Tuesday, April 25, 2006

Why Fundamentalism Must Be Defined in the SBC

Words are meaningless without definitions. Vocabulary is the foundation of all communication, and unless the meaning of words is properly defined, effective communication is impossible. Such is the word "Fundamentalism."

John Piper's newest book Contending for Our All highlights the life of Dr. Gresham Machen, Professor of New Testament at Princeton University in the early part of the last century. Dr. Machen was fired at Princeton, and later stripped of his ordination in the Presbyterian Church USA for "insubordination." It seems he questioned various policies of the Presbyterian USA Mission Board, which led to his censure and eventually the formation of an alternative missions sending agency begun by Machen.

Dr. Machen also founded Westminster Seminary just a few months before his unexpected death on New Year's Day, 1936 at the young age of 55. He died a hero by the Fundamentalists of his day because of his "insistence on defending great doctrines that had come under particular attack by vigorously defending the truth."

However, Machen did not like being called a "Fundamentalist." Listen to his own words:

"Do you suppose that I do regret my being called by a term that I greatly dislike, a "Fundamentalist?" Most certainly I do. But in the presence of a great common foe (liberalism), I have little time to be attacking my brethren who stand with me in defense of the Word of God." (Stonehouse, J. Gresham Machen, p. 337).

Piper gives seven reasons why Machen never spoke of himself as a Fundamentalist.

To Machen, Fundamentalism meant. . .

(1). The absence of historical perspective;
(2). The lack of appreciation of scholarship;
(3). The substitution of brief, skeletal creeds for the historic confessions;
(4). The lack of concern with precise formulation of Christian doctrine;
(5). The pietistic, perfectionist tendencies (i.e., hang-ups with smoking, drinking alchohol, etc . . );
(6). One-sided otherworldliness (i.e., a lack of effort to transform the culture), and,
(7). A penchant for futuristic chiliasm (or: premillennialism).

Machen was on "the other side" of all seven of these issues, yet God used him greatly to preserve conservative evangelicalism within his beloved Presbyterian denomination. He is the epitome of a conservative evangelical who could not be considered a "Fundamentalist."

May God grant the grace and wisdom needed to see that within our Southern Baptist Convention there are thousands of pastors and people who share the same spirit of Machen --- warmly conservative and fervently evangelical --- but not "Fundamentalists" as defined by Machen.

The SBC is large enough for all of us who are conservative and evangelical to cooperate together. Will our Fundamentalist brethren within the SBC, with whom we sided in the liberal debates of yesteryear, stand willing to cooperate with those of us who disagree with them on periphery issues?

We should know more where we stand as a convention by June 15th.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson


Villa Rica said...

Brother Wade,

I have always defined myself as a conservative evangelical. Often, in doing so, others did not know what I meant. I pointed out the tenents of such and many SBC people that I spoke to relating to this matter stated they were the same.

My point is that I believe many, if not most SBC folks are conservative evangelicals and not true fundamentalist.

Great post.

Villa Rica

yes2truth aka Charles Crosby said...

Hello Mr Burleson,

You said:

"Words are meaningless without definitions. Vocabulary is the foundation of all communication, and unless the meaning of words is properly defined, effective communication is impossible. Such is the word "Fundamentalism.""

This is true when speaking of any man made written document, but not true when speaking of The Word of God. The Word of God is like no other written document for it was written by God through human vessels and can only be discerned by the indwelling of The Holy Spirit in men. When the authorised or KJV version fails it fails because it has been contaminated by evil men. We then need to refer to the original Hebrew and Greek in order to find out what God was really saying to us.

With that in mind the word 'fundamentalism' categorises itself, for it is a man made word which I have always attributed to people who are sick and tired of liberals intellectualising the Word of God and making it to none effect, but because these 'fundamentalists' don't understand The Truth either, they through their emotionalism, then create a whole load of errors of their own.

The best example of this was the Puritans in 17th century England. A more legalistic bunch of people you would struggle to find. They were just a living knee jerk response to the papist blasphemies of their King.

The problem here, as it continues to this day, was that two wrongs never make a right! It's either religion or legalism or in the worst cases a miry mix of both; er Roman Catholicism and those who seek unity with it.


Scotte Hodel said...

You recently wrote that you dislike blogging and that you hope to stop soon. I understand, but I want to say that this post is one of the reasons I very much enjoy your writing.

Anonymous said...


In this blog, you're stopping too soon in looking only at what happened in Machen's lifetime. Check out Francis Schaeffer's 'The Church Before the Watching World' for "the rest of the story." Many people forget that Schaeffer was one of those students involved in the founding of Westminster, then left and went with the premill splinter group to start Faith Seminary. In that book, he recounts the sad outworking of a totally disastrous testimony as fellow "Fundamentalists" verbally bit, devoured and consumed one another (Gal. 5:15).

You must have the historical perspective to look beyond Piper's third and fourth reasons related to Machen and see what happened immediately thereafter. What Machen saw didn't last long. These two points were completely turned upside down... and that is what is going on in the SBC right now.

(3). The substitution of brief, skeletal creeds for the historic confessions;
(4). The lack of concern with precise formulation of Christian doctrine;

You would be dealing in half-truth stereotype and incredibly short-sighted if you were to think that smart Fundamentalists (and there are quite a few) are ever satisfied for very long with "skeletal" doctrinal statments and imprecise doctrinal formulation. The second phase of Fundamentalism is when creedal nit-pickiness is used as a weapon of exclusion/control. Machen died too early to see it, but it unquestionably happened nevertheless... and it is happening again in the SBC right before our eyes... and it is starting to have the same destructive impact on our testimony "before the watching world" that Schaeffer described.

Sadly, once again, we learn the tragic lesson that about the only thing that we have learned from history is that we have not learned from history. And, so, unless a whole lot of folks wake up very quickly to what is happening in regard to the current stealth strategy of militant "creeping creedal" SBC Fundamentalism, we appear doomed to repeat the same tragic mistakes which made mid-20th century Fundamentalism a laughing stock and complete non-factor in the culture.

Prayerfully, you are the man to give the wake-up call,

Bob Cleveland said...

Labels are handy but we tend to over-use them. That stems, IMHO, from the same place that produces racial and national prejudice.

We cannot apply the generalities of the masses to anyone in particular.

If I were red-headed, it would be a big mistake to think that I was automatically hot-tempered, regardless of what percentage of redheads were. You cannot deny me my right to be an individual, based on any such criteria.

I often tell folks, when they ask what "variety" of believer I am, that I'm a Pentecostal Calvinistic Southern Baptist. We now have several areas to discuss, and they then, immediately, know several things about me. But surely not everything.

Let the labels flow. But let the unwarranted assumptions stop.

Anonymous said...

Wow! Yes to truth (y2t) hit the nail on the head as he said two wrongs never made a right. Of course that wasn’t original with him, but what he applied it to was great. Continuing to this day applies more that Catholicism.
Early in the 1900’s Atheist proclaimed there was no God because the Bible was not perfect. (That’s one wrong.) Fundamentalist proclaimed there was God because the Bible was perfect. That’s the second wrong because in a true-false test if any part of a statement is false, the statement must be checked false.
God exist because “I Am!” God’s existence does not depend upon the Bible being perfect or anything else.
Others took the Fundamentalist “Perfect” and improved it to “Inerrant” and rode it to win the SBC.
Wade, you wrote that Machen did not like being called a “Fundamentalist.” He could sympathies with those stuck with the name ‘Moderate.” In the political field we see Conservatives fighting it out with Moderates. In my opinion, in the religious field, those names have been REVERSED.
One definition of ‘conservative’ is the resistance to change. Which group is always preaching change? Change to stay up with what God is doing. Change to stay on the ‘cutting edge.’ Changed all names except the WMU. (Hooray for women.) The rules of yesterday are not good enough today.
Some still sing, “I shall not be moved.” As a kid, I wondered what one verse meant when it said, “Though the church is moving, I shall not be moved.” Now that I’m 74, I think I know.
Rex Ray

Anonymous said...

Bro. Wade,

I was made aware of the situation at the IMB in February amd have been gathering information ever since. I just transitioned to a new church in late March as a pastor so I've been quieter than I normally would have.

Let me just say thank you for your efforts to keep the the Convention (by that I mean the people that make up His churches)informed. The more we know, the more able we are to make any necessary changes.

This post is a fair assessment of Fundamentalism as it is commonly expressed in our churches. I may be in agreement with much of the insistence doctrinal orthodoxy, but the extra baggage and rigidity that comes with it is more than I can comfortably go along with.

As much as I want to, I am unable to come to the Convention due to my new church scheduling VBS that same week. However, know that my wife and I are praying for you and the future of the SBC that may be decided in Greensboro. I pray that you will be able to bring home a good report.

Pursuing Answers to Questions of Faith & Life,

Pastor Kelly Reed
1 Peter 3:15

blaize said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jeff Richard Young said...

Dear Y2T,

Have you read the writings of the English Puritans to whom you refer, or are you basing your evaluation on some generalizations that you have heard? From the little I have read of their writings so far, I do not share your evaluation.

Love in Christ,


Kevin Bussey said...

I had a Seminary Prof that said a fundamentalist was an "evangelical" that was angry.

wadeburleson.org said...


By all means ASK to be a messenger.

The church must vote on you, but they'll not know of your desire to attend unless you tell them.

Anonymous said...

OK. So would someone define what a creed is? Not a particular creed as "The Nicene Creed or "The Apostles Creed". Please define for me what a "creed" is and is not. My dictionary defines a creed as "A formal statement of religious beliefs or doctrine." That sure sounds a lot like a document that a person might have to fully agree with in order to be fully accepted into an particular religious entity. On another note, I believe many will come away from Greensboro with a fuller more meaningful understanding of what the conservative/fundamentalist "resurgent" movement really is about.

Anonymous said...

Fundamentalism is more a worldview attitude than a system of beliefs. In practice, the fundamentalist operates from and communicates the position that "if you are not with us (read as "believe like we do") then we have little ground for cooperation and fellowship.

That is why a non-fundamentalist conservative can hold to the exact same beliefs as a fundamentalist, yet the conservative is not a fundamentalist because he does not apply his beliefs as a litmus test for cooperation and fellowship.

Anonymous said...

Wow! Some thought provoking commentary! The objectivity seen in these posts, I pray will be similarly communicated when the exchanges become verbal and passion is conveyed through non verbal gestures and voice inflection! It would be a wonderful facet of the business sessions at the SBC if this spirit prevails! ............ and I pray that it does!

Patrick, I agree with Pastor Burleson! Let your desire be made known! I hope to see you there..... The Lord willing, ... and our Church did elect most of our messengers tonight at our Quarterly Business Meeting!

yes2truth aka Charles Crosby said...

Hello Mr Young,

You said:

"Have you read the writings of the English Puritans to whom you refer, or are you basing your evaluation on some generalizations that you have heard? From the little I have read of their writings so far, I do not share your evaluation."

Let me state clearly that there are True Believers (those born from above) in all Demon-inations, even in Roman Catholicism, hard as that may seem to take on board, but then this has been the case through the centuries commencing in the first century.

The big problem for the Apostles was not bringing in new converts or making new disciples but protecting them once converted from ravening wolves from outside.
By the end of the first century the Church had been hijacked and these ravening wolves were now in the church, causing divisions which we now call denominations. I call them Demon-inations because they are a living representation of what Our Lord commanded there not to be. "Let there be no divisions amongst you" and "Be ye likeminded"

Puritanism was just another demon-ination as I described in my previous post. Again there would have been many True Believers in their midst. What I have read of Oliver Cromwell tells me he was a man who meant well but he did, with others, sign the King's death warrant, which he should not have done. He obviously had not remembered the story of King Saul and David, i.e. never lay a hand on God's annointed. A monarch is answerable only to God, especially a British monarch.

Apologies, I've digressed. The Puritans were more or less a bunch of legalists who tried to keep The Law. The Ten Commandments were king and they tried to lay the law down, both on their brothers and on all their fellow subjects via the secular statute book - a fatal mistake. Again, they meant well but were totally deceived and misguided. They had a very poor understanding of Grace (if any) and didn't realise that you cannot force God onto unbelievers, they have to be called by the Father to His Son. If they are not called then The Father is obviously not calling them at this time or in this age.

If I remember correctly they tried to do the same thing when they arrived in America, with the same levels of success.

Their writings may be fine, but as you know, it's always "by their fruits you shall know them."


Anonymous said...

I think your platform for the Conventions should be: Vote for Burleson-He puts the FUN back in FUNdamentalism.

The problem is Falwell and the gang hijacked the middle ground that we once called evangelical, and made fundamentalism the new evangelicalism.

Evangelicals had a degree of freedom between the guardrails of orthodoxy, but fundamentalism squelched it, moved in the guardrails, and put up a bunch of one way signs that look strangely similar to fold out charts on premillenial eschatology.

The irony is that the secular world has anyone who believes the bible to be true lumped into the same group anyway, so why can't we just get over it and get to work?

GeneMBridges said...

He obviously had not remembered the story of King Saul and David, i.e. never lay a hand on God's annointed.

The problem, however, is that, a British monarch is subject to a compact with the gentry and with the people. This is biblical as well. The kings of Israel were installed by the tribal elders. I suggest you read through the story of David's installation and reinstallation. As for his not taking Saul's life, remember God put Saul into David's hands and gave him permission to do with him as he wished. David chose not to murder Saul, though Saul's rule at the behest of the elders was nearing its end. He had no commission from the tribal elders, ergo no commission to kill Saul. Saul was also his father-in-law, so to kill him would have been patricide. This isn't nearly the case with Charles I.

To begin, the British Monarch is not a king chosen by a prophet of God and anointed accordingly. Unless you *also* affirm the British monarch is head of the church, the analogy fails this test. In fact, that was part of the conflict between Parliament and Charles. Good Protestants should reject the Pope or any king as head of the church. In the OT, the king was God's representative, the head of both the people and Ruler in God's name. In the NT, there is no such role by any man. That is reserved for Christ. The King or Queen is not an elder in a church, just because they make the claim.

Charles I's death was unfortunate, but he was tried for his crimes. Cromwell did not arbitrarily put him to death. In fact, the High Court sentenced Charles to death on charges of waging war against the Parliament and the People. The charges on this count were several. Then followed these, "All which wicked designs, wars, and evil practices of him, the said Charles Stuart, have been, and are carried on for the advancement and upholding of a personal interest of will, power, and pretended prerogative to himself and his family, against the public interest, common right, liberty, justice, and peace of the people of this nation, by and from whom he was entrusted as aforesaid.

By all which it appeareth that the said Charles Stuart hath been, and is the occasioner, author, and continuer of the said unnatural, cruel and bloody wars; and therein guilty of all the treasons, murders, rapines, burnings, spoils, desolations, damages and mischiefs to this nation, acted and committed in the said wars, or occasioned thereby."

That said, Cromwell's signature was 3rd on the warrant of death, and the Rump Parliament was composed of his supporters. It is also true that Cromwell was not a major figure until 1642, so he had no ongoing score to settle with Charles that was like that of David and Saul. However, it is *also* true that Charles did do these things. He was treated graciously by the Scots for quite some time after the Covenanters rebelled, even after he tried to impose the Book of Common Prayer on the Kirk, and they let him worship at St. Giles as long as he followed Presbyterian order; yet he only turned on them and on Parliament later.

Your analogy is specious. It would mean that any monarch could not be tried for such crimes.

The early Baptists came out of Puritanism. Y2T, you are conflating the Magisterial system of government with Puritanism.

Puritanism was a movement within the Anglican communion. As such, it suffered from Anglicanism's entanglements with state religion, as did all religion of the day, including Presbyterianism. They affirmed a theonomic religion. This isn't legalism; it's theonomy with respect to the First Table of the Law. These are altogether different concepts.

That said, the Particular Baptists were also Puritans. I'd add that Lewis Drummond in his bio of Spurgeon notes that Spurgeon's view of spirituality and morality was classic Puritanism.

As for the Ten Commandments. I imagine you are familar with the Sermon on the Mount. It recapitulates the Law itself. Let's take a look:

Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32, 33-34, 38-39, 40-41. vv. 21-22: "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."
• Moses: "Don't kill."
• Jesus: "Don't hate."

No contradiction there; nothing has changed. Killing is still wrong in the NT, and hatred was wrong in the OT (Leviticus 19:17).

vv. 27-28: "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
• Moses: "No adultery."
• Jesus: "No lust."

No contradiction there; nothing has changed. Adultery is still wrong in the NT, and lust was wrong in the OT (Proverbs 6:25).

vv. 31-32: "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."
• Moses: "Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement...." But he "...may not take her again to be his wife" (Deuteronomy 24:4).
• Jesus: "Divorce for any reason other than porneia constitutes adultery."

Again there is no contradiction, and no change in the standard. Moses' instructions about divorce emphasized its gravity and permanence. Jesus' emphasized that divorce is an extraordinary remedy allowed by God only in certain extreme cases. But even in the OT, God said He hates divorce (Malachi 2:16). So the two statements are not in conflict.

vv. 33-34: "Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne. . ."
• Moses: "Don't break your oaths."
• Jesus: "Better not to swear at all."

What Christ was prohibiting was the common practice of peppering one's everyday speech with indiscriminate oaths (often combined with the superstitious notion that if one did not swear, it was OK to lie).

Jesus is teaching that in our daily conversation as believers, we should simply let our yes be yes and our no, no. He is not prohibiting lawful oaths, such as those required of court witnesses, etc. (Jesus Himself testified after being placed under an oath—Matthew 26:63-64. The Apostle Paul even included an oath in the inspired text—2 Corinthians 1:23. And God confirmed His own Word with an oath—Heb. 6:13-18; Acts 2:30.)

So again, there is no change and no contradiction. The OT also prohibited frivolous oaths (Deuteronomy 23:21).

vv. 38-39: "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
• Moses: "An eye for an eye."
• Jesus: "Turn the other cheek."

The eye-for-an-eye standard of the OT law (Leviticus 24:19-21) was designed to limit the civil penalties that could be exacted for crimes. It was a principle of mercy, teaching that the punishment should fit the crime, and not exceed it.

But rabbinical tradition had misapplied the standard, and people were using it to justify acts of personal vengeance. It was meant to regulate penalties administered by legal authorities; but it was being misused as a rationale for deliberate acts of private retaliation. Jesus forbade that.

However, the NT elsewhere expressly affirms the right of governments and government agents to use the sword to mete out retribution to evildoers. So both standards ("an eye for an eye" and "turn the other cheek") are valid in their proper contexts in both OT and NT. No contradiction, no change.

vv. 43-44: "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you."
• Moses: "Love your neighbor."
• Rabbinical gloss: "Hate your enemy."
• Jesus: "Love your enemies."

No change; no contradiction. This is just a correction of a serious Rabbinical error. The truth is that Moses' law also demanded love for one's enemy (Exodus 23:4-5).

In each case, the true meaning of the New Testament perfectly accords with the true meaning of the Old, and vice versa. So the Sermon on the Mount offers no proof for the thesis that the moral standard changed in the NT.

Instead, it proves the opposite: the very same inviolable moral code governs both covenants. So, was Jesus a "legalist?"

In fact, the standard view of the Law is found in the LCBF2 in 19,20,21. It expanded the view of the Law in the LCBF1. Baptist contributions modified the WCF to include a differentiation between the Moses as Lawgiver and Christ, but the result was the same.

Legalism is the evil twin sister of licentiousness. Legalism isn't "keeping the law." It is either keeping the externals of the Law and not the internals" (de facto sacramentalism or ritualism) or elevating tradition to the level of Scripture and imposing them on others in areas where Scripture contradicts or does not address, like food sacrificed to idols, dress codes, etc.

More broadly it is:

# Attempting to be justified by one's own works.
# Attempting to be sanctified by one's own works
# Suggesting that our worth or worthlessness, our self-esteem and self-satisfaction or lack thereof, rest on our own works.
# Any attempt to please God judicially, or any supposition that our sin as believers has resulted in his judicial displeasure.
# Teaching that we conform ourselves to our judicial standing in Christ (righteous and perfect) by our own works.
# Attempting to attain godliness by a systematic change of behavior
# Obedience that does not spring from a renewed heart

1. As of an unbeliever who has no renewed heart
2. As of a believer who has a renewed heart but whose righteous behavior does not spring therefrom.

# Any supposition that externally righteous acts have any value on their own, even as conduct that prepares the way for either

1. A renewed heart (preparationism as regards justification),
2. The softening or further renewing of an already renewed heart (preparationism as regards sanctification. Note Romans 12:2-Transformation occurs through the renewing of the mind), or
3. Any other work of the Spirit.

# Suggesting that faith is irrelevant in the accomplishment of some (or all) good works.
# Trying to be justified by works that are created and inspired by the Holy Spirit.
# Attempting to gain assurance of salvation solely or primarily on the basis of the sign of outward works.

Now, legalism can occur when we use the Mosaic law as a covenant between ourselves and God (Galatianism), but this isn't the Puritan view of the Mosaic Law at all. In fact, the WCF and the LCBF2 are almost identical on this, with just a few changes, mostly with Baptists underwriting the Law with the universal law of conscience. See XIX in both.

They differ strongly in WCF XXIII and LCBF2 XXIV, where the WCF XXIII.3 links the state and the church through the first table of the Law. We do not. This expresses our view of religious liberty. This is not, however, our view of confessions. To conflate the two commits a category error.

In fact, in this respect, the WCF 1 and LCBF2 1 are almost identical: 10. The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decress of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.


10. The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved.

The Philadelphia Confession and the Charleston Confessions recapitulate the LCBF2, and form the basis of the SBTS Abstract of Principles. In fact, all the churches that formed the SBC held the Philadelphia Confession.

Folks need to admit that Baptists have a long history of using confessions prescriptively. This is not a new phenomeon at all. There are examples throughout our history that demonstrate that we have done this.

C.H. Toy resigned from SBTS because he could no longer agree to the Abstract of Principles. In 1859, Charleston Association questioned some of the churches that wished to join their association. E.T. Winkler wrote that the Stono church was orderly as was Tau Tau. Mt. Zion and Pt. Comfort had not been plain in their statements, but Winkler found them orderly in general. He went on, however to say that, in the future "when new churches seek fellowship, the Association require either a declaration that they accept the Charleston Confession of Faith as a general expression of their views, or insist on an exhibition of the principles on which they were constituted." Citadel Square church, formed in 1868 on the Philadelphia Confession. The Philadelphia Association itself stated that one had to hold that confession or one approved by them in principle in order to be part of their association. If a representative minister deviated from the core truths it expressed, they were called to repentance. John Spilsbury said that agreement to a confession should precede participation in the ordinances of a church.

John Gill, Elias Keach, and Andrew Fuller were all confessionalists. In 1844, Basil Manly Sr. wrote a letter on the doctrine of election, saying, "We would call on the members of our churches, individually, to take pains to acquire just and thorough views of the doctrines which are most surely believed among us; we call on the churches to insist on these views in teh reception of members; and to recollect that no addition or fulness of numbers is desirable from among persons, who either are willing to remain ignorant of the great doctrines of the Gospel, or who doubt or disbelieve them. In 1849, Salem Church of the Tuscaloosa Association voted out its articles of faith. The Association reprimanded them saying, "While the Scriptures of the OT and NT are the only authoritative standard of doctrine, and rule of duty, it is still deemed expedient to have summary statements and abstracts of principles, for the sake of distinctness, and we disapprove of the conduct of the Salem church in voting out her articles of faith. In 1818, Cumberland Assoc. in Maine openly declared that to associate in mission work, they declared a confessional document to which the churches were to hold. James P. Boyce, authored the Abstract of Principles, and stated that it was to be used to determine the bounds of orthodoxy for the faculty itself. The seminary charter read: "Every professor of the institution shall be a member of a regular Baptist church; and all persons accepting professorships in this seminary shall be considered, by such acceptance, as engaging to teach in accordance with, and not contrary to, the Abstract of Principles hereinafter laid down, a departure from which principles on his part shall be considered grounds for his resignation or removal by the Trustees."

In the late's 60's, the Convention called on the seminaries to get the faculties to sign their confessional documents and actually enforce them. The faculties found a way around that. For example, Fisher Humphrey took an interesting stand. He said that professors need not believe everything in the document but they
should pledge not to teach contradictory to it. In areas where they disagree, they can simply keep
quiet. This solution presents an unacceptable alternative for professor and institution alike. "To teach in accordance with and not contrary to" carries both positive and negative obligations. "In accordance with" means ex animo, as an item of heart-felt belief, as a guide to what he will instruct. He delights in its truths and counts it a privilege to train others so to regard the summaries of revealed truth in the document. What school would want professors that cannot use the confession as a positive and
encouraging pedagogical tool? What professor would want to be in a position where he constantly had to
be brought up short in proclaiming all that he believed because he was teaching under false pretenses?

Those who claim "religious liberty" when this comes up are committing a serious category error. They are conflating the Baptist view of the relation between the church and state with the view of our relationships between individual churches. We reject the imposition of creeds and confessions via Magisterial, theonomic governments. However, until the 20th century, we had no problem with using confessions to determine the bounds of cooperation and association.

The theological liberal and the fundamentalist make the same error in rejecting confessions. They assume that the Bible is all they need. However, one uses the lack of confession as a pretext for believing and teaching anything under the banner of local church autonomy and priesthood of believers, and the other descends into pragmatic anarchy without accountability to others.

The BFM is very broad. It is the 4th interation of the New Hampshire Confession. It is essentially the same, with various alterations over the years. The SBC would do better to do the actual work of writing a new confession that spells out the bounds of orthodoxy.

As far as "fundamentalism" is concerned, it is a historic word with a historic meaning that has been coopted and changed so much it carries a ton of freight. I leave you with a quote from my co-blogger, Steve Hays:

“Fundamentalism” was originally a Christian term with a Christian history behind it. It has a complex history, with a shifting identity, and multiple tributaries feeding in and out of it. But however you parse the term and the movements or theological traditions with which it’s associated, it was, until fairly recently, a Christian designation.

Then the liberal media took it over. Because the liberal media is irreligious, it is indifferent to elementary religious distinctions. So the media began to apply the term to any Bible-believing Christian. An anti-Catholic like Bob Jones and a Sedevacantist like Mel Gibson are both branded as “Fundamentalists.”

Then, if that were not sufficiently incompetent, the media extended the term to any conservative religious adherent. Hence, the adjectival use of the term for jihadis and Hindu nationalists.

By this promiscuous use of the term, it picks up all of these invidious and adventitious associations.

Finally, you have someone like Still, whose knowledge of “fundamentalism” is evidently derived, not from any first-hand experience, but the debased, thirdhand coinage of the mass media, who reapplies it to conservative Christians, complete with all of the non-Christian baggage. He therefore uses “fundamentalist” as a synonym for Christian fundamentalists and jihadis alike.

This is hopelessly inept.

Anonymous said...

Fundamentalism is almost impossible to define because it takes on its own form each time. But one thing remains true: Fundamentalism always demands an enemy, and if enemy cannot be found the fundamentalists turn on themselves. That is where SBC is today..and the 2006 SBC will most likely reflect this over and over....wayne

Anonymous said...

All I got to say is...Don't mess with Gene...WOW

Anonymous said...

To Y2T,
Hey! You been doing so good, but like my father would say, “Yes, you’re always right, but when you’re wrong, you’re dead wrong.”
You judge mother Teresa for accepting mob money. She should have said, “I don’t mind taking mob money…the devil has had it long enough.”
On another point, you said ravening wolves were on the outside of the church during the time of Paul, but were on the inside of the church by the end of the first century.
How would you explain the wolves inside the church as Paul’s wrote: “...I have faced grave dangers...from men who claim to be brothers in Christ” 2 Cor. 11:26 “...false brethren...who came to spy as to whether we obeyed the Jewish laws are not.” “We who are born of the Holy Spirit are persecuted by those who want us to keep the Jewish laws.” “...if I preached...Jewish laws are necessary for the plan of salvation, I’d be persecuted no more.” “Those teachers...who are trying to convince you to be circumcised are doing it to avoid the persecution they would get if they admitted the cross of Christ alone can save...” Gal. 2:4 4:29 5:11 6:12,13 Paul was criticized: “Don’t bother about his letters. He sounds big but it’s all noise. You never heard a worse preacher” 2 Cor. 10:10 “...with tears in my eyes, there are many who walk along the Christian road who are really enemies of the cross of Christ.” Phil. 3:18 “...false teachers...bring long letters of recommendation...” 2 Cor. 3:1
Rex Ray

Anonymous said...

To rvan debar,
You said, “A creed is a statement of faith.” Sorry, but a CONFESSION is a statement of faith. Webster (1949): “Creed: A brief AUTHORITATIVE formula of religious belief.”
Keith Parks does a good job of explaining the difference between the two words when he wrote: “A confession becomes a creed when others determine the beliefs one is FORCED to sign. Baptist Standard February 11, 2002. Until the BFM 2000, Baptists never signed creeds.
Rex Ray

yes2truth aka Charles Crosby said...

Hello Mr Bridges,

You said:

"The kings of Israel were installed by the tribal elders. I suggest you read through the story of David's installation and reinstallation."

I think it best that you reconsider your generalised sweeping statement, in that it is incorrect.

King Saul and King David were chosen by God through Samuel and in turn King Solomon through hereditary right as being chosen by David his father. After Solomon there was the national split with Israel (the Israelites) and Judah (the Jews) becoming separate nations - The House (nation) of Israel and The House (nation) of Judah. The Royal line has always been with Judah not Israel. Genesis 49:10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh (Jesus' Kingdom) come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be. In effect the House of Israel after Solomon was a renegade rebellious nation choosing it's own Kings and setting up their own site for a temple, culminating in their captivity circa 725 BC. This was not the case in the House of Judah and all the Kings of Judah were hereditary. See Matthew 1

All British including the Scottish monarchs before the Union are/were annointed in a Christian Coronation service by a minister of God. No other leaders on earth go through this kind of ceremony. British monarchs therefore are answerable to no one else but The Father God Himself. When James I declared he ruled by divine right he was telling the truth and Charles I as with all monarchs had the same authority.

Cromwell and his followers had no right to take his life and one day will stand before God to give an answer for his actions. A Godly annointing is a Godly annointing and no one can water it down nor dilute it.

Our Monarch has the title "Defender of The Faith". Now this title is a little odd for it was originally given to Henry VIII, whilst still an obedient Catholic, by the Pope. The faith now defended is the Anglican faith, formerly the Churches of England, Scotland and Ireland. This title has nothing to do with our King's and Queen's position under God through their annointing when coronated.

There is much more to this but the rest of your post needs scrutiny.

Back to Charles I. What has to be understood about Charles I is the influence his papist French wife had over him and that was the real reason for his downfall. The civil war came because of these wicked activities. These are the errors that Charles I will have to answer to God for, not for the number of English people who died. The responsibility for the English dead lies with Cromwell. He as a Christian should have known that prayer and fasting were the proper tools for him, not the sword or musket; for he who lives by the sword shall perish by it. This is a Christian basic which Cromwell should have and must have known. This is where Cromwell failed and where David succeeded. David's life was even at stake but he did not lift a finger against his King. An annointed king is an annointed king - God does not change.

You said:

"The early Baptists came out of Puritanism. Y2T, you are conflating the Magisterial system of government with Puritanism."

You are using too many big words, which do not impress me and I do not have the time to waste foraging through dictionaries.
Nevertheless after serching Scripture I could not find 'Magisterial system of government' anywhere. Perhaps you could explain its relevance?

Puritanism came out of The Church of England, not Anglcanism. Anglicanism is a far more modern title and the term 'Communion' has replaced 'Church'. This is all part of sucking up to Rome in these last days.

You Said:

"As for the Ten Commandments. I imagine you are familar with the Sermon on the Mount. It recapitulates the Law itself. Let's take a look:"

I am fully conversant with The Sermon on the Mount which can be dealt with in one verse: Matthew 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

A question for you: How is my righteousness superior to that of the Pharisees and Scribes?

There is no point me continuing with the rest of your post until you have answered this question.


Villa Rica said...


Brother GeneM is a Ninja Warrior to the tenth degree.

When he speaks everybody says: WOW!!! I love this guy.

Villa Rica

Anonymous said...

Lots of talk about creeds!

A creed is the confession one gets fired for not signing even though it was puposely written to be vague or general so we can still disagree and cooperate (The BF&M )and one remembered right before not signing and getting fired that when one signs ones name to something one is one hundred percent vouching for everything he is signing his name to.

So the BF and M became the creed that can't be a creed because it is too general and it was and always will be wrong to ask people to sign a vauge document and absurd to fire people for not signing a vague document when they are willing to be examined and acountable in other way (this happened folks)

Till the SBC "gets" this and remembers that the rightgeous live by FAITH and not by creeds, the slow spiral of death of the SBC will continue.

We should remember that Baptist in days gone by died rather than one hundred percent vouch for State Church creeds.

Baptist should never be asked to sign a creed to join the church or to do missions together. The purpose of a confessional is to only be general for cooperative informative purposes, not to be the last word for fellowship and cooperation.

yes2truth aka Charles Crosby said...

To Rex Ray,

Paul went to foreign lands i.e. to the Gentiles in order to preach the word. He would frequently preach in Jewish synagogues whilst in those foreign countries and the term 'Brethren' could and often did refer to fellow countrymen as well as Spiritual brothers.

The original converts were good people but once they had formed embryonic congregations those who were of The Devil came in feigning to be Believers. The Churches were therfore attacked from without, they were not in the Church from day one.

By the end of the first century these servants of the Adversary had virtually taken over from within. That is the point I was making here. Paul did his best to warn those under his protection but that did not stop the invasion.

These invaders were either legalists, religionists or a combination of both. The book of Galatians is all about Judaisers or legalists who were causing problems for the young Church there. Legalism displays itself in differing ways and today is more subtle, but it still amounts to the same thing - Grace Killing.

This is done by continually teaching The Ten Commandments when The Ten Commandments were nailed to the Cross. The Law or Ten Commandments are now written on True Believer's hearts and they are now in a Spiritual Relationship with Jesus Christ.

This relationship involves growing in Grace and growing in Faith, not Law keeping. We, as human beings are not capable of keeping The Law and we are not capable of self-improvement which is what many Christians attempt, but always fail in that attempt because they are doing it.

That is why Jesus came and died for us, because we are not able to 'improve' ourselves. He has done all the improving for us.


Anonymous said...

Jesus said that no evil would overcome His church. It has stood for 20 centuries against great opposition, sometimes shaken but never surrendering. His words are proven valid; the Church extends throughout the world, over a billion strong, still proclaiming the Gospel, and still making saints. It is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic, succeeding from
St. Peter to Benedict VI.

Long after the SBC has been absorbed into the ever developing mishmash of market driven, all inclusive “family worship centers” kind of thing, and the whole corrupted mess then passes away and is forgotten, His church will still exist.

Anonymous said...

To y2t,
We have a problem. You are not taking the Scriptures that I quoted and explaining them from your point of view. You are just giving your opinion in genera with no references from Scripture. You are saying that there were no Christians with bad doctrine until after the first century. What do you think the big fuss was about at the First Church Counsel? Wasn’t that day one? (Acts 15:5) “But some of the BELIEVERS from the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to command them to keep the Law of Moses!” Paul thought that was pretty bad doctrine as he said in Philippians 3:2, “Watch out for those wicked men—dangerous dogs who say you must be circumcised to be saved.” These men were not lost Jews. Lost Jews didn’t know what ‘saved’ meant. These men may have been the same believers in Acts 15:5. Do you think those believers changed their minds? They didn’t roll over and die. “Men convinced against their will are of the same opinion still.”
Who convinced Peter to withdraw from Christian Gentiles? (Galatians 2:12) “For he used to eat with the Gentiles before certain men came from James.” (Acts 15: 23-24) “From the apostles and the elders, with the whole church…have heard that some…went out from us and troubled you with their words.” These men were within the church and not outsiders.
Where did the long letters of recommendation come from in Second Corinthians 3:1? Who appointed the second bishop of Antioch who wrote John? “We ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household, as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that WE SHOULD LOOK UPON THE BISHOP EVEN AS WE WOULD UPON THE LORD HIMSELF.” (Christian Classics Ethereal Library, Wheaton College)
Birth of Christianity page 466 “James was the authoritative leader of the Jerusalem mother-church, which was operating two major missions, one to the Jews and one to the pagans. In a combined community such as that at Antioch, Christian Judaism had to prevail over Christian paganism. Peter and Barnabas presumed that kosher regulations were no longer important. Before James’s intervention, they ate with the pagans like pagans.”
y2t, I believe there was more conflict among Christians in the early church than what is going on today.
Rex Ray

yes2truth aka Charles Crosby said...

Hello V domus,

You said:

"Jesus said that no evil would overcome His church. It has stood for 20 centuries against great opposition, sometimes shaken but never surrendering His words are proven valid; the Church extends throughout the world."

This is true, but the rest of your post is highly suspect (I'm being polite here). Wide is the path to destruction and many there be (1 Billion) that find it. I say this because as long as this 1 billion believe a man in Rome is Christ's representative here on earth then their belief is in vain.

Continuing: I have to presume you are a member of a money making organisation known as Roman Catholicism complete with Swiss bank accounts, Mafia and P2 Free masonry connections. The Roman Empire phase 2. Have you ever noticed the absence of God's and/or Jesus Christ's name from that title? Have you ever noticed how they carry a dead Jesus around on their crucifixes. They do this because that's how they see Him - dead. With all that religion, who needs a resurrected Living Saviour!?

You also said:

"still proclaiming the Gospel, and still making saints."

The only thing they proclaim is syllogisms, that means they have an 'answer' first and then build a phoney theory to support it. Hence you have 'infallibility'. To those of us who can't speak latin, this means they make it up as they go. Then he distances himself from the Truth and tells us they make saints, when it is The Father God who makes saints when He calls us to His Son.

Then more error:

"It is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic, succeeding from
St. Peter to Benedict VI."

No it's not, The True Church is the Church of God 1 Cor 10:32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: The Church of God is of people - those called; in Greek - The Ekklesia. The Church is not an organistion by any other name.

Finally, and one of my favourite topics - Peter was never a pope, nor was he The Rock. Jesus Christ is the Rock. 1 Cor 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

V domus, it's now your chance to repent before you receive of The Lord's plagues. Revelation 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.


yes2truth aka Charles Crosby said...

Hello Rex Ray,

Apologies, I was attempting to give a general overview of what life was like as a Christian in the first century and the problems Paul had to deal with.

I will study up and come back to you with Scriptures.


Anonymous said...

Hello y2t,
While you are studying on Scripture to prove there was no bad doctrine in the Early Church, here are some points to consider.

God’s laws and blood sacrifices were life jackets on a sea of sin for Jews until His Son became the real sacrifice. Christians were on dry ground but the ‘faith plus works’ Jews kept their life jackets and insisted the Gentiles wear one. ‘Life Jackets’ were:
1. Believing Pharisees: “...must be circumcised and follow all the Jewish customs.” (Acts 15:5)
2. “...friends of James...who insisted that circumcision was necessary for salvation.” (Galatians. 2:12)
3. Men...from Judea “...taught the brethren...‘Except ye be circumcised...ye cannot be saved.” (Acts 15:1) [These were the same mentioned in Galatians 2:12.]
4. “Friends who think you have to obey the Jewish laws to be saved.” (Galatians 4:21)
5. “Many who walk along the Christian road who are really enemies of the cross of Christ.” (Philippians 3:18)
6. “There are many who say all Christians must obey the Jewish laws. It must be stopped.” (Titus 1:10, 11)
7. “You are being fooled by those who twist and change the truth about Christ.” (Galatians 1:7)
8. Thousands of Jews, James and elders: “You see, brother, [Paul] how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law.” (Acts 21:20)
Christians Jews practiced the ‘Day of Atonement’ where the church removed sins with a scapegoat. What heartache for Jesus to see them believing that leader’s prayers and a scapegoat removed their sins. Ten years before he was charged with being against God’s laws, Paul tried to teach them: “The Jewish laws were our teacher and guide until Christ came to give us the right standing with God through our faith. But now that Christ has
come, we don’t need those laws any longer to guard us and lead us to him. For now we are all children of God through faith in Jesus Christ.” “He died to annul that whole system of Jewish laws.” (Galatians 3:24-26 2:15)

y2t, was Paul’s life in danger from Christians in Acts 21:21-22?
Rex Ray

Anonymous said...

And Hello to you, yes2truth

I admire your verve, but you remind me of my neighbor’s Jack Russell terrier, he too takes on things that are way too big for him. Of course there are “weeds among the wheat” within the worlds one billion Catholics. But every one of them has access to the blessed sacraments, and therefore, Heaven. And where is there among the several thousand Protestant factions, even one group that is free from its own corruption. God has maintained the Catholic Church and will continue to do so. I wonder if you have ever talked to anyone that can help you with your misguided understanding of Jesus’ proclamation to Peter. Why not talk to a Catholic, read a Catholic book, visit a site like catholic answers.com. And, yes I am a Catholic. I converted 6 years ago. Before that I was a Baptist pastor for many years.

yes2truth aka Charles Crosby said...

Hello Mr Domus,

Your knowledge and understanding of Jack Russels like your knowledge and understanding of The Truth is limited, nay, non existent. Jack Russells are best known for sniffing out vermin, and once they have their teeth around the neck of a rat, that's it! Now rats, because of dirty human beings and their litter, can be very large these days!

You said:

"Of course there are “weeds among the wheat” within the worlds one billion Catholics."

Have you been to an eye specialist lately or do you have a certain word blindness to accompany your Spiritual blindness, for I clearly stated and proved to you that anyone who puts his faith in a man as Christ's representative is believing in vain. Your '1 billion' are therefore deceived, and the grave is all that awaits them until the second resurrection, unless they repent now of course. This in turn makes them "The Weeds" and the few you think are weeds are those The Father is calling out of your blasphemous cult/religion.

Now we have some excellent examples of RC lies:

"But every one of them has access to the blessed sacraments, and therefore, Heaven."

Now when I read this I immediately checked God's Word for your 'Sacraments' and of course it wasn't to be found. Why? Because it is a religious meaningless man made word - all very 'holy' sounding, but meaningless and blasphemous. As for 'access to Heaven' anyone who is called by the Father to His Son has access to Heaven. I have therefore, no need of your useless sacraments.

You said:

"And where is there among the several thousand Protestant factions, even one group that is free from its own corruption."

The only thing that corrupts Protestantism is their failure to completely disconnect themselves from you people and disband their Demon-inations. Which have copied much of your religious nonsense.

Their failure is falling for the lie that RCism is the original church, when it has always been a countefeit - all part of The Whore of Babylon. When Jerusalem was sacked in 70 AD it brought an end to The Pharisaical system, so The Devil had to find a replacement - RCism.

" God has maintained the Catholic Church and will continue to do so."

The Devil maintains RCism and will only continue to do so as long as The Father God allows him to. The Pope is a son of perdition like the Pharaoh and awaits his destruction, in order for God's Glory, through the Return of His Son, to be displayed and for all the world to see.

You said:

"I wonder if you have ever talked to anyone that can help you with your misguided understanding of Jesus’ proclamation to Peter. Why not talk to a Catholic, read a Catholic book, visit a site like catholic answers.com. And, yes I am a Catholic."

If I put my head in the garbage bin I will only get sick!

"And, yes I am a Catholic. I converted 6 years ago. Before that I was a Baptist pastor for many years."

Then your degeneration is complete then. This means your repentance will only be harder so it's best that you start right now.


Anonymous said...

To v domus,
Can we agree that all have sinned—and there are two kinds of sinners lost and saved? You encourage y2t, to get help for “his misguided understanding of Jesus’ proclamation to Peter” by reading a Catholic book etc.
Do you depend upon some human or human writings to understand the Bible? Is that what convinced you to switch from Baptist to Catholic? If you have, then you missed the words of Jesus in John 14:26, “The Counselor, the Holy Spirit—the Father will send Him in My name--will teach you all things.”
I think we can agree that the human side of man wants to worship something other than God. Thus the importance of the first of the Ten Commandments.
I don’t understand your saying, “But every one of them has access to the blessed sacraments, and therefore, Heaven.” What is “blessed sacraments?” Is that another god? If it is not Jesus, then it is an idol. If it is man-made, it is an idol.
(Baptists should be careful our BFM does not become a “blessed sacrament.”)
Domus, you mentioned “Jesus’ proclamation to Peter.” I suppose that is Matthew 16:15-19. You probably agree that it is more important to know the meaning of Scripture than the actual words.
With that in mind, the atmosphere of these verses is reveled four verses later. “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me because you’re not thinking about God’s concerns, but man’s.” Peter was demoted from star pupil to wearing a dunce cap. If Peter was the rock that Christ built his church on, it didn’t last very long. But let’s look at the words in verses 15-18.
“But you,” He asked them, “who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God!” And Jesus responded, “Simon son of Jonah, you are blessed because flesh and blood did not reveal THIS to you, but My Father in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on THIS rock I will build My church…”
I’ll take a time-out to quote some of the Living Bible preface. “The Bible writers often used idioms and patterns of thought that are hard for us to follow today. Frequently the thought sequence is fast-moving, leaving gaps for the reader to understand and fill in, or the thought jumps ahead or backs up to something said before (as one would do in conversation) without clearly stating the antecedent reference. Sometimes the result for us, with our present-day stress on careful sentence construction and sequential logic, is that we are left far behind.”

What was the most important in these verses? “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God!” That is what all the New Testament is about. Jesus referred to these words as THIS. Jesus said he would build his church on “THIS” rock. I understand that in our English today that the rock would be referring to Peter but the writer has ‘backed up’ to what was said before so that the second “THIS” is really referring to the first “THIS.” Jesus built his church upon the MESSIAH, and not on man, especially one that heard the rooster crow and even after he received the Holy Spirit, was called a hypocrite by Paul for withdrawing fellowship from Christian Gentiles because he was afraid of the men who came from James.
Jesus, not Peter, fulfilled prophecy as Jesus said in Matthew 21:42 “Have you never read in the Scripture: The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone.” Jesus, not Peter, was the “Rock” that the church is on.
Verse 19: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth is already bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is already loosed in heaven.”
“Keys of the kingdom” was the Gospel. That’s what Christ gave the apostles and Christians to tell the world. Acceptance of the Gospel binds on earth and heaven. Anyone without “keys” to enter heaven was lost. Everyone was their own priest as Calvary tore the veil of the temple from top to bottom.
Rex Ray

Anonymous said...

Dear y2t and rex


We must not have the rat problem that you do. The Jack Russell I speak of is always trying to take on neighborhood dogs that are many times his size. It's good that they pay him no mind, much like most that you bark at, I expect.

Jesus didn’t speak Greek, he spoke Aramaic. The whole matter of his establishing His church on Peter the Rock becomes clear if an accurate word study is used. It need not be a Catholic one. A Baptist who has done real work on the subject knows it too.

You’re both like the old fellow who says “don’t bother telling me about a better way to town, I’ve already got one figured out”. You may have something figured out but it’s far from the best, it’s not even true.

I can suggest some good resources that can shed some much needed light and help you in your uninformed state. You do know, I hope, that the Catholic Church accepts all who are baptized in the name of the Trinity, as having received that sacrament and therefore His grace. So in His mercy you have been blessed by a Catholic sacrament. How good is our God! Even to those like you who reject the Mother church, he blesses in grace.

v domus

Anonymous said...

To v domus,
I am disappointed in you being a former Baptist preacher should know that we Baptists use the Bible when discussing doctrine, and not some dog barking, knowing a better way to town, or being blessed by a Catholic sacrament.

You didn’t respond to any Scripture I presented to you. You did not answer six questions I asked. That is using the psychology of the best way to dodge truth is to ignore truth. I’ll ask again:
1. Was Christ referring to himself or Peter becoming the ‘cornerstone?’ (Matthew 21:42) [Hint: Who did God execute to atone for our sins?]
2. How did Christ say we would be taught? (John 14:26)
[Hint: By a Person and not by a man-made anything.]
3. What was the most important information in Matthew 16:15-19?
[Hint: What God revealed.]
4. What convinced you to switch from Baptist to Catholic?
[Hint: I’ll bet it wasn’t the Bible.]
5. What is “blessed sacraments?”
[Hint: Something Catholic.]
6. Is ‘blessed sacraments’ a god?
[Hint: Maybe not a ‘golden calf’ but…]

Do you agree with Catholic John Kemp (1413 AD) who wrote, “Jesus ordained St Peter to be His vicar here in earth…and He granted the same power…should succeed unto all Peter’s successors, whom we now call popes of Rome…to whom Christian men ought to obey after the laws of the Church of Rome.” (Foxe’s Book of Martyrs)
Domus, do you agree with Kemp so far? How about the rest of the story as Kemp continues: “I thank God I never knew what the Old and New Testament was. I will know nothing by my protuese and my pontifical.”

If you agree with that, then no wonder you don’t use Scripture to proclaim what you believe. What is ‘protuese’ and what is ‘pontifical?’’

In a nutshell, Catholic roots and non-Catholic roots were in the First Church Counsel. One was legalistic with the tradition of the laws of Moses while the other followed Peter’s description of salvation as a gift by trusting Jesus. The Council’s ‘Faith and Message’ to Gentiles omitted Peter’s saved by a gift of God, but gave essential rules to follow.
Therefore, we see the roots of Catholics won the debate of how man was saved, and those rules were added on to until they baptized babies for salvation in 251 A D. This was ‘enough is enough’ and a small group (Christ’ Church) withdrew fellowship and were given the hated name of Anabaptist. The gates of Hell could not prevail against this group and we still live today.

You said, “I can suggest some good resources that can shed some much needed light and help you in your uninformed state.”
If it is anything other than Scripture, please don’t bother.

You say, “You have been blessed by a Catholic sacrament.” That sounds like being blessed by a tree stump.
You mentioned “the Mother church.” The only ‘Mother church’ was the Jerusalem church that lorded over Paul’s small Gentile churches trying to get them to obey Jewish laws.

V domus, I’ll say goodbye. I don’t expect to hear from you.
Rex Ray

Anonymous said...

Hey Rex,

How about an e-mail address, I will get back to you. I don't want to let our side thing be a distraction for others.

v domus

Anonymous said...

To v domus,
You may be right about others being bored with our conversation. But on the other hand, this is your big chance to enlighten all us Baptists. Why not take advantage of it? And how did your great “blessed sacraments” get to be “our side thing?”
I think you’re looking for a graceful exit. I hope you exit all the way up to being Baptist.
I don’t think Wade gives out e-mails but if he tells me to, I’ll post it. Otherwise, why not “get back” to me here, or has your mouth got tired of talking?
Rex Ray

Anonymous said...

Rex, how about we loose some of the sarcasm. After re-reading some of my comments, I’m more than a little embarrassed. I guess its still fun to fight, even though I’m well past an age where I should know better. I tell you what, I’ll review your statements and try to reply to them in a more point to point manner, not trying to “enlighten you”, but to give a view point on what the Catholic Church teaches concerning the issues you outlined.

I'm fine right here, am a little concerned that this "side-thing" may be out harmony with Wade's intentions for the blog.

Stay on the bus, we may enjoy ride.

v domus

Anonymous said...

Hello again v domus,
I like your last post about less sarcasm. My wife tells me what I say is OK but the way I say it turns people off. OK, I’m on the bus. I think the bus should start at the early church. If we could agree what happened at the First Church Counsel, other things would fall in place.
Could you answer the question that yt2 has avoided—was Paul’s life in danger from Christians in Acts 21:21-22? Remember they were under the law of Ezra 7:26, “Anyone refusing to obey the law…punished by death.” How much more serious would preaching against the law be that Paul was accused of. And by-the- way, who told the church members? (“Our Jewish Christians…have been told that you are against the laws of Moses…customs…forbid the circumcision of their children…Now what can be done? For they will certainly hear you have come.”)
Another question, how much trouble would the Mother church be in if their members killed the hero of the Gentile churches? I believe their solution was to let the Jews, who were seeking to kill Paul, handle the situation.
I’m sorry, v domus, I’m supposed to be waiting for the bus to start and I have my seat in overdrive.
Rex Ray

Anonymous said...

Hey Rex,

Someone had to get it going. I'll reply soon. My wife says the same thing to me. Go figure.

v domus

Anonymous said...

I’m not sure of how to address your question, Rex. I guess you’re convinced that a conspiracy exited that was intent on having Paul killed, to be free of his influence within the church, thereby firming the position of the Jewish believers against the inclusion of gentiles. Wouldn’t Christ’s statement about nothing overcoming the church come into play? The intent may have been there but Paul would have been protected by the Holy Spirit’s intervention, wouldn’t he?

v domus

Anonymous said...

To v domus,
I am encouraged by your questions. They make me think. The Jewish believers wanted the Gentiles not to follow Christ’ teaching as Paul believed, but as they believed. You asked, “Wouldn’t Christ’s statement about nothing overcoming the church come into play? The intent [to have Paul killed] may have been there but Paul would have been protected by the Holy Spirit’s intervention, wouldn’t he?”

Exactly! Paul was not killed until he wrote the books in the Bible that have guided Christ’s church through the ages. If he had not been in prison, he may not have written. The Jews meant it for bad, but God used it for good. Just like Joseph being sold into slavery. Paul didn’t think his letters would become part of the New Testament, but God knew.

When did Paul wise up that he had been fooled? His trial broke his heart… “No man stood for me.” The priest had brought false charges: “…inciting rebellions against the Roman government…trying to defile the Temple.” (Acts 24:5-6) Paul would have been free if the elders had said: Paul was taking vows at their request. If their suggestion of vows was a trick to identify him to the high priest, then their desertion at his trial and the years of abandonment, removed any doubt in Paul’s mind as he concluded “...the time of my departure is at hand.” “At my first answer [trial], no man stood with me…I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge.” (2 Timothy 4:6, 16) This was the prayer Paul heard Stephen pray for him. Did Paul feel the same crime had been done? Paul was betrayed by a suggestion, and he was deserted like David deserted Bath-sheba’s husband.
Rex Ray

Anonymous said...

Hey Rex,

I can imagine that Paul’s heart was broken, much as Jesus’ heart was broken, both know that deception and betrayal was an unwanted but necessary part of their divine intention. I believe that Paul knew where he would end up and why. He had to take the gospel all the way to the center of the gentile world, Rome. He knew that he would get there and fulfill his mission. He suffered the blazing hated of the Jews; the suspicion of other believers, stoning, and ship wreak, snake bite and all the rest, still able to state his contentment “in all circumstances”.

The reason Paul could do these things was his understanding of the resurrection. His encounter with Christ changed him. Just as the resurrection reality changed Peter form the coward who denied Jesus to the preacher of Pentecost; and the others who hid away, afraid of every sound becoming Apostles without fear.

If there was a conspiracy, it only worked to advance God’s plan for the church.

v domus

Anonymous said...

Hey back to you, v domus,
You promised a bus ride, but I feel like I am on a stick horse.
All you wrote was true, but you did not attempt to answer any questions. If you will copy-paste these questions and then answer them, that bus may roll after all.

1. Can we agree that all have sinned—and there are two kinds of sinners lost and saved?
2. Do you depend upon some human or human writings to understand the Bible?
3. How did Christ say we would be taught? (John 14:26) [Hint: By a Person and not by a man-made anything.]
4. What is “blessed sacraments?”
5. In Matthew 16:15-19, did Jesus demote Peter from the star pupil to wearing a dunce cap? (“Get behind me Satan.)
6. What was the most important in these verses? (“You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.)
7. Did Jesus or Peter, fulfilled prophecy? (Jesus said in Matthew 21:42 “Have you never read in the Scripture: The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone.”)
Verse 19: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth is already bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is already loosed in heaven.”
8. Was the Gospel the “Keys of the kingdom?
9. Did accepting the Gospel bind on earth and heaven?
10. Do you go to Hell if you don’t have a key to the kingdom?
11. Did everyone become their own priest as Calvary tore the veil of the temple from top to bottom?
12. Was Paul’s life in danger from Christians in Acts 21:21-22?
13. Who told the church? (“Our Jewish Christians…have been told that you are against the laws of Moses…customs…forbid the circumcision of their children…Now what can be done? For they will certainly hear you have come.”)
14, Would the Mother church loose control of the Gentile churches if their members killed the hero of the Gentile churches?
15. Did Paul wise up that he had been fooled by taking vows?
16. If so, was it because the suggestion of taking vows identified him to the high priest who had been trying to kill Paul for years? Or was it because of the elder’s desertion at his trial? Or was it the years of their abandonment of Paul? Or was it all three?
Rex Ray

Anonymous said...

Hey Rex, I'll take up your first 2 questions now and the others as I have the time.

1.Can we agree that all have sinned—and there are two kinds of sinners lost and saved?

I agree that “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”. We come into life as sinners; tainted by original sin. Those who are baptized are cleansed of this general affliction, becoming God’s children: Jn 3:5,22; Tit 3:5; Acts 2:37-38; Acts 22:16; 1 Cor 6:11; Rom 6:4; 1 Pet 3:21; Heb10:22. Baptism is a sacrament (I'll define this term later), depending only on the grace of God, having nothing to do with what we bring to it. The baby is just as cleansed as the believing adult. (The Catholic is hopeful of his salvation, but not presumptuous about it: Mt 7:21; Mt 24:13; Rom 11:22; Phil 2:12; 1 Cor 9:27; 1 Cor 10:11-12; Gal 5:4; 2 Tim 2:11-13; Hb 6:4-6. So no, I don’t agree.

2. Do you depend upon some human or human writings to understand the Bible?

Absolutely! Thank God for the Holy Tradition and the Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church: Jn 10:16; Eph 4:3-6; Rom 16:17; 1 Cor 1:10; Phil 2:2; Rom 15:5; Jn 17:17:23: 1 Cor 12:13: Rom12:5; Eph 4:4; Col 3:15. Otherwise we would be left on our own and look like the several hundred Baptist factions still trying to figure out things like tongue-speaking Baptism, statements of faith, missions support, alcohol, Calvinism, etc., (and this is just you guys), let alone issues of sexual orientation, abortion, immigration, just war, etc., etc. etc. that Protestantism in general is trying to figure out.

I'll get back to this and post by tomorrow AM.

Have a blessed Sunday.


Anonymous said...

V domus,
I’m glad we agree that man is born into sin and is a sinner. ‘Born to be lazy, tell lies, and steal’ about sums it up. But you say, “Those who are baptized are cleansed of this general affliction, becoming God’s children.”
We probably don’t agree on the definition of baptism, but there is too far to go to cover that detour.
I don’t think you believe what you say about being “cleansed of this general affliction.” When you’re cured of an affliction the affliction is gone forever. (Example: A broken leg is an affliction and when it heals it stays healed.) I think you may agree a child of God is never tempted to sin more than he can resist because He gives us the power to resist that temptation. Right? A child of God loses that ‘battle’ from time to time; otherwise we would never have to repent of our sins or Catholics would never need to ‘confess’ to their priest.
I think we should agree on some ground rules. The MEANING of a verse is more important than what the verse says. Example: “Get behind me Satin” did not mean Peter was Satin, but that Satin was using Peter. I call verses like this LOOK-OUT VERSES, because you cannot take for truth what the words literally say.

You gave nine Bible references you think teaches people how to become children of God by baptism. I will try to explain the true MEANING of those nine verses with the understanding that you will try to do the same to about a hundred verses that teach you can be a child of God without being baptized. I will give them later.
You list John 3:5, 22. (Why did you skip 16? You zipped past that verse without blinking an eye. Sure, I’m being funny since I know the reason; it opposes your belief.)

John 3:5 “Unless one is BORN OF WATER and the SPIRIT, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.” The following two verses explain what type of water is referred to in verse 5. “Men can only reproduce HUMAN LIFE, but the Holy Spirit gives new life from heaven; so don’t be surprised at my statement that you must be BORN again.”
Christ is saying reproducing HUMAN LIFE is a mother giving birth to her baby that is surrounded in water. This is man’s first birth or his being BORN of water. BORN AGAIN is his being born of the SPIRIT. Being baptized does not exist in these verses

John 3:22 “Jesus and his disciples…baptized there.” This verse proves nothing either way.

Titus 3:5 “Then He saved us…by washing away our sins and giving us the new joy of the indwelling Holy Spirit.” An old song explains this verse. “What can wash away my sins? Nothing but the blood of Jesus.” Enough said.

Acts 2:38 “REPENT and be baptized…for the forgiveness of your sins.” Was repent and baptized a 50/50 deal? Or was BAPTISED an obedience of REPENTING? It could be argued both ways, but it does not say only be baptized and you will be a child of God.

Acts 22:16 “Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins by calling on the name of the Lord.” There is nothing said about repentance or born of the Spirit. Are these the words of Paul? No. Paul was quoting Ananias. Paul was facing a mob that wanted to kill him. He could not talk to them of being born of the Spirit. He had to talk their language, their knowledge if he was going to have any influence with them. They knew of the baptizing of John the Baptist and that is the picture they received by these words of Paul. I doubt that Ananias even told Paul to call upon the name of the Lord as Paul quoted him doing. Why? Because Acts 9:11 records the actual event: “The Lord said…ask there for Paul of Tarsus. He is praying to me right now, for I have shown him a vision of a man named Ananias coming in and laying his hands on him so that he can see again.” Acts 9:17-18 “So Ananias went over and found Paul and laid his hands on him and said, “Brother Paul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road, has sent me so that you may be filled with the Holy Spirit and get your sight back.” Instantly Paul could see, and was immediately baptized.” When was Paul saved? When he believed Jesus was the son of God. He proved that by obeying what Jesus told him to do. He could have told Jesus that he didn’t want to go to a strange city when he was blind that he wanted to go home where he would have loved ones to care for him.
In the actual account, there was nothing said about being baptized and having his sins washed away. That was said in desperation and off the top of his head in a speech that Paul gave the mob, and should have nothing to do in determining proper doctrine for becoming a child of God.

1 Corinthians 6:11 “Now your sins are washed away, and you are set apart for God, and he has accepted you because of what the Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God have done for you.” Exactly! Our sins are washed away because of what Christ has done for us. Not what we have done (baptizing each other) but what He has done! (Calvary)

Romans 6:4 “Your old sin-loving nature was buried with him by baptism when he died.” Once again LOOK-OUT verses must be read with other verses. Verse 3 “Sin’s power over us was broken when we became Christians and were baptized to become a part of Jesus Christ; through his death the power of your sinful nature was shattered.”
Baptism is a symbol of our sins being buried with Christ.

1 Peter 3:21 “That [Noah’s ark] is what baptism pictures for us: In baptism we show that we have been saved from death and doom by the resurrection of Christ; not because our bodies are washed clean by the water, but because in being baptized we are turning to God and asking him to cleanse our hearts from sin.”
I will quote the main part: “In baptism we show that we have been saved because we are turning to God.” That’s baptism in a nutshell…it is a RESULT OF BEING SAVED.

Hebrews 10:22 “let us go right in, to God himself, with true hearts fully trusting him to receive us, because we have been sprinkled with Christ’s BLOOD to make us clean, and because our bodies have been washed with pure water.”

v domus, I’m glad you saved this verse till last because the verses that go with it speak volumes to the Christian on how he can go directly to God himself. The old way was done away. No longer was the middle man (priest) required. I will save your point until last. The verses 19-22 connects all the dots. “And so, dear brothers, now we may walk right into the very Holy of Holies where God is, because of the blood of Jesus. This is the fresh, new, life-giving way which Christ has opened up for us by TEARING THE CURTAIN-- [Calvary tore the curtain from top to bottom that separated man from the Holy of Holies. Matt. 27:51 Mark 15:38 Luke 23:45] his human body—to let us into the holy presence of God. And since this great High Priest of ours rules over God’s household, let us go right in etc.”
v domus, the point you wanted to make in verse 22 is “…our bodies have been washed with PURE WATER.” Now baptizing with chlorinated water, creek water, lake water, river water IS NOT pure water. I’m sure you agree and will say the water blessed by the priest is pure water. NO, the only pure water that ever existed is in John 19:34 “One of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and blood and WATER flowed out.” That is the only PURE water that washes our bodies.

Excluding Matthew, Mark, and Luke, there are about a hundred verses that say man is saved by faith, trusting, believing, or a gift from God. I’m having second thoughts about listing them. That’s going to take a long time and you probably know most of them anyway. But if you want to take on the job of explaining why they don’t mean what they say, I will list them. Tell you what, how about explaining only one--John 3:16.

I want to thank you for showing sympathy in your post on Memphis Summit Wednesday May 3 as I was being roasted. Felt about like Peter getting chew on by the Jerusalem church for associating with Christian Gentiles. Even pressured me into saying I made a mistake, but a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. HA

I’m not going to address your being ‘hopeful of salvation” or human writings at this time. Too many things to do.

You do have some good points how much of a mess Baptists are in. I hope Wade can help to get us back in the right direction.
Rex Ray

Anonymous said...

Hey Rex,

I don’t like it when one of my friends gets ganged up on like they were doing to you the other day.

My 29 year old has some medical issues that we are working through. I'm not going to be able to get back for a day or two. Please pray for him, he's a really good young man and is in a kind of hard place right now. His name is John David.

I like our little "side thing" and look forward to your challenging questions and thoughtful comments. Though you give me a lot to think on and respond to.

Please don't get impatient with me. I will get through the list. I'm in no hurry if you arn't.

Anonymous said...

Rex, In reply to your comment:

“I don’t think you believe what you say about being “cleansed of this general I affliction.” When you’re cured of an affliction the affliction is gone forever. (Example: A broken leg is an affliction and when it heals it stays healed.)”

I agree with you here about a permanent cure, but the general affliction that I’m writing about is original sin, not our propensity to sin. Baptism from the Catholic side is a remedy for sins effects on the human soul. The Baby hasn’t sinned but is tainted with Adam’s transgression by default. When the baby is baptized he is cleansed and becomes a child of God. When one is of an age of understanding, and is baptized, he is cleansed of all sin, not just original but all committed sin as well.

Now, when one leaves the church after the baptism there will be sin entering back into that life. The baby incurs it over time as he grows into awareness of right and wrong. The adult may leave the church after his baptism and go to the nearest bar, get drunk and then blow the rest of his paycheck on lottery tickets, leaving the family without grocery and rent money. The Catholic teaching would say that this man left the church clean and sinless, but quickly chose to corrupt his soul by welcoming sin back into it. Without further remedy, he would risk his salvation as a result. For the Catholic, sin is always a serious matter.

This can get a little complicated, so please bear with me a bit longer. It always helps me the think in word pictures when dealing with difficult concepts, like the Christian doctrines of Salvation. As I understand it the soul is like a well. Each of us has one. The newborn baby comes with one, though because of the general affection thing, its contents are polluted. When the baby is baptized, the contents become pure. As the child grows and he becomes aware of right and wrong and begins to sin, the well’s contents again becomes polluted, until its reeks with corruption. The Catholic believes that there exists a constant remedy, the sacrament of pentene, the confession of sins to a priest. And the responsible Catholic will want to frequent this remedy as often as is needed to clean up the pollution and keep the well free of corruption.

I’m about done so don’t get off the bus quite yet. There are two classes of sin, greater which is called mortal sin, and lesser which is called venial sins. The former are deadly in that they displace God’s grace within the soul (well). One who dies with mortal sin having displaced God’s grace will go to hell and never leave there. Venial sins are like an illness, they cause the soul to suffer but do not totally displace grace. The well is tainted but can be cleaned. If one dies in this state his soul goes to be cleaned in purgatory where is will be made fit for Heaven.

Now, as I understand it, many Protestants and most Baptists believes that through Calvary the sins of all men were forgiven. That one needs to accept this Gospel reality by faith and the remedy is applied the lost soul not by a cleaning of the actual contents of the well, but by covering it up so that when God looks upon the individual's soul, He sees it as clean and fit for Heaven. The well’s contents may still reek with sin, but the remedy has been applied by the Blood of Jesus “which washes white as snow”. Now when this forgiven one sins again, it really makes no difference because the soul is already a sin-filled mess and a little more sin won’t make it any worse off. Salvation has happened and the soul will be filtered clean by grace at the point of death.The soul has been saved and it will always remain so, regardless of behavior or attitudes.

Anyway, that’s my understanding and I look forward to your comments.

My son is taking tests, we

Anonymous said...

V domus, from Rex,
Thanks for giving me your thoughts on the bus ride. But there is a problem. Your thoughts are just that. The Bible says we are not to lean on our own understanding but on every word that comes from the mouth of God. To accept your thoughts, I must know what Scripture tells of your belief.
What tests is your son taking?

Anonymous said...


Thanks for asking. He has pain behind the left rib area; it’s gotten quite bad and could be something to do with an organ, but may be connected to an old injury. He's had a blood work-up, x-rays and a pending ultra sound. The doctor thinks it could just be a bad case of inflammation, which can be treated with medications, which he's now taking. We are hopeful that this is the case. He's had chronic and acute asthma all of his life, so anything that causes pain in the rib area is an extra problem for him. He’s had to fight some other health issues for the past 10 years. It’s been a complicated time for him.

My comments on salvation are not just my own. The doctrine regarding it has been settled for almost 20 centuries on the Catholic side, and for almost 500 years on the Protestant side, diverse doctrines have been formed and taught. The “once saved always saved” notion that I illustrate is prevalent among most of the Baptists that I have known.
Possibly you think otherwise. You press the notion that I cherry pick verses to support my favored views, but what do you do? You seem to think that you personal interpretations are somehow self evident, which couldn’t be further from the facts.

As far as the Bible goes, I cannot find any place where it describes itself as the only authority on matters of faith and doctrine. I find where it seems to teach otherwise (2 Pet. 1:20-21, 15-16). I do find however that it does ascribe such authority to one entity, the church. Not individuals, but THE CHURCH. Today there are tens of thousands of competing denominations, each insisting its interpretation of the Bible is the correct one. In addition to this, there are multiples of millions of
individuals within these denominations that can claim “soul competence” to have their own interpretations as well. But Paul, gives tells Timothy (I Tim. 3:15) that it is the Church that is the pillar and foundation of truth” We can have confidence that the Catholic church teaches the truth where the Protestant can only compare and wonder about his notion of truth compared to the multitude of other “truths”.

So I ask you, how do you determent when scripture is to be taken literally, or look for what it’s “really saying (your impression). And then by what authority other than your own opinion do you use to validate your impression?

Thanks again for your concern about John David.

Anonymous said...

V domus,
It’s a joy to converse with someone who is sincere with their words. I’m glad the doctors are treating your son, John David. Our first born of three was named Joe David. He was a S.B. missionary for seven years, and now lives in the house he grew up in. A Muslim once told him, he would be a Christian if he knew God would bless him with 5 sons. He has half of our grandkids.
How do we know the truth of what the Scripture says? There are a lot of guidelines—who is talking, setting, Scripture preceding and following which may be verses, chapters or the whole Bible. For instance, why did Moses wear the veil that hid God’s glory? The Old Testament teaches it was because God’s glory frightened the people when they saw it. The New Testament said Moses wore it to hide the fact that God’s glory had departed from him. (2 Cor. 3:13) Which do we believe? Christ said the Holy Spirit would teach us. So is it our brains or the Holy Spirit that connects the dots that Moses started wearing the veil for reasons in the Old and continued wearing it for reasons Paul said. How did Paul know? Did God tell him, or was that told from one generation to another all those years? That doesn’t worry me now nor will it when I’m called Home. One doctor said most people would have died had they been me three times last year. Loss of blood and blood clots in my lungs. When you pass out and quit breathing, dying is easy…not like our friend’s request four hours before she crossed over—“Mama, help me die.”

Domus, when searching for truth, take Christ’ advice of Mark 12:38 and Luke 11:52, “Beware of teachers of religion.” That means the words and books of man may lead astray. So stick to the Bible. Since the Bible records truth and untruth, pray you learn which is which. I don’t think you can go wrong with John 3:16 and interpret “should be” as it was intended “shall be.”
Rex Ray

Anonymous said...


No time this AM to say much other than I hope to someday meet you in person. I know already that I like you very much.

I'll check back in very soon.

Have a blessed weekend


Anonymous said...


I want to clarify something that think is important. I have great respect for the Free Church traditions, especially the Baptist and Pentecostal streams. I was saved in a fundamental Bible Baptist church in 1970. I grew in faith under Dr. Calvin Miller’s ministry at Westside Baptist Church in Omaha Neb. I was a deacon, Sunday school teacher and director, SBC mission church pastor (also in Omaha), SBC pastor in Missouri and Kansas, as well a pastor of an dependent “bapcostal” church, also in Kansas. I graduated form MWBTS, M div, and served as supply preacher and did some revival preaching as well. Some of my primary heroes of the faith are Baptist and Pentecostal men and women.

I understand that to maintain a consistence “witness’ of Christ’s ongoing influence in one’s life is a key need in many of the good Baptist and Pentecostal people, as well as many in the Protestant mainstream traditions as well.

I jumped in on this at the beginning because Y2T pushed all of my buttons, and I way overreached on my comments. But now that we are into this, I hope you appreciated that I am in no way challenging the validly of your faith. As we go, if you want to continue, I will write more about my history and the reasons for my conversion to Rome.

I’m really rushing this, even more than usual, so pardon the poor editing.

Anonymous said...

V domus,
Thanks for considering me your friend. When I first started talking to you, I had a chip on my shoulder. I have spent 20 years studying and writing on how Catholic roots started with the first church counsel in Acts 15. I printed 2,000 copies of ‘The Truth of Acts—Two Denominations’. The title page has, “The devil’s greatest victory was confusing his greatest defeat—Calvary”
The other denomination was non-Catholic. In a nutshell, the first ‘BFM’ was the letter sent to the Gentiles with necessary laws to follow for salvation. The other side thought the rules were necessary as the results of salvation. The argument started then and continues today. The BFM omitted Peter’s statement of salvation as a gift from Jesus. He shamed the multitude to silence by (Acts 15:10) “Now why are you trying to make God angry by placing a heavy BURDEN on these followers?”
On the hypocrisy in (Acts 15:28) “For it was the Holy Spirit’s decision—and ours—to put no greater BURDEN on you than these necessary things.”
Was it the Holy Spirit’s decision to make God angry, or was it man not willing to give up his pride in obeying laws?
Once that ‘laws’ got its foot in the door, they continued to grow into a legalistic religion. Baptists have been repeating that legalistic road for many years now.
Your life is an interesting work for the Lord. I hope you stay focused on His will.
Maybe we will meet some day. If not we will know each other in heaven.
My 5 year old cousin is buried in China. Her last words, "Mama, which one is our house?"
Rex Ray

Anonymous said...

Wow, "out of the mouth of babes".
Till later.


Anonymous said...

Hey Rex,

My granddaughter and I put out some hummingbird feeders this past Saturday. She turned four in January, and is one high energy little girl. She mixed the sugar water with well over the 4 to 1 ratio that the instructions called for, saying that our hummingbirds liked a lot of sugar. We hung them near each other in the front yard, set down in my rocker on the porch with her in my lap, and waited. It wasn’t long before we got one, and then another. She was fascinated by the little fellows, but perplexed by the way they fought each other, asking, “Papa, how many can eat at one time”. I told her there was room for 20 hummingbirds to eat at the same time. She looked puzzled and asked “How come they keep fighting when there’s room for all of them”.

The story about your little cousin reminded me of the high regard that our Lord has for little children. It seems to be the nature of little ones to simply trust, faith being a natural of there nature. The declaration about the dwellings in Heaven went right to my core, causing me to rethink my granddaughter’s question.

Paul values the unseen over the seen, that the “wasting away” of our material bodies shouldn’t be of concern when compared to the substance of what we have to look forward to in Heaven. Yet, we fight. When the banquet table is set before us with inexhaustible abundance and ample room for all to find there place, we compete. God help us and grant us mercy, and let it begin with me.

Thanks so much for sharing your story with me.


Anonymous said...

V domus,
Thanks so much for your granddaughter’s story. I used it as the climax to my post to Brad Reynolds of May 15. (The one with 40 comments) It is the last post on May 17.

Out of the mouth of babies…Yes, there is room for all in God’s Kingdom.

Anonymous said...


My son is doing better, it looks like the pain is from an old injury and it should heal.

Thanks for your comments regarding my granddaughter's story, and for using it in your reply to BR, which hit the nail on the head, by the way.

I fired back a little today on the current post. Let me know if you think it was okay. I tend to get a little cranky once in a while and hope I didn't over do this time.

I'll be gone for the weekend, and will get back to you early next week with a couple of questions.

Have a blessed weekend.


Anonymous said...

v domus,
Glad to hear your son is doing better. I will remember your granddaughter’s question all my life.

I remember reading your comment and liking it. I tried to find it again, but could not. Would you tell me the day that Wade posted it?

When Wade posted Page was running for president, I went into mourning. Well, not really. It was more like I wanted to beat Wade over the head to knock some sense into him. I was so upset; I swore off reading his blog until today. I felt like he had let us and the Lord down. Anyway, I haven’t made a comment to him yet.

Today, I read Brad’s comment on the 19th page 9: “Let us not forget the comments on this Blog of one who wanted you for President and also stated the word inerrancy came from the lips of the devil (although AFTER the connection was made, kindly RECANTED somewhat). Perhaps he is an anomaly [inconsistent], but perhaps not, which is what concerns me.”

RECANTED?? On the 15th I had chastised him for misquoting me. If he thinks that’s recanting, it’s not worth arguing about. It’s interesting about him complaining that I had called him a rat, but he was afraid to tell Wade where I had done so.

v domus, it’s like your granddaughter’s question, the devil’s goal is to divide Christians to fight each other. He does that by convincing one group they are a little better than another group.
In the early church, the Christian Jews thought they were better than Gentile Christians because the Jews obey all the laws of Moses. (Acts 21:20) “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law.” It was necessary for the Gentiles to obey only four of their laws; which was the judgment of James accepted over Peter’s speech that all are saved by the gift of Jesus.

Today there are two groups of Baptists just like the devil wants—fighting each other. I say fighting, but it’s really like one side shooting arrows and the other side moaning while pulling them out. How did the devil get one group to feel more righteous than the other group? It took him almost 1900 years to think of it, but he came up with a winner—INERRANCY.

The inerrancy of the Christian Jews was the law of Moses. They told the Gentiles, you don’t believe the Bible. You are liberals or at least moderates and we won’t have fellowship with you unless you obey our laws. That’s why false teachers followed Paul around trying to teach Gentiles to obey Jewish laws.

The devil is using the same strategy: If you don’t believe the Bible as we do, (every word breathed by God) then you are a liberal. Did God breathe lies for men to tell? No! Did God breathe ignorance for men to tell? No! What about confusion, plotting, evil thoughts, stupidity, and the list goes on?

God breathed TRUTH and not untruth. So all the words of untruth are not the Words of God. What is difficult about that?

The complaint is made who is going to decide truth and untruth? That person is so lazy they just want to read and believe every word is true. Paul had a word for him and it was STUDY. That means stop being lazy about learning the Bible. If we study God’s Word the Holy Spirit will teach us

“By their fruits you will know them.” What is the fruit of inerrancy? Years of quarreling, fussing, ranting, raving, separation, and broken fellowship.

Yep, it’s easy to see inerrancy came from the smiling lips of the devil.

v domus, it’s sad to feel more comfortable in saying these words to someone outside Baptists doctrine. I guess it’s because we have kindred hearts even though our heads disagree.


Anonymous said...


You are a good man; you have settled values, where most men are not very secure in what they claim to believe, even Baptists who claim eternal security, and Catholics who claim Sacred Tradition. I heard a saying the other day, "the most insecure man shouts the loudest”. I remember the SBC wars in the mid 1980s; it was a large reason for me leaving not only the SBC but whole Protestant thing.

My heart is with you, and though we do differ on big matters, I also know that we have the same Father and are brothers in spirit. I sometimes differ on big matters with my biological brother, but we are offspring from the same man, our father. I love my brother, even with our differences, and always will. The same goes for you Rex.

My comment was on the 19th post.

I’ll get back soon


Anonymous said...

Hey Rex,

I'm getting kind of worried about you. You okay?


Anonymous said...

v domus,
Sorry to be slow in replying. I’ve been printing Wade’s blog and by the time I do that and read it, seems there is not much time for writing. Well, there is so much going on also.
I searched the post of May 19 (Frank and I are on the same page), but could not find your comment. It may have been removed maybe, or like one guy told me I needed new glasses.

Thanks for all your nice words. I think I have taken advantage of this post to make some comments that would have been cut on an up-to-date post. I guess I need to thank Wade for that.
Speaking of Wade, do you think he will run for president?
I still disagree on some major points, but I believe he is a good learner. I think the latest ‘blasting’ he received should open his eyes to the way people hijacked the SBC years ago.

Your friend,

Anonymous said...


The post was on the 18th, sorry for sending you on a wild goose chase. Boy, I don't know about Wade running. I think if he does it as a kind of statement understanding that he may be skinned alive and can stay in there with resolve, it can be a good thing. I remember the mid-eighties and what people did to each other often in the name of God. Do you recall what happened to James Robinson, Jack Taylor, etc. who moved from the accepted norm and saw Gospel realities in new forms, the fullness movement, deference ministry, etc, let alone the whole conservative-moderate war.

I think there is something special about the SBC. There exists a kind of negative, positive polarity that like electricity, causes a charge, or tension that maintains activity. I live in a property owner’s association lake development, it's similar. There is content turmoil, but in spit of the fighting things move forward. Of course the hope is that the Holy Spirit is involved within the SBC to keep it together as an effective witness for our Lord.

It sure was good to see your comments again. But when your busy, don't worry, we can always catch up.

Your friend in Christ,

Anonymous said...

v domus,
Found your post of the May 18. It gets us back into our first interest if Catholic or Protestants are correct. You are right that there is much we could learn from each other. By the way, when you were Baptist, were you of the ‘new’ school that Baptists started in the 15th century, or the ‘old’ school that Baptists started with the teachings of Christ as interpreted by Paul?

Catholics got their name in 313 AD, while Anabaptist got their name in 251 AD. I’ve done a 20 year study and written 46 pages explaining where those billion plus Catholics came from. In short they came from James. If he had never been born, Christians would have believed Peter in saying—all are saved the same way, by the gift of Christ.

I don’t know what you are talking about when you say, “Check out the number of common language Bibles that were published prior to any Protestant editions.”

By the way, have you read the following? When this study is complete, (3 years to go) it may change the way a lot of people believe.

Dallas Morning News Friday, March 11, 2005
For oldest Bible, a divine new look.
Once texts are digitally reunited, public can see and interpret changes. By Tod Robberson…Europe Bureau

LONDON---Is the Bible the infallible word of God or a text doctored by calligrapher, priest and politicians to satisfy their own earthly motivations?
Evidence suggesting the latter is contained on the pages of the world’s oldest Bible, the Codex Sinaiticus. The ancient Greek Bible, written between the first and fourth centuries, has been divided since the mid-1800s after visitors from Russia and Western Europe removed sections of it from a desert monastery in Egypt.
But on Thursday, experts from Britain, Germany, Russia, Egypt and the United States launched a four-year project to digitally reunite the fragile texts and make them available to anyone with the click of a mouse.
“The codex is so special as a foundation document and a unique icon to Christianity,” said John Tuck, head of British Collections at the
British Library in London. Unification of the manuscript, even digitally, “is a blockbuster in scholarship.”
Only a privileged few have ever been allowed to handle the original manuscripts. Scholars need access to determine, among other things, how far the modern Bible has veered in interpretation from the codex. Parts of the project announced Thursday will include Christian texts written as few as 45 years after the death of Jesus Christ.
The manuscripts are so delicate that only four scholars have been granted access in the last 19 years to sections of the text housed in London, said Scot McKendrick, head of medieval and earlier manuscripts at the British Library in London.
But researchers and the general public will be able to examine the digitized texts in minute detail. Historical and explanatory notations will accompany the digitized texts so that viewers can trace how changes were made and, more important, why.
“Obviously, the way the editing works…is exceedingly interesting. What is process leading to this or that correction? Whether it was merely editorial, or if they were following a theological led” in altering the message, Mr. McKendrick said.
Altered book
Ray Bruce, a film director who is producing a documentary on the project cited the Book of Mark as an example of how much the modern Bible has been altered from the codex. In the codex, he said, the Book of Mark ends at Chapter 16, Verse 8, with the discovery the Christ’s tomb was empty.
But more modern versions contain additionally 12 verses with the testimony from Mary Magdalene and 11 apostles referring to the resurrection of Jesus.
“It shows how much this is a dynamic process of editing and adaptation,” he said, but also raises questions about the influence man has had on texts regarded by Christians as divinely inspired.
Researchers and plunderers have particularly coveted the codex because the texts were written so soon after the life of Jesus, and they are the largest and longest-surviving biblical manuscript in existence, including both the Old and New Testaments. In addition, the codex contains two Christian texts written around A.D. 65, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas.
Sections removed
Until the mid-1800s, the complete codex was housed inside St. Catherine’s Monastery in Sinai, Egypt. But the texts were broken up when visitors bribed, cajoled or deceived monks into letting certain sections be removed for further examination in Russia, Britain, and Germany.
“They were never returned,” said Greek Orthodox Archbishop Damianos of Sinai. “The monastery felt a great injustice was done.”
He said the disappearance of the texts led to upheaval in the monastery, and because of lingering resentment, the monks at St. Catherine’s had been “a bit reluctant to respond positively” when asked to participate in the current project.
In particular, he singled out Britain for criticism because of what he described as the underhanded manner in which it obtained its texts and its longtime refusal to return them. Nevertheless, he said the monastery agreed to join the digitization project.
Other parts of the manuscript that had been taken to Russia disappeared after the 1918 Bolshevik Revolution and were feared lost forever. They did not reappear until the mid-1940s and are now kept at the National Library of Russian St. Petersburg.
Going high-tech
Mr. Mckendrick said the codex was originally produced on high-grade papyrus with the state-of-the-art ink and pens---the best available at the time.
Similarly, the new digitization project will use some of today’s most advanced technology, he added. “So in a sense, we’ll be matching fourth century cutting-edge technology with cutting-edge 21st century technology.”
E-mail trobberson@dallasnews.com

e domus, thanks again for your friendship,

Anonymous said...

Hey Rex,

Time to heat things back up a little, I guess.

The first time the word Catholic was used to describe the Church was by one of the early Church Fathers, Ignatius of Antioch, he said:

"Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

I don't know what you have that pins any group called Baptist, before the 17th century, unless you mean the Anabaptist, or re-baptizers, as they were called in there early days by Protestant opponents. The only way I have seen this done is the "Trail of Blood" fiction. Surly you don't refer to it when defending the early start of Baptists.

As far a James being the founder of the Catholic Church, I respect your knowledge, but I think history is on my side here. We need to get back this.

Some comments from a Catholic source on the Bible:

"The oldest existing codices of the Christian Bible are all parchment copies, written in uncial letters, and dating from the fourth century. Among these oldest existing Bibles the following are the more important:

1. The Codex Vaticanus, dating from the first half of the fourth century and preserved in the Vatican Library. It represents a form of text current in Egypt in the second century.
2. The Codex Sinaiticus, also dating from the fourth century and representing the same form of text as the preceding. It was discovered in 1844 in the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai, and is now kept in the British Museum.
3. The Codex Alexandrinus, belonging to the fifth century. It was brought from Alexandria to Constantinople and later transferred to the British Museum in London.
4. The Codex Ephraemi, also belonging to the fifth century. It is a palimpsest: Some writings of St. Ephraem were written across the Biblical text, which had been more or less erased but is still legible.

The Council of Carthage (397) published a list of all the inspired books of the Bible. The Council of Florence repeated the canon of the Bible, and it was restated at the Council of Trent.
Versions of the whole or parts of the Bible in the language of the common people first appeared in England and Germany in the eighth century, in France and Hungary in the twelfth, and Italy, Spain, Holland, Poland and Bohemia in the thirteenth century.

In 1452, the Vulgate was the first book to be printed on the Gutenberg press; that particular edition is commonly known as the Gutenberg Bible. (Illustration starts with Luke 1:28)

By the time of the Protestant Reformation in the 1500's, there were 104 Latin editions of the Bible - 9 before Martin Luther's birth, and 27 before his edition. About this time though, some Latin editions were defective, owing to the creativity of the various publishers, so the Council of Trent intervened, choosing the official Clementine edition as the official Latin version.
In Italy, there were more than vernacular 40 editions of the Bible. France had 18 vernacular editions before 1547, and Spain began publishing editions in 1478, with full approval of the Spanish Inquisition. In all, 626 editions of the bible, in which 198 were in the language of the laity, were published before the first Protestant version".

You are going to be hard to deal with, arn't you? If you think James started a bad line, the Catholic Church, then all that I use to answer, you will claim to be from this bad line. How can I win?

Anyway, I will apply what little I have and try.

God Bless,


Anonymous said...


I forgot to mention that I really was moved by the story of your brother. And also think your post today is excellent.


Anonymous said...

v domus,
Our internet has been down for several days, and my comment did not make the cut. I took some out—so now maybe it will. I went to my neighbor the other day to make a comment to Wade about the IMB blaspheming the Holy Spirit—probably won’t make the cut. (But it did.) There I read your latest comment to me. I always print what you write so I won’t overlook anything, but today I couldn’t so I’m going by my poor memory.
I’m impressed with your knowledge of the early manuscripts, but what jumped at me was you mentioning the man “Ignatius.” That’s the man I quote to show ‘Catholic thinking’ right from the start.

I will copy paste from my ‘book.’ (“book” is easier to say than what I’ve put together.)

1. 2002-Sin of priests caused laymen to have more voice in church.
2. 2000-Pope apologies for Inquisition of 1184. Does he believe his ‘infallibility of 1870’ when he said he would pray for his sins and if there was any forgiveness left over he’d pray for others?
3. 1992-Permission to believe the earth rotates around the sun.
4. 1965-Mary proclaimed the Mother of the Church.
5. 1950-Assumption of Virgin Mary. [Went to heaven without dying.]
6. 1930-Public schools condemned.
7. 1870-Infallibility of Pope declared. [Rejected by Greek Catholics.]
8. 1854-Immaculate conception of Mary. [Means she was sinless.]
9. 1546-Apocryphal books put into their Bible.
10. 1545-Tradition granted equal authority with the Bible.
11. 1229-Bible forbidden to laymen.
12. 1215-Transubstantiation. [A current belief in how man changes wine and bread into Jesus for the Lord’s Supper...man makes God.]
13. 1190-Sale of Indulgences. [Pay in advance for sin removal.]
14. 1184-The Inquisition. [Established Holy Office to kill those in disagreement.]
15. 1079-Celibacy of priest. [Not allowed to marry...rejected by Greeks.]
16. 998-Fasting of Fridays and during Lent.
17. 709-Kissing the pope’s foot.
18. 600-Worship in Latin and prayers to Mary.
19. 500-Priests dressed differently than laymen.
20. 431-Worship of Mary began.
21. 375-Worship of saints and angels.
22. 313-Named Catholic under Constantine.
23. 300-Prayers for dead and making sign of the cross.
24. 251-Baptized babies for salvation. Opposed by Anabaptists.
25. 90-Large churches lorded over small churches. Trail of Blood “Does not admit my authority over him.” (3 John 1:9)
26. 58- “...thousands of Jews who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law.” Acts 21:20 [They thought Jesus came to back up Jewish laws for salvation and put their sins on a scapegoat.]
27. 50?-Ignatius, second bishop of Antioch, wrote: “Mary...lady of our new religion... James, whom they relate to be like Jesus in appearance, in life, in method of conduct… and we should look upon bishops as the Lord himself.”. [I believe Ignatius is one answer to Paul’s question, “Who has bewitched you?” Galatians 3:1]

Christian Classics Ethereal Library, Wheaton College
Mary wrote to Ignatius: “The lowly handmaid of Jesus to Ignatius, her beloved fellow-disciple. The things which thou has heard and learned from John concerning Jesus are true. Believe them, cling to them...stand fast in the faith...Amen”
Ignatius wrote to John: “Well-know persons, relate that Mary is full of all graces and all virtues...She is the lady of our new religion...there is in Mary, the mother of Jesus, an angelic purity of nature allied with the nature of humanity. Such reports have greatly urged us to desire a sight of this heavenly prodigy and most sacred marvel. I desire to see the venerable James, who is surnamed Just, whom they relate to be like Christ Jesus in appearance, in life, in method of conduct, as if he were a twin-brother of the same womb. We ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household, as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself.” [This reveals how Christians were led astray.]
Trail of Blood J.M. Carroll, 1931 page 12 “Great churches began [about 90 A.D.] to claim authority over smaller churches...their many elders began to lord it over God’s heritage (3 John 1:9). Here was the beginning of an error…practiced by others as well as Catholics.”

Oh, I forgot to thank you for liking my comment to Wade on May 30. I’m surprised he prints some of my comments—guess I’m batting around 700. I wish someone would answer the questions.

You’re saying the Trail of Blood is fiction is the same as conservatives. Carroll was quite respected until the conservative resurgence. They had a problem with his book because it was easy to connect the dots to see the villain in 3 John 1:9 was the elder and not the little country preacher. He even wrote that history recorded the Apostle John of being killed in boiling oil, but that tradition had him surviving.
If he survived, what happened to the prophesy of Jesus saying he would taste the same cup as Jesus. Do not the bold die first? The first ‘sons of thunder’ was martyred by an easy death. Would the second be far behind? It wouldn’t surprise me if John had shook his fist in the King’s face and called fire from heaven to avenge his brother’s death. History records two Johns, and one John was known as the ‘Elder’, and that’s the way 2 and 3 John start: “The Elder.” Would Clinton refer to himself as the former mayor of Little Rock, or the former president of the United States?

domus, man has always wanted to worship something without faith required. Thus the golden calf.
Rex Ray

Anonymous said...


You dumped the whole load! The problem with Carrol's book is the factions that he used to connect the historical line of "Anabaptist" from his early date. Give me a little time and I'll reply to this and some of the other points you mention.

700%, hey thats not bad when you are really trying to make some good points and not just trying to smooze someone.


Anonymous said...

v domus,
I used to think (and still do to some extent) that the ‘dark ages’ was from the time of Acts to 313 AD. The church split in 251 because the majority started baptizing babies for salvation. Where did they get such an idea? They combined Scriptures. They slanted enough Scriptures to believe a person was saved by baptism. Then they took the Scripture where Jesus tells to bring children unto him and bingo.

The real division was the squabble how man was saved in Acts 15. The same question goes on today. Is man saved by faith only—or faith plus works? Is salvation a gift—or a gift with strings attached?

The Jews had the law so long; it was ingrained into their thinking. It was a life jacket for a sea of sin until Jesus came. Salvation through Jesus put them on dry land but the Christian Jews could not give up their old life jackets. They wanted the Gentiles to wear one also.

At the first church counsel, the shouting got so noisy, the elders and apostles had their own PRIVATE meeting.
v domus, do you think James expressed his “judgment” in their private meeting? I think he kept it to himself until he would have support of the multitude of Jews. If he had brought it up at the private meeting, I’ll bet Peter and Paul would have jumped all over him. As it turned out—his judgment could not be debated over the screaming cheers of the multitude.

James’ judgment got the foot in the door of salvation plus works.

Anonymous said...


Interesting question, I ponder a little before my reply.


Anonymous said...

I though you might want to read some more of what Ignatius of Antioch had to say. This is taken from his letter to the Magnesians.

"These things [I address to you], my beloved, not that I know any of you to be in such a state; but, as less than any of you, I desire to guard you beforehand, that ye fall not upon the hooks of vain doctrine, but that ye attain to full assurance in regard to the birth, and passion, and resurrection which took place in the time of the government of Pontius Pilate, being truly and certainly accomplished by Jesus Christ, who is our hope, from which may no one of you ever be turned aside.

Be not deceived with strange
doctrines, nor with old fables, which are unprofitable. For if we still live according to the Jewish law, we acknowledge that we have not received grace. For the divinest prophets lived according to Christ Jesus. On this account also they were persecuted, being inspired by His grace to fully convince the unbelieving that there is one God, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son, who is His eternal Word, not proceeding forth from silence, and who in all things pleased Him that sent Him.
If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death--whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master--how shall we be able to live apart from Him, whose disciples the prophets themselves in the Spirit did wait for Him as their Teacher? And therefore He whom they rightly waited for, being come, raised them from the dead.

Let us not, therefore, be insensible to His kindness. For were He to reward us according to our works, we should cease to be. Therefore, having become His disciples, let us learn to live according to the principles of Christianity. For whosoever is called by any other name besides this, is not of God. Lay aside, therefore, the evil, the old, the sour leaven, and be ye changed into the new leaven, which is Jesus Christ. Be ye salted in Him, lest any one among you should be corrupted, since by your savour ye shall be convicted. It is absurd to profess Christ Jesus, and to Judaize. For Christianity did not embrace Judaism, but Judaism Christianity, that so every tongue which believeth might be gathered together to God"


Anonymous said...

v domus,
Thanks for the update on Ignatius. Sounds like good Baptist preaching to me. That’s the trouble of some preachers, they get so good, they stop listening to the Holy Spirit and end up wanting power and control.

That may have happened last week in Germantown, Tennessee. A new preacher wanted a 150 plus year old Baptist church to vote for new bylaws that would put the control of the church into the hands of ‘elders’ and him.
Sounded like the new bylaws of my brother-in-law’s church that gave the control of the church to a Leadership Board. The Board wanted to sell the 6 million dollar church and build in another town.

My brother-in-law and three others were removed from the church by 7 signatures for arguing against the pastor doing this. I think the pastor got revenge for the church heeding their pleas.

At Germantown, the vote failed and the pastor and six staff members resigned.
domus, I believe a lot of Baptist schools are turning out preachers that would fit right in with your churches.

Anonymous said...


The problem with Baptists is the lack of appriciation for tradition. What's wrong with the "Free Church" tradition? It led the Evangelical Protistant movement from much of the 20th century. But now, in the interest of finding this place where only the essentials are supposed to be primary, and all else is cut away as being optional, I think, the SBC is being gutted. There is a wonderful history to be studies within the Baptist "Free Church" tradition. Be proud of it, promote it, develope from it. We Catholics will remain quite happy with our tradition of established authority.

Have a Blessed Weekend,

Your Catholic Friend,

V Domus

Anonymous said...

V Domus,
Growing up, my best friend was a Catholic who now has left this world; so your goodbye brought back old memories.
Speaking of old memories; is that not what tradition is?

Tradition is good but it should not rule the world; or ‘because we always done it that way.’ There is a time that tradition should take a back seat. Such a time was when Jesus came. He taught a ‘new way’ to reunite man with God. Tradition didn’t like it. The Jewish law was the way of tradition. Jesus said man walked on the laws of God for the sake of tradition.
The law was something man could see. He could pat himself on the back by keeping the law or fooling other people that he was.

What reasons did James give for his “Judgment?” He told the Jews one thing but he told the Gentiles in his letter something else. He told the Jews because of TRADITION; “For these things have been preached against in Jewish synagogues in every city on the Sabbath for many generations.” (Acts 15:21) The Jews rejoiced that their laws had prevailed over Peter saying salvation was a gift. They didn’t want Gentiles to get something they had slaved for all their lives.
James knew Gentiles didn’t care for Jewish tradition, so he changed his reason to them: “For it was the Holy Spirit’s decision and ours…etc” (Acts 15:20) HA Peter said Jewish laws (tradition) would make God angry and now James has the Holy Spirit backing Jewish laws.

This is an example of the Bible recording in truth what man has said that is not true. Without James, Catholic roots would never have grown.

Domus, I don’t know about the “Free Church” tradition. You know more history than I do. Catholics gave tradition EQUAL authority with the Bible in 1545. Do you believe that? If you do, then you believe as James and not Peter.

I’ll start driving from Texas to North Carolina tomorrow (Sunday) for the SBC, so I’ll be out of touch several days.

Keep studding Acts 15, it holds the answer to why Baptists were never Protestants.
I liked Wade’s post for Sunday June 11.

As always,

Anonymous said...


Tradition shouldn't be a negitive word. It's spoken often in positive terms in the NT. After all, the written word wasn't there for them, they had to depend on the spoken word, or what Catholics call Oral Trdition.

It's about linkage. There has been much development in doctrine (see your listing of 27 points) but all is linked to Scripture and what's called Sacred Tradition. We will spend time on your points as we go.

My comments regarding SB tradition were aimed at the problems you addressed about individual control, etc. All development needs to be linked to what has come before, otherwise we end up with pop psycology and God only knows what else.

I hope you have a great time at the SBC.

V Domas

Rex Ray said...

V Domus,
I forgot whose court the ball was in. My son showed me how to start a blog. It is ‘The Truth of Acts” but is spelled altogether as ‘TruthOfActs.’ I put my article in it.

I don’t know how to find blogs, other than clicking on them on Wade’s post. I have a couple on his last post.


Anonymous said...


I missed you. Good to see you're blogging, I guess I'll try someday.
Who cares about the ball. I'll get back to you.