinced. However, I await your blog contribution.
July 27th, 2007 at 8:19 pmI note there is some misconceptions as to Dr Ian Paisley’s theology on this and other blogs.
Ian Paisley is the son of a Baptist Pastor and his church in Belfast still, although Presbyterian in Government, only allows baptism by immersion and holds the communion service every Sunday morning in accordance with Irish Baptist tradition. The Free Presbyterian Church that he founded was born out of the apostasy of the Baptist Union, Irish Presbyterian, and Episciopal tradition. As such, Ian Paisley and the founding ministers agreed to put aside any difference on baptism and allow every member and local church to follow their own conscience on the issue. This has resulted in probably around 90% plus of the churches and ministers in reality only practicising baptism by immersion. This arrangement may not please every IFBer here but worked well for them as they sought to stand together against the belligerent terror campaign of Roman Catholic terrorists for the last 40 years.
July 30th, 2007 at 6:32 pmSam, I have a lot of respect for Ian Paisley in a number of ways. You sound like you have a problem with him right now, based on the link that you gave in a comment under another post. There are a few people that I respect a lot, but I would still choose to separate from them. Ian Paisley would be one.
July 30th, 2007 at 7:51 pm“As I am from UK, I don’t condemn him for hanging out with the Free Presbyterians as they are the only ones taking a stand for the KJV and the old paths of Biblical separation and as 95% of their ministers and congregations are Baptistic this issue should not be a big deal for Sexton.”–Sam Hanna
Sam,
You are very wrong. There are some very strong, solid Baptists in Ireland. Ask Joel Grassi about them. He just got back from teaching and preaching there. We, as a church, support one. BTW, they are separated from the Presbyterians because of their unscriptural position on baptism.
July 31st, 2007 at 6:48 amHi Bobby,
I assume you are talking about some of the new churches planted by IFB churches like your own. I don’t dispute that there may be a few of these that have sprung up in recent years but they are a relatively recent and small phenomenon.
As someone, who was born and bred there let me assure you that for the last 55 years it was the Free Presbyterians (pretty much alone) who took a militant public stand for the KJV, against the Church of Rome, sodomy, the Great Theological Apostasy etc. Ian Paisley’s dad came out of the Baptist Union as he was on of the very few separatists left in the Baptist Movement in Ireland which has historically been small. He formed a small independent Baptist Church which later became the Free Presbyterian Church in Ballymena after Ian Paisley had a 4 week gospel campaign there in the 1970s and 400 people were saved. The Free Presbyterian Church in Ballymena has stayed true to its baptistic roots and only baptises by immersion. I have no great dislike of most of the Irish Baptists as the older memebrs have good standards but they are historically a relatively benign and passive bunch and most have now capitulated to CCM and modern Bible versions especially among the young.
Ian Paisley called the Pope the antichrist to his face, has lived the last 40 years with 24 hr armed police protection, went to jail for 6 months after protesting outside an ecumenical Presbyterian Meeting so I don’t think in all fairness you could compare these new IFB churches to him and claim that they are “better” or more “scriptural” when that has still to be established.
Frankly, I would question any IFB church (that claims to represent what you do) where have they been for the last 55 years. If you were to question any person on the street, or media representative who are the militant fundamentalists in Ireland the only ones they could think of and they truly hate would be the Free Presbyterians. Those are the facts.
July 31st, 2007 at 8:40 amInnuendo, half truths, false accusations, outright lies–how does any of this help the cause of Christ? I am a member of Temple Baptist Church in Knoxville, TN where Dr. Sexton has been pastor for 19 years. God has greatly used him to lead this ministry far beyond what we could ever imagine. Our goal is and has always been to reach the lost and train the next generation of soul winners. There are now graduates of Crown College on most continents and in every state of the US faithfully serving God. I say this not to glorify any man but to praise God for what He is doing. Can I ask you what you are doing for God besides impugning the good names of men God has used and is using today? How many folks are being saved as a result of what you are doing? How many young people are being taught to rightly handle the Word of God through your efforts? Just some food for thought. I’m praying for you.
August 7th, 2007 at 5:14 pmSo - it’s okay to compromise and disregard separation in some areas, as long as we are doing much for the Lord? Oh, I thought we were to be faithful in all things! How naive I’ve been…
August 7th, 2007 at 7:15 pmThanks for pointing out our error, Steve. Please help me to know…
1) That the idea of Sexton speaking at the FBF meeting was innuendo.
2) That it was a half truth.
3) That it was a false accusation.
4) That it was an outright lie.
Tell us which one, and we’ll gladly make a correction.
August 7th, 2007 at 7:33 pmBased on professions of faith, isn’t Joel Osteen right now the ultimate champion, and then close to him would be Rick Warren? I’m asking us to judge Scripturally in this matter. I can be thankful for any number of things that Clarence Sexton has done that are absolutely fantastic and I am thankful for every one of those, as I am for everything that Billy Graham has done for the Lord that is Scriptural, but when we go to judge, we use the Bible to prove all things. It isn’t going to be a big scale in heaven in which we get to outweigh the bad with the good. God gives the increase.
And this is teaching men to handle God’s Word properly, yes. And we are doing that, all of us here at Jackhammer. With that out of the way, perhaps we could deal with the issues in the post please. Thank you, Steve.
August 7th, 2007 at 7:55 pmPlease note that the issue of baptism by immersion is not at all the only issue-believer’s baptism is. The Greek Orthodox “baptize” infants by immersion–and stuff communion wafers in their mouths to boot. I am thankful for correct things Free Presbyterians believe. However, by subscribing to the Westminster Confession, they are officially putting their seal to a false gospel of salvation by baptism. They therefore must be separated from. Please note the comments proving that baptismal salvation is the WCF and other Reformed confessional doctrine in the comments on the post, “The Place to Start in Evaluating Music” of July 11, 2007.
August 8th, 2007 at 8:09 pmThomas
Free Presbyterians opt out of the WCF exclusivity on paedobaptism and have done so since their inception. You must be fair on these issues. I realise that baptism is a major issue for you but as I said above there are times I believe and in circumstances when in para-church organisations it is acceptable to fellowship with men who take a bold militant stand for the Lord on the core doctrines of the faith.
August 8th, 2007 at 8:16 pmArticle 6a of the Free Presbyterian church of Ulster confession states:
Baptism — The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, under Christ the Great King and Head of the Church, Realizing that bitter controversy raging around the mode and proper subjects of the ordinance of Christian baptism has divided the Body of Christ when that Body should have been united in Christian love and Holy Ghost power to stem the onslaughts and hell-inspired assaults of modernism, hereby affirms that each member of the Free Presbyterian Church shall have liberty to decide for himself which course to adopt on these controverted issues, each member giving due honor in love to the views held by differing brethren, but none espousing the error of baptismal regeneration.
Below this, it affirms:
These Articles, together with the Larger Catechism, , the Shorter Catechism, and The Westminster Confession of Faith, form the Subordinate [that is, subordinate to the Bible-these other documents are not said to be subordinate to the material above it I just quoted] Standards of the Free Presbyterian Church.
Thus, one has “liberty” to accept the heretical false gospel of salvation by baptism, of baptism as a seal and means of conveying grace, taught in the WCF and its catechisms, as long as one does not adopt the Lutheran/Catholic version of baptismal salvation, namely, strict baptismal regeneration. The articles also do not give “liberty” regarding the notion of baptism as a sacrament, although they do give “liberty” on the mode, etc. of baptism. While I am thankful that very many Free Presbyterians do not believe the WCF and its catechisms, or John Calvin, on the doctrine of baptism, would the apostle Paul give “liberty” regarding a false gospel? How much less would he affirm a document teaching a false gospel as a “subordinate standard” for his church?
August 8th, 2007 at 9:11 pmBy the way, baptism is not only a major issue for me, but it is a major issue in the Word of God, and thus a major issue to the God of heaven. Those who reject Biblical baptism reject the counsel of God, Luke 7:30.
August 8th, 2007 at 9:12 pmAmen to the above, Brother. Ian Paisley is a champion of the faith and no doubt many so-called “fundamentalists” are critical of him because of sheer ministerial jealousy. Same goes for Brother Sexton. My hat goes off to him for inviting Paisley to his men’s conference last year.
August 10th, 2007 at 7:38 pmPaisley has more integrity in his big toe than many of the independent Baptist charlatans I’ve had the sore displeasure of associating with. You want to see a man who has stood true in the face of apostasy and remained faithful to the Lord and fearlessly declared “the whole counsel of God” throughout his ministry and you’ve got an Ian Paisley. Name one who has stood as he has over the past 50 years and never changed his position for the sake of compromise and you’ve got an Ian Paisley. May the Lord in this day of apostasy raise up many more like him!
Steve Hadfield,
Why not answer the actual post? Your whole comment is a red herring. The question isn’t even whether he has more integrity than charlatans. It’s like saying that a balloon has more air in it than a rock. Who cares? Jesus walked 70 miles for proper authority for his baptism. Where do Protestant denominations get their authority? And then, he says that mode of baptism doesn’t matter. I can be happy about many of Ian Paisley’s stands. I can proclaim that. But that doesn’t mean that I should fellowship with him. What does that say about the truth of baptism, an ordinance that comes directly from heaven? Who are we to say that it doesn’t matter, and that mode, authority, and subject of baptism doesn’t matter?
You say that he hasn’t compromised. Didn’t he just compromise with the recent decision that he made to get along with the Irish Catholics after years of saying “no” to that action? Isn’t he obviously compromising on mode and subject of baptism, so that everyone can get along in his denomination? Isn’t that compromise, especially if he believes that the Scriptural mode is immersion and the Scriptural subjects are believers?
Ian Paisley says he believes in preservation. What good does that do if you fellowship with those who attack preservation of Scripture more than anyone else? And now Clarence Sexton does the same? If someone were to deny inerrancy of Scripture, would that be enough apostacy for you? Is nudity enough of a separating issue for you?  And then what do you say about Brother Ross’s posts? I think these are legitimate questions he poses.
Are you Baptist, Steve?
August 11th, 2007 at 4:19 pmSteve,
I don’t think you quite understand what I am trying to say here. I respect the past of Ian Paisley but I firmly disagree with the hideous compromises he is engaging in now such as funding Sodomite parades so he can be in power in N. Ireland.
http://www.ivanfoster.org/article.asp?date=7/29/2007&seq=1018
I am glad Br Kent has picked up on this and other aspects of the current situation in N.Ireland. I also am against Ian Paisley hanging out with the FBF/BJU Crowd of today who are firmly anti-KJV (although they pay lip service to their “love” for its “unsurpassed beauty”). As such, I also now disagree with Clarence Sexton doing the same as it only gives credibility to these people that stand against what we stand for. These people, like Mike Harding, will hang out with the rabid anti-KJV, pro-CCM gang like Tim Jordan at Lansdale and will not separate from them no matter what Dr Sexton stands for or preaches to them.
Where I part ways from Br Kent and Bobby Mitchell here is that I do not see the doctrine of baptism as one that prevents me having fellowship on a para-church level in forums like the Dean Burgon Society, Congress of Fundamentalists with paedobaptists. This is limited by the fact that all must understand the limitations in respect of doctrines such as baptism and no one promotes a doctrine of baptism that they all disagree upon. I think it is entirely possible to stand together for an issue like the Preserved Text at meetings without the issue of baptism having to be dealt with.
One problem I have in drawing the lines of separation as tightly as they do is where do you draw the line? If I may illustrate - a lot of Fundamentalists here, in my experience, believe that inter-racial marriage is somehow a “sin” or that the antichrist will be an apostate Jew. I don’t happen to agree with either of those interpretations but if they are old-fashioned Fundamentalists and stand on the KJV, anti-CCM etc should I separate from them on the basis that there is no such thing as “minor” doctrines. Another issue for me, as a British national, living in the USA is that I don’t agree with the “celebrations” in some churches on the 4th July for the “American Revolution” or “Rebellion” as I can see no Biblical justification for it. Do I separate from those who “celebrate” this? Again, I don’t agree with those southerners who argue that the Civil War was justified as I don’t see a Biblical mandate for their actions.
August 11th, 2007 at 6:56 pmThomas,
I am somewhat exasperated at your comments re the WCF - no Free Presbyterian that I know believe that paedobaptism has any part in the salvation of any person. If you have any evidence of this, please adduce it.
Protestants in N. Ireland hold strongly to the WCF as it states quite clearly that the Pope is the antichrist which is a big thing for them as they have had to face 30 odd years of Catholic Terrorism (much of it sponsored by American Governments and Corporations who raised millions in dollars and weaponry and channelled it to the IRA) to murder Bible-believing Christians in their homes. Protestants also are proud of the Reformed heritage that has taken a strong and militant stand against Rome for centuries (pretty much alone) and do not believe that Martin Luther walked past the First Baptist Church of Wittenberg on his way to nail his 95 Theses. You may diasgree with their interpretation of historical events, but please do a little bit of thinking outside your IFB American box before you write off as heretical those who were burning at the stake so you could have the KJV Bible we both cherish.
August 11th, 2007 at 7:09 pmDear Sam,
I am very glad that all the Free Presbyterians you know reject the teaching of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms on the doctrine of baptismal salvation. I have demonstrated that Calvin and Reformed theology generally believed in a form of baptismal salvation in the July 11 post, “The Place to Start in Evaluating Music.” You would need to refute that section if you wish to deny these simple facts. I simply reproduce below some of the heresy taught in the WCF/and catechisms:
“Baptism . . . is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of [one’s] ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins . . . by the right use of this ordinance the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost†(Westminster Confession, Article 28)
The Westminster Shorter Catechism likewise states that “outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption, are . . . sacraments . . . which are made effectual to the elect for salvation . . . sacraments become effectual means of salvation . . . a sacrament is a holy ordinance instituted by Christ, wherein, by sensible signs, Christ and the benefits of the new covenant are represented, sealed, and applied unto believers. . . . The sacraments of the New Testament are baptism and the Lord’s supper. . . . Baptism is a sacrament, wherein the washing with water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, doth signify and seal our ingrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord’s. . . . infants of such as are members of the visible Church are to be baptized.†(Questions 88, 91-95)
The Westminster Larger Catechism affirms that “the sacraments become effectual means of salvation. . . . A sacrament is an holy ordinance instituted by Christ in his church, to signify, seal, and exhibit unto those that are within the covenant of grace, the benefits of his mediation. . . . Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ hath ordained the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, to be a sign and seal of ingrafting into himself, of remission of sins by his blood, and regeneration by his Spirit; of adoption, and resurrection unto everlasting life; and whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church, and enter into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord’s. . . . infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized. . . . The needful but much neglected duty of improving our Baptism, is to be performed by us all our life long . . . by serious and thankful consideration of the nature of it, and of the ends for which Christ instituted it, the privileges and benefits conferred and sealed thereby, and our solemn vow made therein; by being humbled for our sinful defilement, our falling short of, and walking contrary to, the grace of baptism, and our engagements; by growing up to assurance of pardon of sin, and of all other blessings sealed to us in that sacrament; by drawing strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized, for the mortifying of sin, and quickening of grace . . . as those that have therein given up their names to Christ . . . as being baptized by the same Spirit into one body.â€
Traditional Reformed theology holds to a false gospel, albeit an anti-popish one. Seventh Day Adventists are vehemently anti-Rome as well (as are Muslims, for that matter), but that hardly justifies their false gospel–the (good) anti-Rome declarations in the WCF, etc. do not justify their false gospel.
I don’t know whether Luther walked by a Baptist church on the way to posting his 95 Theses (which, actually, anathematized all who were AGAINST indulgences, if you actually read them—they were ONLY against the abuse of indulgences), but there certainly were such churches around—yea, such Baptist churches have been around ever since the days when Christ said “I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it,” as the following quotes demonstrate:
1.) Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, a member of the Council of Trent, A. D. 1560): “If the truth of religion were to be judged by the readiness and boldness of which a man of any sect shows in suffering, then the opinion and persuasion of no sect can be truer and surer than that of the Anabaptists since there have been none for these twelve hundred years past, that have been more generally punished.†This Catholic prelate, living at the time of the Reformation, admitted that the Baptists had been around since A. D. 360; of course, allowing them an origin any more ancient would make his position very uncomfortable. 2.) Mosheim (Lutheran, A. D. 1755), said, “The true origin of that sect which acquired the name of Anabaptists, by their administering anew the rite of baptism to those who came over to their communion . . . is hid in the remote depths of antiquity, and is consequently extremely difficult to be ascertained.†3.) Dr. J. J. Durmont & Dr. Ypeig (Reformed writers specifically appointed by the King of Holland to ascertain if the historical claims of the Baptists were valid), concluded in A. D. 1819 that they were “descended from the tolerably pure evangelical Waldenses. . . . They were, therefore, in existence long before the Reformed Church of the Netherlands. . . . We have seen that the Baptists, who were formerly called Anabaptists, and in later times Mennonites, were the original Waldenses; and who have long in the history of the Church, received the honor of that origin. On this account the Baptists may be considered the only Christian community which has stood since the Apostles; and as a Christian society which has preserved pure the doctrine of the gospel through all ages.†4.) Alexander Campbell (founder of the “Disciples of Christ†and “Church of Christ†denominations, A. D. 1824): “I would engage to show that baptism as viewed and practiced by the Baptists, had its advocates in ever century up to the Christian era . . . clouds of witnesses attest the fact, that before the Reformation from popery, and from the apostolic age, to the present time, the sentiments of Baptists, and the practice of baptism have had a continued chain of advocates, and public monuments of their existence in every century can be produced.†See pgs. 83-96, A History of Baptists, John T. Christian, vol. 1 (Texarkana, TX: Bogard Press, 1922), and History of Baptists, G. H. Orchard (Texarkana, TX: Bogard Press, 1987), pgs. iii-xxiv, for the original sources of the quotations here listed, and further information. Quotations and other evidence from non-Baptist or anti-Baptist authors of like effect could be greatly multiplied (e. g., the Reformed writer Leonard Verduin stated “No one is credited with having invented the Anabaptism of the sixteenth century for the simple reason that no one did. . . . There were Anabaptists, called by that name, in the fourth century.†pg. 189-190, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1965). Baptist historians naturally affirm their own succession as well. The historical fact that Baptist churches have existed from the first century to the present confirms the truth, established by their Biblical doctrine and practice, that they are the churches founded by the Lord Jesus Christ. Consequently, all other “churches†are guilty of schism and division from the Lord’s true assemblies, and have no Divine authority to baptize, carry on the work of God, or exist at all.
Please note that the harlot of Revelation 17, the Romish religion (ultimately the one world “church” of the Tribulation period), is a mother. Protestant “churches” are her daughters–they are the daughters of the harlot of Rome, not Christ’s bride, faithful NT Baptist churches (2 Cor 11:2). I am glad that all saints will eventually be in the New Jerusalem, which is ultimately also a bridal metaphor (Rev 21), but that in no wise justifies Dr. Paisley’s (or any other Christian Protestant) rejection of the bride of Christ for daughters of the harlot of Rome.
August 12th, 2007 at 11:04 amThomas,
First of all the FPC’s view of baptism is different from the WCF, SC, LC etc as you clearly recognised from their Articles of Faith. However, you are being a little disengenuous by citing partial quotations from the WCF. Article 28 actually states,
“Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.”
http://www.freepres.org/westminster.htm#chapter28
Where does this teach baptismal regeneration?
Q94 of the Shorter Catechism clearly states that baptism is only a sign of salvation,
“Baptism is a sacrament, wherein the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,1 doth signify and seal our ingrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace,2 and our engagement to be the Lord’s.”
The Larger Cathechism makes this very clear also,
Question 163: What are the parts of a sacrament?
Answer: The parts of a sacrament are two; the one an outward and sensible sign, used according to Christ’s own appointment; the other an inward and spiritual grace thereby signified.
Question 70: What is justification?
Answer: Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners, in which he pardons all their sins, accepts and accounts their persons righteous in his sight; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone.
Question 71: How is justification an act of God’s free grace?
Answer: Although Christ, by his obedience and death, did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to God’s justice in the behalf of them that are justified; yet inasmuch as God accepts the satisfaction from a surety, which he might have demanded of them, and did provide this surety, his own only Son, imputing his righteousness to them, and requiring nothing of them for their justification but faith, which also is his gift, their justification is to them of free grace.
Question 72: What is justifying faith?
Answer: Justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God, whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition, not only assents to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receives and rests upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.
In respect of your claims about being descended from the Anabaptists - have you actually read what they believe? Even if it were true that they were dispensational Pre-Trib IFBers (which it is not) that does not establish a casual link between them and you. It certainly does not explain the Great revival of true religion in Europe (and eventually America) which created the conditions for Baptists like CH Spurgeon to emerge from the Anglican Church as Non-conformists.
I would also caution attacking Luther too much as it is grossly unfair to judge him by the standards of today when we have seminaries, Bibles, Commentaries in abundance. Yes, he got many things wrong but look at what he got right in such a short time and coming out of such total and utter darkness.
I don’t know where you get this idea that only Baptist churches are part of the Bride of Christ. I am assuming that your definition of this is so rigid that only non-Calvinist, Dispensational IFB Churches are part of this - which would actually mean most of your Anabaptist heritage would be outside the Bride of Christ.
Just for the record can you define what a “faithful NT Baptist Church” is so we can judge all the churches and Christians of history as to whether they qualify under your definition. I have read 2 Cor 11:2 many times in the Greek and the English but there is no mention of the word baptism in the whole chapter!
August 12th, 2007 at 8:03 pmSam, perhaps you would do well looking up the definition of the words sacrament and seal. A sarament is not an ordinance - a sacrament is something that aids in your salvation. Going from my fauly memory: a sacrament is something performed or done that (supposedly) gives grace to the one doing it.
From The Way of Life Encyclopedia:
“Today Roman and Anglican Catholics, as well as Eastern Orthodox, regard the sacraments as effective channels of God’s grace and give them a central place in the worship of the church…
Baptists, as well as others who strive to maintain a New Testament pattern, reject the concept of sacraments. The Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles delivered to the church two ordinances [observances]: baptism and the Lord’s Supper. These do not impart grace; they signify and memorialize grace and turn the believer’s thoughts to Christ.”
August 12th, 2007 at 11:17 pmDear Sam,
I understand why the truths that the WCF and its catechisms, as well as Reformed Reformational theology in general, teaches a false gospel, is something that you would want to argue against. In light of the massive misinformation that is spread about Luther, Calvin, etc. through fundamental publishers like BJU Press and Beka books (a result of their inter-denominational character—outside the pillar and ground of the truth, the NT Baptist church), it is hard to see what the truth really is. I readily admit that I was deceived about it for years, indeed, for the majority of my Christian life. Furthermore, if you are a Free Presbyterian (this is entirely a guess), you would not want to admit that your confessional statements deny the gospel of Christ, which you, as a regenerate person (I trust), are led by the Spirit to wholeheartedly defend. Nevertheless, facts are facts. Please consider the following points in relation to your reply to my comment.
1.) The Free Presbyterian confession, as I pointed out in my post, which apparently was misunderstood on your part on this point, does NOT subordinate the WCF and its catechisms to its short statement. The short statement and the other documents are all “subordinate standards†to the Bible is the affirmation made. Therefore the sacramental heresy of the WCF&C (The Westminster Confession of Faith & Catechisms) is binding upon ministers/members of Free Presbyterian religious gatherings. As I pointed out before, the exception made is NOT one of the sacramental theology of the WCF&C, but only of the question of baptism for believers only or infants as well, along with immersion vs. Catholic modes of administering the ordinance. I rejoice that Free Presbyterians often reject the heresy of the WCF&F on the sacraments, but they do so with extreme, and sinful, inconsistency, as they affirm it in their confessional documents.
2.) Baptismal salvation is a more encompassing term than baptismal regeneration. While (as I proved in the July post referenced twice above in these comments—which, Sam, if you have not carefully read, you really ought to read before you comment further over here) Calvin freely affirmed a belief in baptismal regeneration, and actually said it was a slander to him to deny that he believed baptism regenerated in his refutation (?) of the theology of the Council of Trent (as I proved in the previous post), some more modern Reformed writers reject their Reformational progenitors boldness on their affirmation of baptismal regenerationist heresy, but they still defend a form of baptismal salvation. Consider:
Catholics hold:
A literal sanctification/infusion of grace at the moment of the administration of baptism, so that infants are made holy by the sacrament.
Lutherans hold, following Luther:
Baptism is the vehicle of the bestowal of saving faith. At the moment an infant is baptized, the infant is given faith through the sacrament, and is justified by faith alone. Thus, at the time baptism is given to an infant, sin is forgiven and the righteousness of Christ imputed, but sanctification (in contradistinction to the Catholic doctrine) is only begun. Thus baptism is essential to regeneration and the means of it, but infants are still “justified by faith alone.†This is a more subtle heresy and damnable lie of the devil than the blatent Catholic doctrine.
The Reformed who actually believe in the Reformed confessions and Reformed Reformation theology hold one of two views.
a.) Baptism is the “outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption,†so that “ sacraments . . . are made effectual to the elect for salvation . . . sacraments become effectual means of salvation,†to quote the Westminster Shorter Catechism. However, unlike Catholicism and Lutheranism, it was allowed that the unbaptized infants of believers who had not had the opportunity to have the sacrament administered might be saved, since God was able to regenerate them even without the ordinance (Calvin made no such exception for the children of unbelievers, nor did he offer certainty for the dying infants of all believers—nor even for the children of believers who had not worked hard to get their infants baptized). Futhermore, the saving grace given through baptism might not regenerate at the very moment the sacrament was administered. God might, in connection with baptism, regenerate the infant before, during, or at any point after the sacrament was administered. The sacrament might act like a terrorist sleeper cell and explode into action years after it was administered. Furthermore, to non-elect infants, the sacrament did not convey saving grace.
b.) Reformed people who didn’t like this view argued that baptism is given to infants because they were already believers, presumptively having been regenerated in the womb as John the Baptist and Jeremiah were (??????). Therefore Reformed young people who had been baptized in infancy never need to come to a point where they repent and believe the gospel. To quote the words of a modern Protestant Reformed writer, it is a “sin against God’s covenant . . . that covenant, baptized, Reformed young people are made the objects of an ‘evangelism’ that treats them as unsaved sinners who must be saved by accepting Christ. If this is what is meant by the conversion of the child, Reformed parents and the Reformed church reject it in the name of the covenant of God sealed to their children in infancy†(pg. 21-22, The Covenant of God and the Children of Believers, David J. Engelsma, South Holland, IL: Evangelism Committee, Protestant Reformed Church, n. d.). (BTW—Englesma is pro KJV/TR and against modern CT Bible versions—and CCM would be entirely absent in his “churchâ€â€”but he is a heretic with a false view of the gospel).
The people who published the WCF&C took either view a or b of baptism listed above, both of which are heresy and a false gospel. (There were also those present in the Westminster Assembly who took a more standard Anglican or Lutheran view of baptismal regeneration, who were considered “brothers in the faith†despite this damnable heresy.) Baptism does not in any way convey saving grace.
3.) Sam, you attempted to argue that the WCF&C taught that baptism was only a sign of salvation, something that Baptists would happily agree with (and something which requires immersion). However, that is not at all what the quotes I gave above proved. Rather, they affirm that baptism not only is a sign of but also seals and conveys saving grace. I was not at all “disingenuous†in my quotes. They were right on. The WCF&C agree with Calvin when he affirmed, “We, too [as do the Catholics], acknowledge that the use of baptism is necessary—that no one may omit it from either neglect or contempt. In this way we by no means make it free (optional). And not only do we strictly bind the faithful to the observance of it, but we also maintain that it is the ordinary instrument of God in washing and renewing us; in short, in communicating to us salvation†(John Calvin, 1547 Antidote to the Council of Trent, Antidote to the Canons of Baptism, Canon #5.)
Sam, if you want my 52 page paper documenting the baptismal views of the Reformers and of Reformation confessions, simply e-mail me (trkjv2@yahoo.com) and I’ll send it to you. I’m not going to post it here—it’s a little too long. ☺
You mentioned that we should not be too hard on Luther. However, Luther taught baptismal regeneration, denied the full humanity of Christ by teaching consubstantiation and the associated heresy of the ubiquity of Christ’s humanity (that His human body was omnipresent, so that it could be literally eaten when the Supper was administered), held to Marian heresies, and also denied the inspiration of books of the Bible and questioned others. (For this reason, it is not surprising that theological modernism/rationalism found its roots in Germany—it was a consistent development of Luther’s doctrine—one could call, in a certain way, Luther the father of theological modernism.) Please note the following (mainly extractions from my paper):
Martin Luther retained the Roman Catholic teaching of baptismal regeneration, including the regeneration of infants through the instrumentality of baptism. He called baptism “a new birth by which we are . . . loosed from sin, death, and hell, and become children of life, heirs of all the gifts of God, God’s own children, and brethren of Christ.†((Luther, Works, 53:103). The Lutheran Small Catechism affirms, “baptism effects forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and grants eternal salvation to all who believe, as the Word and promise of God declare.†(IV). The binding Lutheran symbol, the Augsburg Confession, states that “baptism . . . is necessary to salvation†and “condemn[s] the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children, and say that children are saved without baptism†(Article IX).
Interestingly, “Luther gave a new turn to the debate when in his opposition to medieval legalism he made the rhetorical suggestion that beer would meet the case just as well as water [for baptism]: no doubt it would be equally available in his country†(Pg. 134, Baptism, Bromiley; cf. J. de la Serviére, La Théologie de Bellarmine, pg. 356).
Luther either questioned or denied the canonicity of Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation, as well as several Old Testament books, providing a basis for the rise of theological modernism in Germany a century after his death. In Luther’s preface to James, from his first edition of his German New Testament, he stated that “this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients . . . I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle; and my reasons follow. In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works. . . . This fault, therefore, proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle. . . . [T]his James does nothing more than drive to the law and to its works. Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper. . . . In a word, he wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task in spirit, thought, and words. He mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture . . . Therefore, I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books.†In a Tabletalk comment in 1542, Luther affirmed, “We should throw the Epistle of James out of this school [Wittenberg], for it doesn’t amount to much. It contains not a syllable about Christ. . . . I maintain that some Jew wrote it who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any. Since he heard that Christians place great weight on faith in Christ, he thought, ‘Wait a moment! I’ll oppose them and urge works alone.’ This he did. . . . Besides, there’s no order or method in the epistle. Now he discusses clothing and then he writes about wrath and is constantly shifting from one to the other. He presents a comparison: ‘As the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead’ [Jas. 2:26]. O Mary, mother of God! What a terrible comparison that is! James compares faith with the body when he should rather have compared faith with the soul! The ancients recognized this, too, and therefore they didn’t acknowledge this letter as one of the catholic epistles†(Luther’s Works (LW) 54:424). He also said, “Some day I will use James to fire my stove†(Weimer, “Tischreden†(5) pg. 5854, cited in “Luther and James: Did Luther Use the Historical-Critical Method?†by Mark F. Bartling; a paper presented to the Pastor-Teacher Conference, Western Wisconsin District, LaCrosse, WI, April 12, 1983; cf. Jeremiah 36:23-32).
August 15th, 2007 at 7:27 pmLuther wrote concerning “the epistle of St Jude . . . he also speaks of the apostles like a disciple who comes long after them and cites sayings and incidents that are found nowhere else in the Scriptures. This moved the ancient fathers to exclude this epistle from the main body of the Scriptures . . . it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books which are supposed to lay the foundations of faith. (See Luther’s preface to Jude in his first edition of the German New Testament.) Concerning the book of Hebrews, Luther wrote that the book “does not lay the foundation of faith . . . Therefore we should not be deterred if wood, straw, or hay are perhaps mixed with [sound teaching in the epistle] . . . to be sure, we cannot put it on the same level with the apostolic epistles.†In certain places, Hebrews is, “as it stands . . . contrary to all the gospels and to St. Paul’s epistles†(LW 35:394).
In Luther’s Preface to the Revelation of St. John (1522), he wrote, “About this book of the Revelation of John . . . I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic. . . . For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras; I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it. Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly—indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important—and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc [Note that here Luther explicitly rejects the warning of Revelation 22:18-19! It goes “much too farâ€! Is the book of Revelation correct, and Luther in error, when the inspired prophecy warns that for he who add or take away from it (Is not rejecting its inspiration most certainly taking away from it?), “God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book . . . and . . . God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this bookâ€? Or is Luther correct, and the Word of God in error, so that God goes “much too far†here?] Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep. Many of the fathers also rejected this book a long time ago; although St. Jerome, to be sure, refers to it in exalted terms and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many mysteries in it as words. Still, Jerome cannot prove this at all, and his praise at numerous places is too generous. . . . My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book.â€
In his Preface to the New Testament (1522), Luther stated, “John’s Gospel is . . . far, far to be preferred to the other three and placed high above them. So, too, the Epistles of St. Paul and St. Peter far surpass the other three Gospels—Matthew, Mark, and Luke.â€
Luther’s relegation of portions of the New Testament canon to a secondary status is followed by “conservative†modern Lutheranism to this day. Lutheran editions of the Bible in the centuries after the Reformation generally contained their Reformer’s prefaces to the Scriptures along with the books, perpetuating his blasphemies among the following generations of Lutherans.
The German Bible available to homes in the Missouri Synod in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, the Altenburger Bibel (Concordia Publishing House), contained Luther’s introductions to the New Testament books, giving his views about Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. The laymen therefore were acquainted with the view of [the] Scriptures [of Luther, questioning their inspiration].†The American Lutheran Synod of 1857 (minutes, pg. 334ff) affirmed, “The Lutheran church must leave it uncertain whether Revelation, or any of the other books of the New Testament which were spoken against by a few in the early church, were written by an Apostle or under Apostolic authority. . . . Consequently, it was an unwise, unchristian, and provocative act on the part of [a Lutheran minister] to conceal the actual status of the doubted New Testament books. Thereby he gave rise to rumors which cast aspersions on those who maintain the distinction between canonical books of the first and second rank; whereas in this distinction they were following the earliest church Luther, and the older orthodox theologians†(Quotations from “Luther and James: Did Luther Use the Historical-Critical Method?†by Mark F. Bartling; a paper presented to the Pastor-Teacher Conference, Western Wisconsin District, LaCrosse, WI, April 12, 1983.).
Luther attacked portions of the Old Testament as well. He said, “Job didn’t speak the way it is written [in his book] . . . One doesn’t speak that way under temptation.†[Luther on Job from the Table Talk, John Aurifaber’s version; LW 54:79.] He affirmed that “The [author of the] book of Solomon’s Proverbs [is like] . . . the author of the book of [the Apocryphal book of] Ecclesiasticus. [He] preaches the law well, but he is no prophet. [Ecclesiasticus] is not the work of Solomon, any more than is the book of Solomon’s Proverbs. They are both collections made by other people. . . . [Concerning the book of] Esther . . . I wish [it] had not come to us at all, for [it has] too many heathen unnaturalities. . . . Daniel and Isaiah are [the] most excellent prophets.†In Luther’s Preface to Ecclesiastes, he wrote, “Now this book was certainly not written or set down by King Solomon with his own hand. Instead scholars put together what others had heard from Solomon’s lips, as they themselves admit at the end of the book . . . In like manner too, the book of the Proverbs of Solomon has been put together by others, with the teaching and sayings of some wise men added at the end. The Song of Solomon too has the appearance of a book compiled by others out of things received from the lips of Solomon. For this reason these books have no particular order either, but one thing is mixed with another. This must be the character of such books, since they did not hear it all from him at one time but at different times†(LW 35:263). Luther stated concerning “Esther . . . [that] despite [the Jews] inclusion of it in the canon [it] deserves more than all the rest in my judgment to be regarded as noncanonical†(LW 33:11). Before Luther attacked inspired books of the Old and New Testaments, instead of trembling before them (Isaiah 66:2), he should have considered more carefully that “Whoso despiseth the word shall be destroyed†(Proverbs 13:13; cf. 2 Timothy 3:16; Proverbs 30:5-6; Deuteronomy 12:32; Revelation 22:18-19).
In 1519, Luther exhorted his congregation to “call upon the holy angels, particularly his own angel, the Mother of God, and all the apostles and saints,†although later on he moved away from prayers to angels, Mary, and other dead people. Nevertheless, Luther kept a graven image of Mary in his study his entire life. [cf. Reformation Church History, Lecture 5, W. Robert Godfrey, (Grand Rapids, MI: Institute of Theological Studies); http://www.itscourses.org Luther also believed his entire life in Mary’s perpetual virginity. He taught, “Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . [when Scripture speaks of the Lord Jesus’] ‘brothers’ [it] really means ‘cousins.’†[Sermons on John, chapters 1-4, 1537-39 Luther also taught that Mary was conceived without sin, as Christ was, preaching that “It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin.†[“On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God,†1527.]
Luther also agreed that Philip of Hesse could have two wives to help the prince stop committing adultery; the second marriage just needed to be kept secret. Luther was joined in this immoral counsel by Philip Melanchthon, Martin Bucer, and other lesser Reformers. They stated that “We declare under an oath that it ought to be done secretly . . . It is nothing unusual for princes to have concubines . . . and this modest way of living would please more than adultery.†[Document dated December 10, 1539, Luther's Letters, De Wette -- Seidemann, Berlin, 1828, vol. 6, 255-265.] Luther wrote, “I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture.†[De Wette, vol. 2, 459.] After the secret got out, Luther lied, denying his role in the bigamy. He and the others who agreed to the second wife later were sorry that they had counseled Philip of Hesse as they had done—after they had already been exposed and the Lutheran cause had been damaged.
General Lutheran antisemitism and widespread complicity in the Holocaust under Hitler is also not surprising, in light of Luther’s affirmations about the Jews, such as: “Let their houses also be shattered and destroyed . . . Let their prayer books and Talmuds be taken from them, and their whole Bible too; let their rabbis be forbidden, on pain of death, to teach henceforth any more. Let the streets and highways be closed against them. Let them be forbidden to practice usury, and let all their money, and all their treasures of silver and gold be taken from them and put away in safety. And if all this be not enough, let them be driven like mad dogs out of the land.†[Durant, 422; About the Jews and Their Lies, 1543; Durant cites as his source Janssen, III, 211-212.]
The Lutheran view of the Lord’s Supper, consubstantiation, is a well known heresy. The idea that one actually eats Christ’s real human body and drinks His real blood in the Lord’s supper was retained in Luther’s split from Rome. To support the doctrine that Christ’s humanity is actually eaten in the bread of the Supper, Lutheranism also developed the doctrine of the ubiquity of the human nature of Christ, which claims His humanity is omnipresent, rather than localized in heaven at the right hand of God the Father (Mark 16:19; Luke 22:69; Acts 2:33-34; 7:55-56; Colossians 3:1; 1 Peter 3:22). Since, by definition, a real human body cannot be omnipresent, or in countless numbers of pieces of bread all over the world at the same time, the Lutheran doctrine of ubiquity, invented to defend Luther’s heresy of consubstantiation, denies the genuine humanity of Christ (as does the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation) and so is antichrist (1 John 4:3).
Luther certainly did not consider Baptists brothers in a common faith. The Baptist doctrine of justification by faith apart from sacraments and their restriction of baptism to believers, as in the New Testament, were great enough evils to Luther and Lutheranism that the Diet of Speyer (A. D. 1529) decreed the death penalty for Anabaptists, and in A. D. 1536 Luther signed a memorandum written by Melanchton assenting to putting Anabaptists to death (cf. 1 John 3:15-16). Luther stated, “The Anabaptists hold tenets relating to infant baptism, original sin, and inspiration, which have no connection with the Word of God , [Consider this declaration of Luther that those with false views of inspiration should be put to death in light of his declarations about numerous New and Old Testament books] and are indeed opposed to it . . . Secular authorities are also bound to restrain and punish avowedly false doctrine . . . For think what disaster would ensue if children were not baptized? . . . Besides this the Anabaptists separate themselves from the churches . . . and they set up a ministry and congregation of their own, which is also contrary to the command of God. From all this it becomes clear that the secular authorities are bound . . . to inflict corporal punishment on the offenders . . . Also when it is a case of only upholding some spiritual tenet, such as infant baptism, original sin, and unnecessary separation, then . . . we conclude that . . . the stubborn sectaries must be put to death.†[(Janssen, X, 222-223; pamphlet of 1536).] The baptismal doctrines of Luther and the Baptists of the Reformation era were radically opposed to one another; so far, was the gospel believed by Baptists from the saving truth that Luther thought they should be executed. Luther lived and died believing that baptism was essential for the receipt of the remission of sin.
This post is already too long for me to deal with your questions, Sam, about Baptist history and the nature of the church. I would commend to you J. T. Christian’s History of Baptists for the history question, and B. H. Carroll’s Ecclesia on the doctrine of the church, as well as volume four of Landmarks of Baptist Doctrine by Robert Sargent. (All of these, and many other excellent volumes, are available at lvbaptist.org through their online bookstore). I trust, in answer to your question on this matter, that I do actually know what Anabaptists believed from the early centuries of Christian history to the present, having become one of them after I was converted because they were the true churches of Christ, having studied Baptist history extensively in seminary, and having taught a year long course on Baptist history in which the significant majority of our time was spent on pre-Reformation Baptist history. In terms of the doctrine of the church, there is no universal church; a church is a local, visible assembly of Scripturally immersed saints, organized to carry out the Lord’s work. Any institution that abandons congregational church government (as Presbyterianism does) cannot be the church of Christ. Nor can any religious organization that was started after the Lord Jesus said “I will build my church†in the first century. If you want an analysis of the doctrine of the church, which proves why Free Presbyterian assemblies are not churches, please contact me (or Bethel Baptist Church, http://www.pillarandground.org) for Bible study #7, The Church of Jesus Christ.
Since the bride of Christ is a NT metaphor for the church, the local, visible assembly of immersed saints (Eph 5, 2 Cor 11:2), a Free Presbyterian who is converted despite the WCF&C is not part of the bride of Christ on earth, although he is as certain of the New Jerusalem as any Baptist who, by church membership, is part of Christ’s bride. (It is the Catholic and Protestant heresy, first articulated by Cyprian and repeated by the Reformers such as Luther and Calvin, that “outside the church there is no salvation,†that leads to the false teaching that the bride/church is a soteriological, not an ecclesiological, theme, and thus sees the affirmation that only members of true (Baptist) churches are Christ’s bride as an affirmation that only Baptists are saved, when actually that is not at all what is being affirmed.) The only other “church†in the New Testament than Christ’s pure bride is the Romish mother harlot of Revelation 17 and her Protestant daughters. So believers in Free Presbyterian “churches†should hearken to the voice “from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people,†Revelation 18:4.
I trust, Sam, that all these things will help you to see the true nature of the church, and the heresies of the Reformers, and thus to separate from their false religious institutions and join with and serve the Lord faithfully in one of His true Baptist churches, separated from false “churches,†for His glory and out of love for Him. If you do this, you will more greatly glorify your Savior and receive a much greater heavenly reward, because we are not crowned unless we strive lawfully, and the place of NT service is the church of Christ, His pure bride that He in a special way loved and died for, not a man-made religious institution God compares to a harlot.
Thomas,
I appreciate the lengths you have gone for your research to reply. However, as I said I believe the WCF is very clear (as was Luther and Calvin) as that a man was only justified by grace alone through faith in Christ alone. Also, I think it is unfair to lift quotes from both Luther and Calvin especilaly in their early attempts to come to the light to try and prove they believed in a synergistic faith when they spent their whole lives fighting for the doctrine of justification by faith alone. History will judge their contribution to Biblical Christianity.
To answer your question - I am now a Baptist in respect of baptism who attended the Free Presbyterians growing up in Ireland. Yes, I was saved and baptised there and your outlandish claims about what they believe has no accord with the reality.
I also think you need to, with respect, study your history and Bible a bit more carefully before making a statement such as “Any institution that abandons congregational church government (as Presbyterianism does) cannot be the church of Christ. ” In these days of apostasy, I prefer independent local churches but there is no explicit verse in Scripture that states this is the only valid church polity that will be recognised as valid by God. If you have any, please furnish or else desist from acting like Pope Benedict and damning all Presbyterians like Robert Murray McCheyne and Anglicans like Bishop Ryle to hell! I can only assume from your posts that you are not well read in church history and have imbibed one system of church polity as being the only way of salvation.
The Bride of Christ is the Universal Body of Christ throughout Church history - it has nothing to do with whether a man attends an IFB or Presbyterian Church. You can keep citing Eph 5, 2 Cor 11:2 at random but as the objective reader can discern they have nothing to do with proving that only Independent local churches are the only Bride of Christ which I ga