Saturday, October 13, 2007

The Centrality of the Cross

My blogging has fallen by the wayside of late. I certainly need to be more disciplined in this area. Tomorrow, I fly out of Toronto to Seattle. I will arrive in Seattle Sunday evening. Then we sail on Monday to see the Pacific Northwest. The weather is forecast to be cool and damp. Of course, what I am looking forward to is the lectures (The Cross in History and Theology) by James White. After we return to Seattle there will be the debate between Shabir Ali and Dr. White on “Was Jesus a Willing Sacrifice for the Sins of His People.” Shabir will use the most liberal sources – stuff from the Jesus Seminar – to try to prove his point. I have listened to Shabir and have concluded that the only way to present the Gospel to a Muslim is from a Reformed-Calvinistic worldview. It is only that worldview that has any meaningful answers to their objections. Of course, God raises dead sinners to life in order that they may repent and believe the Gospel in order that they may be saved. Our fine words are not what convinces men that they are sinners before a holy God and deserve Hell. But nothing is to hard for God. He raised me from the dead and gave me a knew heart he can raise a Muslim from the dead and give him a new heart.

In our presentation of the Gospel we must realize the following
1. Islam is nothing more than a denial of the person and work of Jesus Christ
2. Whatever the results that God is glorified when we preach Christ and Him crucified.
3. The preaching of the cross is foolishness to those that are perishing but to us that are being saved it is the power of God.
4. All for whom Jesus died will be saved and not one person for who He died will end up in Hell.

Saturday, September 29, 2007

The Dangers of Islamization and Shariah Law to Western Democracy

I had the privilege on listening to Sam Solomon recently. He is an expert on Shariah Law and Islamic jurisprudence. Mr. Solomon has set forth a proposed charter of Muslim Understanding http://www.answering-islam.org/Terrorism/EuropeCharter.pdf the forward in written by Gerard Batten MEP. This is necessary read by all Christians. In addition, these questions should be asked of your local representative. Considering the United States will be electing a new president in just over a year it these questions should be asked of those seeking political office. Also there may be a General Election in Canada this year. I would encourage any to ask the local candidates about these vital issues facing our country.

The Western European view of religion, achieved after centuries of bloodshed, conflict and division, is that religion is a matter of private belief and conscience. Islamic fundamentalists do not share this view. They do not believe in the nation state, democracy, the equality of women, or toleration. They believe in Islamic theocracy, a universal Muslim society, the Umma, based on political rule according to the Qur’an and Sunnah. Such views are simply incompatible with Western liberal democracy, and we have seen where such extremist beliefs can lead, for example in Afghanistan and Iran. The West has been amazingly lax in recognising the threat posed to its security, freedoms, values and the cohesiveness of society by Islamic fundamentalism. The terrorist atrocities in London of July 2005 showed just how dangerous these beliefs can be. Islamic fundamentalists have however made great gains in the propaganda war by convincing many non-Muslims that they are the true epresentatives of Islam, whereas they are not. The vast majority of Muslims that non-Muslims meet in every-day life are decent, respectable, law-abiding and hardworking. Western governments and societies have to offer them their support while standing firm against the extremists. A great step forward in this process is Sam Solomon’s Proposed Charter of Muslim Understanding. The Charter allows Muslims from all strands of belief to make it plain that they reject those extremist interpretations of their religious texts that promote or excuse violence and bring Islam into conflict with the modern world. It affirms that they want toenjoy the freedoms of the West and live as law-abiding and peace-loving people. I very much hope that those groups claiming to represent Muslims will decide to sign and embrace it.

Gerard Batten MEP

John Kennedy wrote a book entitled “While England Slept”. It documented the British Government policy of appeasement to pacify Hitler during the 1930s. Today it seems that the West is engaged on it’s on a policy of appeasement. Unfortunately this will lead to destruction of the democratic process and civilization as we know it. I fully convinced that Islam is God’s rod of chastisement on a society that has forsaken Him and cleaved onto strange gods

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Sodomite Hate Speech God’s Judgement and Wrath Poured Out on The West

If the following is not empirical evidence for the depravity of man then I do not know what is. The Apostle was correct when he wrote to those Christians who were living in pagan Rome the following

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 1 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
Romans 1:18-32
Paul here is pointing out what happens when men and women follow their own desires and do not acknowledge God as their creator. Secular humanism leads to the vilest of human behavior. The death blow to any society is when sodomy becomes the accepted norm and is flaunted openly despite the warnings in God’s word. What follows is an abomination in the eyes of God. However, the believer must realize that this is the judgment of God upon our society for forsaking Him the Lord of Glory
I read the following post from WorldnetDaily. Be warned that the image contained in this post is very offensive and you may not want young children to see it. But I believe that it is important that Christians be aware of what is happening around us. An the attacks against our Lord Jesus Christ and his followers. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57831
Truly this is clear evidence that God is pouring his wrath out on the west. And we have fallen under his judgment for our wickedness.
In a politically correct society everything must be tolerated EXCEPT Christianity. According to the thinking of modern man Christianity must be eliminated and those that follow Christ and his teachings must be marginalized or better yet removed from society. And lets not kid ourselves it is coming and coming sooner than we think. Would these people dare post the same kind of images of Mohammed? It wasn't too long ago that there was world outrage about some somewhat less than flattering cartoons about the so called prophet of Islam. What is so hypocritical is that many newspapers refused to publish them because they were offensive to Muslims. But offending Christians is OK in fact it is more than OK it is to be encouraged.
May God grant us the grace to face the challenges that lay before us and take a firm stand four our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Wednesday, July 04, 2007

The Death Knell of Evangelicalism

It has been a number of months sense my last post but this is a must read By Michael Haykin. What is happening in the UK is happening here in the North American Evangelical Churches.

Defenders of the faith
- by Michael Haykin -

Martyn Lloyd-Jones and the nature of genuine evangelicalism
What is evangelicalism? What distinguishes those who call themselves evangelicals from other professing Christians? As we come to the end of this century and millennium, these questions of identity are among the most vital facing the evangelical movement, for it is increasingly unclear what is meant by the terms ‘evangelical’ and ‘evangelicalism’. Scottish theologian A.T. B. McGowan has rightly noted of the present scene: ‘The word "evangelical" has become so elastic today as to defy definition at all’.

Answering the question

Now, one way of answering these questions would be along the pathway of etymology. The English terms ‘evangelicalism’ and ‘evangelical’ would be traced back to their origin from the Greek word, euangellion, which can be translated either as ‘gospel’ or ‘good news’. By this route one could arrive at a description of evangelicals as people who are concerned with the gospel. But this approach leaves far too much unsaid.
Alternatively, one could look at the broad sweep of evangelical history, from its roots in the Reformation and Puritanism down to the present day, and identify various defining characteristics. A third approach, however, is to look at this matter of defining evangelicalism by examining the thought of a single evangelical, one who has reflected deeply on the nature of evangelicalism, both in terms of its scriptural basis and its historical witness. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981) was such an evangelical.
Deeply involved in defending the evangelical vision of the Christian life for much of his career, he pondered deeply, from the vantage-point of both Scripture and church history, the issues surrounding this question, ‘What is an evangelical?’ Indeed, in the final fifteen years of his life he became involved in a major controversy over these issues.

Life and ministry

The broad outlines of Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ life are familiar to many readers of this newspaper. Born in Cardiff, Wales, on 20 December 1899, his earliest experiences of church life were in the Presbyterian Church of Wales, heir to the evangelical theology and fervent
piety of Calvinistic Methodism. Sadly, by Lloyd-Jones’ day, the evangelical fervour and spirituality of the denomination had largely fallen prey to liberal theology. Instead of Calvinism’s rich and majestic vision of a sovereign God rescuing fallen human beings through the atoning work of his Son, Lloyd-Jones was raised on a tepid diet of faith in social betterment through education and political action.
In his early teens his family moved to London. There, during the momentous days of World War I, he enrolled as a student at the medical school of St Bartholomew’s Hospital, from where he received his MRCS and LRCP in July 1921, and later his Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MB, BS.) and M.D. For the next three years, Lloyd-Jones worked closely with the physician to the royal family, Sir Thomas (later Lord) Horder (1871-1955), first as his junior house physician, then as his chief clinical assistant.

Conversion and call

Despite this dazzling rise to prominence in the medical world, Lloyd-Jones was having serious doubts about continuing in his chosen profession. In the words of his grandson, Christopher Catherwood, Lloyd-Jones was ‘struck by the ungodliness and moral emptiness of many of Horder’s aristocratic patients’. He became convinced that the root problem of many of his mentor’s clients was ultimately spiritual. They were seeking to live out their lives with no conscious relationship to the One who had created them and who sustained them every moment of their lives. Their need, though, highlighted his own need for such a relationship.
Lloyd-Jones’ conversion, which he never dated, took place at some point in 1923 or 1924. With it, came a call and a passion to preach the gospel in his native Wales. At the end of 1926, he accepted a call to pastor Bethlehem Forward Movement Mission, a Calvinistic Methodist work in Sandfields, Aberavon. A few weeks later, on 8 January 1927, he married Bethan Phillips, also a medical doctor. Martyn and Bethan had a singularly happy life together. According to their grandson Christopher, they ‘complemented each other and were able to strengthen each other’ throughout their married lives.

Crucial move

By the mid-1930s, Lloyd-Jones’ preaching had made him known throughout England and Wales. It was characterised by a warm and vigorous Calvinism, a commitment to the ‘vital spirituality of eighteenth-century Methodism’, and a concern for the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration and revival.

So it was that he came to the attention of G. Campbell Morgan (1863-1945), the well-known minister of Westminster Chapel in London. Hearing Lloyd-Jones preach in Philadelphia in 1937, Morgan determined to have the Welsh preacher called as his assistant. Lloyd-Jones went to Westminster on the eve of World War II. As he would tell his biographer Iain Murray, not long before his death, his life had witnessed a succession of events that he himself had never expected or planned. His move to Westminster Chapel was certainly one of them. It turned out to be a crucial move. Located in the heart of London, he was placed in a position to exercise a far greater influence on English-speaking evangelicalism than would have been possible had he remained in Wales.

Rebuilding

Lloyd-Jones served as Morgan’s associate pastor until the latter’s retirement in 1943. Lloyd-Jones was then the sole preaching pastor until his own retirement in 1968. The war scattered most of the large congregation that had delighted in Morgan’s preaching. Thus, when the war was over, Lloyd-Jones had to rebuild the congregation from around one or two hundred. By the 1950s, attendance was often close to two thousand. What drew these people was the clarity of biblical exposition, the spiritual power, and the doctrinal depth of Lloyd-Jones’ ministry.

Divisions within evangelicalism

Lloyd-Jones’ biographer Iain Murray has described the 1960s as ‘the hardest decade’ in the Welsh preacher’s life. It saw the break-up of some old friendships that he had treasured for many years, most notably his close working relationship with the Anglican evangelical J. I. Packer (b.1925).

Without going into all the historical details of the controversy within English evangelical circles between 1960 and 1970, it is sufficient to note that Lloyd-Jones clearly discerned a serious division within evangelicalism. Some evangelicals, like Packer, were quite willing to stay within denominations where liberal teachers and outright heretics were tolerated. Their hope was that by doing so they could ultimately win the denomination to a firmly evangelical position.
Lloyd-Jones disagreed profoundly. ‘We have evidence before our very eyes’, he said to those gathered for the Puritan Conference in December 1965, ‘that our staying amongst such people does not seem to be converting them to our view, but rather leads to a lowering of the spiritual temperature of those who are staying amongst them, and an increasing tendency to doctrinal accommodation and compromise’. It was in the context of this debate and controversy that Lloyd-Jones went back to Scripture to determine the nature of genuine Christian unity.

Closer fellowship

The differences that Lloyd-Jones perceived within evangelicalism were brought out fully into the open in 1966 when, on 18 October, he addressed the second National Assembly of Evangelicals, a meeting organised by the Evangelical Alliance. He urged evangelicals in theologically-mixed denominations to recognise that staying in such organisations made them guilty of schism from other, genuine, believers, who were in solidly biblical churches. They should come out of doctrinally-compromised bodies to enjoy closer fellowship with their evangelical brethren. Only then, he said as he concluded, could they expect the blessing of the ‘Spirit of God to come upon us in mighty revival and re-awakening’.

Contradicted

John Stott (b.1921), the well-known Anglican Evangelical preacher who was chairing the meeting that autumn evening, quickly rose when Lloyd-Jones had concluded his address. Perhaps fearful lest some young evangel-icals in mixed denominations might pull out on the spur of the moment without serious thought, he flatly contradicted everything that Lloyd-Jones had said. ‘History’, he declared, ‘is against what Dr Lloyd-Jones has said…Scripture is against him; the remnant was within the church not outside it. I hope no one will act precipitately’.
Not surprisingly, Stott’s dramatic intervention highlighted and consolidated the deep differences that existed among evangelicals at that time. Those differences have continued ever since to polarise the British evangelical community.
To be continued

Thursday, February 15, 2007

Baptist Beginnings

There is a lot of Confusion about Baptst Begiings on the Internet. For those that love history as much as I do I am posting the following. It is a fair, balanced ,and historical sumary our Baptist roots.

Baptist Beginnings
by Leon McBeth

Who was the first Baptist, and where was the first Baptist church? When did Baptists begin, and who was their founder?
A lot of people ask these questions. We want to know about our denominational roots. To know our beginnings will help us understand ourselves today.
These sound like simple questions, and one might expect brief and simple answers. The story of Baptist beginnings, however, is surprisingly complicated; and not everyone agrees on the conclusions. Perhaps this is one reason such questions have been so controversial in the past.
Some people try to trace organized Baptist churches back to New Testament times or to John the Baptist. One writer even suggested that Adam was the first Baptist! Certainly we believe that our doctrine and faith root in the New Testament, but we first meet our organized denomination considerably this side of Adam.
Our best historical evidence says that Baptists came into existence in England in the early seventeenth century. They apparently emerged out of the Puritan-Separatist movement in the Church of England. Some of these earnest people read the Bible in their own language, believed it, and sought to live by it. They formed separate congregations which accepted only believers into their membership, and they baptized converts upon their profession of faith. Their opponents nicknamed them "Baptists," and the name stuck. This pamphlet will fill in some of the details of that story.

The English Background
No one knows who first brought Christianity to England or when. An old tradition suggests that Paul the apostle or one of his converts may have preached in Britain. By the seventh century most English people were at least outwardly Roman Catholics. In the following centuries some evangelical groups flourished, and some remnant of these groups may have survived in the sects which later opposed Romanism, such as the followers of John Wyclif (sometimes called Lollards).By the sixteenth century, multitudes of English Christians were demanding reform in their church. They sensed that the church had become corrupt and selfish, and that it had largely left the simple message of the Bible. Several factors contributed to this clamor for reform: the teachings of such great reformers as Martin Luther in Germany and John Calvin in Geneva; the new translations of the English Bible which allowed the common people once again to read the Word of God; and social and political changes which led people to want more participation in their church.

Several English rulers in the sixteenth century sought to reform the Church of England to some extent. However, none of these reforms went far enough to satisfy those who wanted to return to the simple teachings and practices of the Bible. One militant group within the Church of England genuinely desired to recover biblical teachings and practices. Deeply influenced by the reforms of John Calvin, they became known as "Puritans," perhaps because they insisted upon more purity of doctrine and practice in the church. Another group seeking reform was called "Separatists." Most of the Separatists were frustrated Puritans who had given up hope of reforming the church from within. Separatists decided to separate from the Church of England and form their own independent congregations. By 1600, there were already several of these congregations in England, and they mushroomed by 1625.
The Separatists included many groups holding a variety of views. Some of them later helped populate such diverse churches as Quakers, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and assorted independents and nonconformists. Some of these Separatists, studying the Bible, adopted believer’s baptism and became known as Baptists.

Two Kinds of Baptists

Baptists came into existence as two distinct groups, with somewhat different beliefs and practices, but with believer’s baptism in common. The two main strands were known as General Baptists and Particular Baptists. There were also a few Sabbatarian or Seventh-day Baptists in the late seventeenth century, but they were never numerous.
General Baptists.–The General Baptists got their name because they believed in a general atonement. They believed Christ died for all people generally, and that whoever would believe in Christ could be saved. The first General Baptist church, led by John Smyth, was founded in Amsterdam, Holland, in 1608/09. Its members were English refugees who had fled England to escape religious persecution.
John Smyth was a minister in the Church of England. As a student and later as a pastor and teacher, he developed Puritan and Separatist views and sought to bring biblical reform to the church. When this failed, he joined a small Separatist congregation in Gainsborough, near London. As these Separatists grew so that it became dangerous for them to meet openly, they divided into two groups for convenience. One group moved to Scrooby Manor, where they were led by John Robinson, William Brewster, and William Bradford. Later, this little band became the nucleus of the "Pilgrim Fathers" who sailed to America on the Mayflower.
The Gainsborough remnant, led by John Smyth, was in daily danger. English law prohibited such independent or dissenting churches, and King James I had vowed to deal harshly with any who refused to attend the Church of England. By 1607, the Gainsborough group had decided to migrate across the English Channel to Amsterdam, a city that provided religious liberty.
When these English exiles, led by John Smyth and a layman named Thomas Helwys, left England, they were not yet Baptists. In Amsterdam, they came into contact with Dutch Mennonites, a branch of the Anabaptist family that taught religious liberty and baptism of believers only. Historians have debated the extent of Mennonite influence upon later developments among the English exiles. The Smyth-Helwys congregation continued to study the Bible and sought to follow the way of the Lord more completely.
By 1608/09, Smyth was convinced his Separatist church was not valid. Most of the members had only infant baptism, and the church was formed on the basis of a "covenant," rather than a confession of faith in Christ. Smyth therefore led the church to disband in 1608/09 and re-form on a new basis–a personal confession of faith in Christ, followed by believer’s baptism. Since none of the members had been baptized as believers, Smyth had to make a new beginning. He baptized himself and then baptized the others. His baptism was by sprinkling or pouring, but it was for believers only.
In 1611, Thomas Helwys led a portion of this church back to London, where they set up the first Baptist church on English soil. By 1650, there were at least forty-seven General Baptist churches in and around London. They believed in a general atonement, baptism of believers only, religious liberty, and other doctrines still associated with Baptists. The General Baptists also believed that it was possible for one to fall from grace or lose his salvation.
Particular Baptists.–The Particular Baptists came into existence a generation later than General Baptists. Named for their view of particular atonement, they believed that Christ died only for a particular group, the elect. They were deeply influenced by the teachings of John Calvin.
Particular Baptists emerged out of an Independent congregation. While Separatists, as the name implies, separated totally from the Church of England, the Independents sought to maintain autonomous congregations without a radical break with the state church. Ultimately, most of the Independents were driven to more complete separation. As early as 1616, Henry Jacob was leader of a small Independent congregation in London. The next two pastors were John Lathrop and Henry Jessey. This church is often called the "JLJ Church" from the initials of these three early pastors.
Members of this Separatist JLJ congregation were in constant conversation about the meaning of baptism. By 1630, one member withdrew, possibly in opposition to infant baptism. In 1633, a number of members withdrew from the JLJ church to form another congregation, and perhaps some of them were rebaptized as believers at that time. In 1638, several others withdrew from the JLJ church to join the 1633 group, and old church records state clearly that in 1638 they received baptism as believers. Historians have therefore concluded that the first Particular Baptist church dates at least from 1638, and possibly even from 1633. Though their baptism was for believers only, at first it was administered by sprinkling or pouring.
By 1650, there were a number of Particular Baptist churches in and around London. In 1644, seven of them had drafted a confession of faith which showed some of their distinctive views. In addition to particular atonement, they taught believer’s baptism by immersion and insisted that a person who is once saved is always saved.
Believer’s Baptism by Immersion
English Baptists recovered the practice of believer’s baptism in two steps. By 1608/09, the General Baptists insisted that baptism was for believers only, and by 1638 the Particular Baptists reached the same conclusion. At first, English Baptists baptized by sprinkling or pouring. Immersion came a few years later. Some of the General Baptists may have immersed as early as 1614, but if so it was not yet customary. Many historians do not recognize them as Baptists before immersion.
By 1640, there were at least two Particular Baptist churches, and both became convinced that baptism should be by immersion. Old church records state:
1640. 3rd Mo: The Church became two by mutuall consent just half being with Mr. P. Barebone, & ye other halfe with Mr. H. Jessey. Mr. Richd Blunt with him being convinced of Baptism yt also it ought to be by dipping in ye Body into Ye Water, resembling Burial and riseing again.
Apparently, members of the Barebone congregation reached this conclusion from a study of the New Testament. Immersion was a new practice, for their old records speak of "none having then so practiced it in England to professed Believers." These two congregations reinstituted immersion in different ways. One church sent Richard Blunt to Holland to confer with a group of Mennonites, who practiced immersion. Possibly, he received immersion from them and returned to immerse others of the congregation. The other church simply began to immerse without alluding to historical precedent. "Where there is a beginning," the pastor said, "some must be first." The First London Confession of Particular Baptists, adopted in 1644, says of baptism, "The way and manner of the dispensing of this Ordinance the Scripture holds out to be dipping or plunging the whole body under the water." The General Baptists were probably practicing immersion by 1650, but their first confession specifically calling for baptism by immersion only appeared in 1660.

Baptist Worship

Baptist styles of worship have changed considerably since 1609. The early Baptist services were quite long, sometimes with several sermons, and in the early days there was no music or singing. The oldest record of a Baptist worship service is from 1609, in a letter from Hughe and Anne Bromhead, who said:
The order of the worshippe and government of oure church is . 1. we begynne wth A prayer, after reade some one or tow chapters of the Bible gyve the sence thereof, and conferr vpon the same, that done we lay aside oure bookes, and after a solemne prayer made by the .1. speaker, he propoundeth some text owt of the Scripture, and prophecieth owt of the same, by the space of one hower, or thre Quarters of an hower.
"This Morning exercise," the Bromhead letter concludes, "begynes at eight of the clocke and continueth vnto twelve of the clocke the like course of exercise is observed in the afternowne from .2. of the clock vnto .5. or .6. of the Clocke."
The earliest Baptist worship was lengthy and dealt primarily with Bible exposition. There was no singing, and Baptists put great value upon spontaneity and audience participation.
By the 1670s, some Baptist churches were singing both the Psalms and "man-made" songs. This was quite controversial, and many churches split over the "singing controversy." Benjamin Keach, a London pastor, led his church to sing a hymn after the Lord’s Supper, and within a few years they were also singing during regular worship services. In 1691, Keach published the first Baptist hymnal, Spiritual Melody, a collection of over three hundred hymns.

The Baptist Name

Many people assume that Baptists got their name from John the Baptist. This is not the case. Like most religious groups, Baptists were named by their opponents. The name comes from the Baptist practice of immersion.
The first known reference to these believers in England as "Baptists" was in 1644. They did not like the name and did not use it of themselves until years later. The early Baptists preferred to be called "Brethren" or "Brethren of the Baptized Way." Sometimes they called themselves the "Baptized Churches." Early opponents of the Baptists often called them Anabaptists or other less complimentary names.
Baptists rejected the name Anabaptist, not wishing to be confused with or identified with the people who bore that name. (In fact, the true Anabaptists were not fond of that name either, because it had unfavorable overtones from early church history.) Even as late as the eighteenth century, many Baptists referred to themselves as "the Christians commonly (tho’ falsely) called Anabaptists."
Perhaps the most startling practice of early English Baptists was their total immersion for baptism after 1640. Crowds would often gather to witness a Baptist immersion service. Some ridiculed, as did Daniel Featley, describing the Baptists as people who "plung’d over head and eares." The nickname "Baptist" was given to describe the people who practiced this strange form of baptism.
Baptists Organized for Witness
An observer today may find it hard to imagine Baptists before they were organized! However, the Baptist structure or denomination evolved gradually over a period of years to meet needs as they arose.
The Association.–The oldest form of organization, beyond the local church, was the association, and it remains a vital part of Baptist denominational structure today.
From the first, Baptists entered into fellowship and common cause with other believers who shared their faith. As early as 1624 and again in 1630, several General Baptist churches in London acted together in discussing doctrine and in corresponding with other believers. Though they had no formal association, they showed a sense of cooperation and common identity.
By 1650, the Baptist association was well established. The name and geographical concept probably were adaptations of a civil unit in England, much like a county. During the English Civil War (1642-45), much of the country was divided into "associations" for political purposes. After the war Baptists continued to use this concept and name for their regional fellowship of churches. The associations were extremely important to early Baptists. They provided Christian fellowship, a forum for discussion of Baptist concerns, a means to propagate Baptist teachings, and an effective way to monitor and maintain correct Baptist doctrine among the churches. Associations also participated together in common causes, such as issuing confessions of faith and working for religious liberty.
The General Assembly.–Each branch of English Baptists called its national organization the General Assembly. Composed of representatives from the various churches and associations, these General Assemblies usually met in London. General Baptists were first to develop this national organization, with evidence of such a body by 1653. This would correspond roughly to a national convention today.
Function.-What was the purpose of these organizations, and what did they do? They provided fellowship, counsel, and comfort to Baptists who lived during difficult days of persecution. General and Particular Baptists developed sharply different concepts of the function and authority of the denominational meetings. In a 1678 confession, General Baptists said,
General councils, or assemblies, consisting of Bishops, Elders, and Brethren, of the several churches of Christ . . . make but one church. . . . And to such a meeting, or assembly, appeals ought to be made, in case any injustice be done, or heresy, and schism countenanced, in any particular congregation of Christ.
These Baptists considered a meeting of the General Assembly to be a meeting of "The General Baptist Church," with full authority to do "churchly" acts. They also gave the denomination a certain amount of jurisdiction or control over local congregations. Particular Baptists, on the other hand, never allowed an association or their General Assembly to become "The Church" or to do churchly acts. They leaned over backwards to protect the freedom of the local church and prevent the denomination from interfering in their affairs. In their Second London Confession (1677), Particular Baptists dealt with the question of how to handle problems that arose in local churches. The confession stated:
In cases of difficulties or differences, . . . it is according to the mind of Christ, that many Churches holding communion together, do by their messengers meet to consider, and give their advice in, or about that matter in difference, to be reported to all the Churches concerned; howbeit these messengers assembled, are not entrusted with any Church-power properly so called; or with any jurisdiction over the Churches themselves . . . or to impose their determination on the Churches, or Officers.
This clearly protected the autonomy of the local church and refused to allow the denomination or its leaders any control.

Baptists New and Old

The story of Baptist beginnings forms a paradox. On one hand, Baptists are deeply convinced that theirs is a Bible faith, rooted in the message of Jesus Christ and the apostles. To that extent, Baptists can be called a New Testament church. On the other hand, the historical evidence clearly states that Baptists originated, as a distinct denomination, in the early seventeenth century. How does one harmonize the sense of continuity from Bible times with the factual reality of more recent beginnings? Some have so emphasized the sense of continuity from Bible times that they find it difficult to face up to historical facts about Baptist origins. Some have even erected elaborate schemes, or "Trails of Blood," seeking to trace Baptists through all the centuries from Christ to the present. These theories are based upon assumptions, unreliable or nonexistent historical data, or faulty interpretation of Jesus’ promise that the gates of death should never prevail against his church. A Baptist today can have a real sense of identification with the teachings of Christ without trying to prove historical succession.
Other Baptists, however, may so emphasize the recent origin of Baptists that they lose the sense of continuity in faith and practice from Jesus himself. The earliest Baptists recovered and proclaimed anew the old faith that has come down the centuries from the Lord and his apostles. The Baptist denomination dates from the seventeenth century; the Baptist faith, we believe, dates from the first century.

Conclusion

Baptists originated in England in a time of intense religious reform. They sought to recover and proclaim the faith of the New Testament as first given by Jesus and his apostles. Since then they have spread their teachings and churches in many lands and many cultures. They have never wavered from that original desire to hold and proclaim the simple faith of the New Testament church.

H. Leon McBeth is retired professor of church history, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas.© Copyright 1979. All rights reserved.

Saturday, February 10, 2007

The Growing Threat of Islam

I am sure that most of my blog readers are familiar with the ministry of James White, of Alpha and Omega Ministries. The AOMIN Site is one of the most informative Christian sites on the Internet. The live webcast, The Diving Line, is amongst the best for any serious Bible student. I cannot think of anyone else, or any other ministry that has been more helpful to me, and my understanding of the Scriptures, than James White and the folks at AOMIN. On a recent visit to the AOMIN site, I came across the following link. Now granted, the story is now rather dated. It happened in 2002. But it is one of those stories that very easily slips under the radar screen. Now, most of you know I live in the Peoples Republic of Canada. That huge country to the north of politically correct wild eyed socialist. We do not think that it can happen in the good old United States of America. It can. It will. And has probably already happened.
Protest Islam? That's a hate crime!
Maybe it had something to do with Sept. 11. Maybe it had something to do with the beheadings. Maybe it had something to do with what is written in the Quran. But Canadian Pastor Mark Harding doesn't believe the Muslim religion is one of peace. So when his local high school started handing out copies of the Quran and announced a policy of setting aside a room for Muslim students to pray during school hours, Pastor Harding protested. Didn't think it was a good idea – especially since Christian, Jewish, and Buddhist kids weren't afforded the same opportunity.
After losing an appeal to Canada's Supreme Court Oct. 17, 2002, Harding was said to have "willfully promoted hatred" in violation of Canadian law that had just passed six months earlier. He was then forced to undergo two years probation and 340 hours of "community service" at the Islamic Society of North America in Mississauga, Ontario.
So, for the "crime" of handing out leaflets protesting a high school's pro-Muslim policy, Pastor Harding was ordered to do community service to further the very religion he morally opposed.
Harding, an evangelical Protestant, says his evangelism is motivated by love for the Muslim people (rather than hate). In fact, in a phone call used as "evidence" against him in the trial, Harding verbalizes that he loves them. He says he wants them to go to heaven. Yet he received more than 3,000 hate-filled calls – many of them death threats. Some motioned by running their finger across their neck from ear to ear. Upon entering court for his trial, he required police protection from a large crowd of Muslims who were chanting, "Infidels, you will burn in hell." Of course, that speech is loving.
Harding said, "I had a call from someone who said they were from (Louis) Farrakhan's (Nation of Islam) group, and they were going to break my legs." Adding, "Another caller said he would rip out my testicles." Can't you just feel the love?
But instead of just "stuffing envelopes" to promote the Muslim faith, his punishment included Islam indoctrination under the direction of Mohammad Ashraf, the general secretary of the Islam center. Under penalty of going to jail, Harding was forced to undergo Islamic "re-education," which included reading a book called "Towards Understanding Islam," by Sayyid Abul A'la Maududi, which provided a description of one who does not follow Islam, referred to as an infidel or a "kafir":
"Such a man ... will spread confusion and disorder on the earth," the book says. "He will, without the least compunction, shed blood, violate other men's rights, be cruel to them, and create disorder and destruction in the world. His perverted thoughts and ambitions, his blurred vision and disturbed scale of values, and his evil-spelling activities would make life bitter for him and for all around him."
"It was obvious that he intended to make sure I understood that I was a kafir," said Harding, who was forbidden from voicing any objections or saying anything negative about Islam or its prophet, Muhammad.
Harding, who had been prevented from speaking publicly about his case under a gag order, told WorldNetDaily: "He said he was my supervisor, and if I didn't follow what he said, he would send me back to jail."
Harding, 49, has suffered four heart attacks since 1997 and is unable to work in his cabinet-making trade because of his poor health. Yet he must travel three-hours to the Islamic Society of North America to complete his sentence. His attorney has entered a plea based on humanitarian grounds, due to her client's poor health, to allow him to complete his sentence at an Islam Center closer to his home. Isn't that nice? Perhaps, if he's lucky, he can be indoctrinated closer to home.
And speaking of indoctrination, thanks to the city council in Hamtramck, that shrill siren from Muslim mosques is now blasted five times a day just outside of Detroit. Whether your child is sleeping or you're on an important call, for about 15 minutes every day it's going to sound like a tornado drill outside your suburban Detroit home or business beginning at 6 a.m. until 10 p.m. so the Muslims will know when to pray. But if you were to ring church bells – which typically play music for two minutes once a week – in a Muslim country, you could be shot.
As Christians, how do we respond to the growing influence of Islam in our country. The media and the politicians tell us that Islam is a religion of peace. It is not. The conquest of Islam was through the sword. And yet we in the West gag a pastor who dares speak about the true nature of Islam and call it hate speech. In the early 1970s I worked with the local churches in a Muslim country. I met people who would later give their lives because of their faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. The Quran is very specific about how one is to treat those who would dare leave Islam and embrace Christianity. The Quran specifically states that they are not to have Christians or Jews as their friends.

Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah. Except by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah. (Surah 3:28)

The Quran specifically states they are to make war upon Christian Jews, and if need be, kill them if they do not embrace the prophet of Islam in his message.

Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. But if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression. (Sura 2:190-193)
The Quran is a polemic against the Christian faith. Islam by its very nature promotes violence against those who refuse to accept the message of the prophet Mohammed. Now to be sure, the majority of Muslims in our community want to live in peace and harmony with their neighbors. They love their children the same way I love my children. They go to work and contribute to the well-being of their community. But we need to understand that Islam will never be a religion of peace until the whole world is Muslim.

How should we respond as believers? Jesus has told us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. We should be willing to befriend our Muslim neighbors. And we should be willing to give a reason for the hope that is in us. Many however have not taken the time to understand the issues. As believers we need to be equipped so that we can answer the questions that Muslims may ask us. This means that we as Christians must be very clear about what we believe ourselves concerning the person and work of Christ, as well as the integrity of the Scriptures. He cannot afford to have any fuzzy thinking on either one of these. It means we have to do our homework.

Friday, February 02, 2007

Who Needs Preaching When You Have the Super Bowl?

or what you win them with is what you win them to

Falls Creek Baptist Church Guilty of Pulpit Crimes
Substituting Biblical Preaching for Preaching the Word of God

This almost flew under the radar screen. I found this first on CNN, and then in Indianapolis Star.

NFL's lawyers sack church's game plan
February 1, 2007

The thousands of churches across the country that want to host Super Bowl parties Sunday night had better not pull out big-screen TVs, or they could face the wrath of NFL attorneys.

The NFL is telling Fall Creek Baptist Church in Indianapolis that the church's plans to use a wall projector to show the game at a party for church members and guests would violate copyright laws. NFL officials spotted a promotion of Fall Creek's "Super Bowl Bash" on the church Web site last week and sent pastor John D. Newland a letter -- via FedEx overnight -- demanding the party be cancelled. Initially, the league objected to the church's plan to charge partygoers a fee to attend and that the church used the license-protected words "Super Bowl" in its promotions. But the NFL wouldn't bite. It objected to the church's plans to use a projector to show the game on what effectively was a 12-foot-wide screen. It said the law limits the church to one TV no bigger than 55 inches.

Now the following is on The Falls Creek Baptist Church’s website:

Fall Creek Baptist Church Family...
We regret to inform you that we have had to cancel our bash to view the Colts game this Sunday in a family friendly environment due to the fact that the NFL believes we would be in violation of the Copyright Act, because we had planned to show the game on a screen bigger than a 55 inch diagonal. We have appealed to their legal counsel and exhausted all options without success. We have been informed that the only exceptions to view the game are given to sports bars and restaurants. While we have argued that we only intend to provide a family oriented environment that will make no profit from the showing, the NFL claims that our event cannot proceed by law. Therefore, we have no choice but to challenge this in court or cancel the event. We choose to cancel the event. We deeply regret that we have been prohibited by the NFL from providing a family friendly environment for celebrating the Colts great season.Pastor John

Now what is wrong with this picture? Wasn’t it just two years ago everyone was beside themselves because Janet Jackson exposed her breast during the half time show? It seems to me that the last thing any church should be doing is promoting an event whose sole purpose is to keep people out of the house of God and worshiping the one true God and worship a bunch of over paid, over sexed, self absorbed men. Churches that promote such events do nothing to bring glory to the Kingdom of God. This is nothing more than idolatry.

I sent the following E-mail to the Pastor of the Falls Creek Baptist Church:

Dear Pastor John

Yes, it is too bad about the Super Bowl, you might have actually had to prepare a sermon. You might actually have had to tell people they may be lost and in need of a Saviour. Doesn't the bible have something to say about the foolishness of preaching? Church is not about entertaining the masses. It is amazing that men like Edwards and Spurgeon preached the word and saw people saved. But that is so old fashioned. Preaching a sermon on "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" is so passé. I am sure that such a sermon might empty a church and it seems that many in the SBC are concerned about numbers. No wonder Tom Ascol has lamented that about 90% of the membership of our Baptist Churches are unregenerate. I think is a shameful thing when a Pastor will opt out of preaching the glorious truth of the Gospel and replace it with an idolatress pagan event that will glorify drunkenness and fornication. The church is to be salt and light.

In Christ



Stephen L. Atkins
Scarborough, Ontario


When churches will abandon expostion of God's word for entertainment it truly is a sign that God's heavey hand of judgement upon those churches. Icabod - teh Gloy has departed