The King James Only Controversy:
I have been in 3 churches since the Lord was pleased to save me, the last 2 of them as a pastor. The first church was when I was not a pastor, but did teach Sunday School, and preached occasionally. It was a church that used the KJV of the bible, but neither I or the pastor was hardcore KJV Only. The second church was the first church I pastored. For the sake of some long time members in that small church, I used the King James version for sermons, but after I was there a year or two, I began using the NKJV for Scripture Readings. My third church, which is the one I'm pastoring now in Idaho, does not use the KJV. We offically use the NASB for our sermons, and the ESV many times when quoting other scriptures.
I know some of my long time Christian friends from Maryland are KJV Only. I am not. I think it is an issue that we can agree to disagree on, but it seems there may be some that cannot. In the not so distant future, I'll post on the Blog why I cannot hold to the KJV Only position. I know that there is at least one church in our town that is KJV Only, an independent fundamental baptist church. I love my KJV Only brethren, but if we cannot aggree to disagree in a civil Christ-like manner, I guess we'll just have to part fellowship, even though it is limited fellowship via e-mail and the internet.
Are Any Presbyterian Churches Biblical Churches?
Another issue I have been dealing with via Paltalk, is whether any of the Presbyterian Churches are biblical churches. I say it this way, because I am not referring to those who believe infant baptism is salvific in whole or part. I'm referring to those who baptize infants but do not believe it is salvific in anyway, but just sets them apart in to the covenant family (something that 1Cor. 7:14 says happens with at least one believing parent "without" baptizing the infant). Acts 2:38-47 is often used by Baptists to say that believers baptism only, along with Sola Fide (faith alone) is what makes a biblical church and therefore means Presbies are not biblical churches. However I think it is a stretch to say that, when verse 47 says "and they that are being saved were added to the church daily." Therefore I just cannot agree at this time that Presbyterian Churches that do not believe infant baptism is salvific in any way (or those like them) are not biblical churches. I realize that those who do, still count them as "brethren" but I think it could be a dangerous slippery slope to eventually holding that they are not Christians. Again: and they that are being saved were added to the church daily. It is salvation by grace through faith alone in the Person and Work of Christ alone, that saves, and therefore is the model for church membership, IMHO ;-)
I have been in 3 churches since the Lord was pleased to save me, the last 2 of them as a pastor. The first church was when I was not a pastor, but did teach Sunday School, and preached occasionally. It was a church that used the KJV of the bible, but neither I or the pastor was hardcore KJV Only. The second church was the first church I pastored. For the sake of some long time members in that small church, I used the King James version for sermons, but after I was there a year or two, I began using the NKJV for Scripture Readings. My third church, which is the one I'm pastoring now in Idaho, does not use the KJV. We offically use the NASB for our sermons, and the ESV many times when quoting other scriptures.
I know some of my long time Christian friends from Maryland are KJV Only. I am not. I think it is an issue that we can agree to disagree on, but it seems there may be some that cannot. In the not so distant future, I'll post on the Blog why I cannot hold to the KJV Only position. I know that there is at least one church in our town that is KJV Only, an independent fundamental baptist church. I love my KJV Only brethren, but if we cannot aggree to disagree in a civil Christ-like manner, I guess we'll just have to part fellowship, even though it is limited fellowship via e-mail and the internet.
Are Any Presbyterian Churches Biblical Churches?
Another issue I have been dealing with via Paltalk, is whether any of the Presbyterian Churches are biblical churches. I say it this way, because I am not referring to those who believe infant baptism is salvific in whole or part. I'm referring to those who baptize infants but do not believe it is salvific in anyway, but just sets them apart in to the covenant family (something that 1Cor. 7:14 says happens with at least one believing parent "without" baptizing the infant). Acts 2:38-47 is often used by Baptists to say that believers baptism only, along with Sola Fide (faith alone) is what makes a biblical church and therefore means Presbies are not biblical churches. However I think it is a stretch to say that, when verse 47 says "and they that are being saved were added to the church daily." Therefore I just cannot agree at this time that Presbyterian Churches that do not believe infant baptism is salvific in any way (or those like them) are not biblical churches. I realize that those who do, still count them as "brethren" but I think it could be a dangerous slippery slope to eventually holding that they are not Christians. Again: and they that are being saved were added to the church daily. It is salvation by grace through faith alone in the Person and Work of Christ alone, that saves, and therefore is the model for church membership, IMHO ;-)
Comments
"Acts 2:38-47 is often used by Baptists to say that believers baptism only, along with Sola Fide (faith alone) is what makes a biblical church and therefore means Presbies are not biblical churches. However I think it is a stretch to say that, when verse 47 says "and they that are being saved were added to the church daily."
Bein a Baptist,I know that what makes a scriptural Church goes beyond what is stated in one passage of God's word.The Founding of The Church & Its Founder,The Nature of The Church,The Officers of The Church,The Polity of The Church,The Perpetuity of The Church,The Ordinances of The Church,The Autonomy of The Church...etc.All these things are involved in what constitutes a scriptural "Church".
Surely the Ordinances of The Church are an esential element in what constitutes a Biblical Assembly,and Baptism IS an ordinance of The Church.I, as most Baptists, believe that the scriptures teach that at least ALL of three things are essential to a scriptural baptism;A Scriptural Subject,A Scriptural Authority, and A Scriptural Mode.Any one of these three things lacking leaves a baptism as being no baptism at all.A Scriptural Subject,is a believer,A Scriptural Mode,is immersion,A Scriptural Authority,is a legitimate assembly.What makes an assembly legitimate is that it is operating under the authority of Christ.One cannot be operating under the authority of Christ while at the same time going contrary to HIS established ordinances, as clearly set forth in His word.
Acts 2:38-47 teaches at least two things.1.Those baptised in that particular instance WERE believers,they WERE immersed,and that BY a scriptiral authority(The Church that was at Jerusalem as the context will clearly bear out).2.They (those believers who were baptised) were added to "The Church".The Baptism was a scriptural baptism as it included all of the three things listed above.
I would ask but one question.Are any of the three elements that constitute a Scriptural Baptism lacking in that which calls itself a "Church"? If so they are not operating upon Christs authority, but thier OWN authority, & can therefore be no church.
If this message is not cleared then use it for your own information, but know this.We can go into numerous references that show these same three things as being consistent with the Acts passage and to my knowledge no Baptist would dare hang his doctrinal hat on the one reference though it is sufficient as a refutation to the practice of the paedo baptist.As well know this.No padeo baptist has EVER been able to show ONE scriptural reference to infant baptism either implicit or explicit.It's ALL based on assumption.I myself am not willing to accept assumption as an hemenutical principle to the dismisal of the overabundant clear teaching of God's word.Can you?
Yours in Christ
Michael
Thank you for replying. It has been a couple of weeks since I posted this. I probably would not have known about your response, except that I receive a copy of all copies by e-mail.
I assume that you are the same Michael from Paltalk, aka Bloodbought, the owner of the Historic Baptist Room.
You make a compelling argument, but I'm still not convinced that your arrival at a paedobaptist
'church' not being a 'biblical' church based on the Scriptural authority argument has a 'scriptural' connection.
You said: "They (those believers who were baptised) were added to The Church." But Acts 2:47 doesn't say that. It says: "Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved. In my opinion an assumption is made that because Peter and Co. baptized believers which is mentioned in our man made verse divisions 9 verses earlier, that this means that only those who baptize believers my immersion constitutes a biblical church. Indeed they did baptize believers by immersion, but the Inspired Luke does not say that it is necessary to be a biblical church. The local church is built on "they that are being saved." To make the stretch to include baptism, could logically bring one to the conclusion that paedobaptist are not saved, because they are allegedly not part of the church and one has to be saved to be part of the church. You point appears logical, but it makes 'jumps of assumption' with scriptural support imo.
You also said: "No padeo baptist has EVER been able to show ONE scriptural reference to infant baptism either implicit or explicit.It's ALL based on assumption.I myself am not willing to accept assumption as an hemenutical principle to the dismisal of the overabundant clear teaching of God's word." I agree with you here. When it comes to the timing and mode of baptism, I'm a baptist, baptizing believers by immersion only. Now if you, or anyone else wants to say that just because I and the church I serve at are not Baptist because we won't say that paedobaptists are not biblical churches, that's up to you, for it matters not. I also know that some Baptists and you (if you are the Michael from Paltalk) do not believe a church is Baptist if they hold to Elder church government. That too doesn't matter, and we are convinced that the word of God supports Elder church government. But that discussion is for another time. Thanks for chiming in...
Pastor/Elder Bret Lovitz
Grace Fellowship
www.gracefellowshipmh.org
"You point appears logical, but it makes 'jumps of assumption'
with[out] scriptural support imo."
Sorry, forgot how to edit the replies ;-)
The text in question is Acts 2, and the early funtioning of the church at Jerusalem. We should note Acts 2:41-42 "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." There is a chronological order to things in this passage...
#1. they received the word
#2. they were baptized
#3. they were added unto them three thousand people
#4. they continued in doctrine
#5. they were partaking of bread and prayers
Later Luke concludes that the Lord was adding to them daily as should be saved. It is most evident from reading Acts that immediately after people were saved, the first act in their new life was baptism. It would be a far stretch from scripture to say there were those being saved and not baptized. The very message of the Apostles was Acts 2:38 "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."
I am amazed at the incredible emphasis placed on baptism in the book of Acts. It seems baptism was the first true identifying mark of those who had been saved. Also note the importance of immediate baptism. No wasted time is found anywhere in Acts. It would be copntrary to every example in the book of Acts to say people were receiving the word and not being baptized that very day.
If baptism was so extremely important in the life of those early fellowships, and displayed that way clearly to us in scripture, why do we make every effort to deduce it's meaning and importance today?
Joey
But I would like to escalate this to another issue within baptist circles that you touched on.
How quickly should we baptize believers after they have believed?
I think the three of us would agree with the problems in churches today, both Baptist and otherwise with the invitation system/altar call, watered down gospel presentations etc. In light of that are some Baptist Churches correct or incorrect, under liberty or sinning, when they want to wait to see evidence of someones profession of faith?
I don't remember about your church Joey, and I don't know about Michael's church, but we do not have an "altar call" at our church. The building we use is a building that the Air Force used years ago, and then a "Church of God." So we do not have a built in baptistry, but we do have a portable one.
On one hand, by the grace of God I have confidence that we proclaim the biblical gospel. And like those that heard Peter in Acts 2, and the Philippian Jailer that heard Paul in Acts 16, when God regenerates the heart through the gospel, no altar call is needed.
Yet on the other hand, with the modern, compromised gospel that so many are exposed to, even before they come to our churches, should we go ahead and baptize them immediately?
In other words, is it the goal of the church to baptize regenerated believers, or those who made a profession of faith?
Is the situation with Simon the Sorcerer in Acts 8:9-24 an example that we should baptize immediately those who make a profession of faith in Christ? Or is it there for our admonition to learn from it?
Two real life examples in our church: 1) A young adult woman came to our church a few months ago and made a verbal profession of faith to several in our congregation including me, after the service. Should we have baptized her immediately? She never came back to our church. We found out that she has made several professions of faith in the past. She also ended up marrying a man 32 years older than her from a "Church of Christ" in town and was baptized there and has been going to that church. 2) A teenager that is a school friend of one of our teenagers in church. They had discussions, and he eventually came to our church a few times when he didn't have to be at his church, an Episcopol Church in town where his father is very active and preparing to become a priest there. As a result (as far as the means go) of his dicussion with our teenager, and the several messages he heard, he says he believes in faith in Christ alone, as well as the rest of the doctrines of sovereign grace. He was "sprinkled" as an infant in the Episcopol Church and has not yet embraced believers baptism by immersion only. If/once he sees believers baptism by immersion, would you baptize him immediately? I had a meeting with his father for the first time a week or two ago. Right now the father is allowing him to "explore" other "religious" beliefs in "Christianity" more from ecumentical perspective, believing that the differences aren't that great, and subtly implied that he is going through a phase and will come back to the Episcopol Church.
While I certainly agree that the examples we have in Scripture in Acts show immediate baptism of belivers, is that a mandate/ command for churches today to do that? Do your churches do that? Am I sinning by waiting?
I look forward to your replies.
Your fellow laborer in Christ...
Once it is (if it is)established that Legitimate Baptism is by Immersion,the subject is a Believer, and the Authority is a Legitimate Church, it is all downhill from there.Seems we agree that the scriptures are clear on that point and that this is what they teach and allow for nothing else.R.L Dabney, (A Presbyterian and no fanatical Baptist), has some interesting comments on the consequences of one's holding to this position, & by your post just today you have made it plain that this is the position that you hold, which i am in agreement with, as far as the legitimacy of what it is that constitutes a scriptural baptism.
Mr. Dabney writes "All parties are agreed, that baptism is the initiatory rite which gives membership in the visible church of Christ"
If what Mr. Dabney says is true then folks become members of churches via baptism & i believe that is true.If they are not baptized, then, they are NOT members of a church.Since the padeobabtists have not been baptised they have no church.Simple as that.
But let me propose another question to you.Can one who is NOT baptised partake of The Lord's Supper? Of course not.Now you have a people who have no right to the 2cnd ordinance of Christ because they have not yet been obediant to the 1st.
Another proposal.Baptism is an act of obediance is it not?Can a body of folk all in dis-obediance & therefore not under the authority of Christ claim to be the representative of Christ?
Once you establish that Baptism is according to scripture alone you run into all kinds of difficulties.Difficulties or not,this is the position that i hold to.
BTW.....tis I....Bloodbought
Article 1 in section 10 in the WCF on Baptism:
I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;[2] but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.[8]
BB
With the before mentioned prescription from Michael about three essentials for scriptural baptism, any of the three leave many presbyterians without baptism, not just the last point. They willingly baptize the known unregenerate, error one. They knowingly observe the wrong mode, error two. The third has been pointed out already.
I'm very narrow minded about scripture. I'm fanatical enough to thing it trumps man's logical reasoning. Author Unknown - "Every jot of truth is more precious than fillings of gold."
The charge of diobedience is just that... disobedience. That which is contrary to obedience. Ignorance is no excuse for disobedience... for if it is, then multitudes must be lifted from the torments of hell and drawn to heaven's glory for they never heard the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ in their lifetime.
Dangerous conclusions are set forth in the above post.
This kind of reasoning sounds familiar.Building a doctrine or forming an opinion on what the scriptures DO NOT teach.
Ty for clearing that up.
BB
But only if one equivocates being a member of a local assembly with salvation. I'm sure there will be Brethren in glory who never joined a local church in this life, for whatever reason, yet they were saved by grace through faith just as we are.
"Every sin is disobedience. Every Christian still sins. Does that mean that no Christians belong to a legitimate church, since there is still disobedience in every Christian’s life to some level?"
This comment is a strawman. The Biblical prescription for joining a church is clearly set forth, and that is the context at hand. For one to disregard scripture as far as what it takes for someone to be a member of a local assembly, then it's only obvious they're not a member of a local assembly. The means by which someone is legitimately placed into a local assembly is the context. To broaden it to all areas of sin as you've said is a strawman at best, as it has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with the means by which someone joins a church.
If Lowes Lumber Company says to be a member of their Lumber Company I must pay $50 directly to them, then I MUST do that to be a member. I can't give $30 to Hick's and say I'm a member at Lowes. The same is true of the Lord's churches. As many as believed were baptized, and they were added unto them. To neglect the scriptural means by which church membership finds it's ends is to be without membership. Being baptized into the fellowship of the church is the means by which God has ordained entrance to the church. Again, let me point out with clarity, membership in a local assembly does not save or justify. Faith has but one object, and that is the person and work of Jesus Christ. If one were to be trusting in baptism, local church membership, the partaking of the Lord's Supper, or any other religous act, then that faith carries not with it the forensic nature of Biblical justification.
Rock
Online churches