troubling events last week

If you read the fundamentals you will find that many of the contributors didn't believe in immersion. They didn't necessarily agree on church history though I am unsure what you are referring to. Some were more than likely calvinists... as are many genuine independent fundamental Baptists (like myself).

They did cross denominational barriers to stand for what they agreed on... and that thing was the supremacy of scripture.

Without having more details than what you provided, I am not yet troubled. I would be troubled if this speaker were a woman addressing a mixed congregation (like Gail Riplinger does in KJVO churches) or if this speaker was someone whose beliefs contradicted scripture (Mormon, RC, liberal protestant, open theist, etc.) I would be troubled if this speaker taught baptismal regeneration. But you haven't really given enough information for a thoughtful, biblical response.

 

There is always some kind of compomise made when denominational "barriers" are crossed. There's a reason that some are Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists or Baptists (even though there are more factions in Baptist modes of thought than in any other truly Christian denomination.

 

That depends on the purpose. Presbyterians practice covenant baptism of infants if I understand right that is similar to baby dedications in some IFB churches. They don't consider it salvific. It isn't scriptural... but neither does it contradict scripture.

I am aware of the meaning and our reason for believing it. I am also aware of the arguments of sprinklers and that some of them hold their belief in good faith.

Please feel free to join in the debates in the theology section about this. I just finished a response in part to this very notion. In short, if it were God's perfect will to save all men then all men would be saved. Also, the argument that God actively wills to save some but cannot makes man sovereign and God the helpless dependent on man's good will to accomplish a plan that can never quite be certain... since it depends on man's choice.

I don't know you nor how studied you are- but some of the great names that IFB's point to were devout calvinists. Spurgeon, Whitfield, Pink, Edwards, Gill, etc.

Calvinism is one of two basic ways to explain the tensions between man's free will and God's sovereignty as it pertains to the biblical gospel. There are degrees of both arminianism and calvinism... but most people will define themselves as one or the other as they answer basic questions.

It is my opinion that calvinism is the best explanation for the whole of scripture concerning God's grace in salvation.

 

That's true. I would also say that some Baptists are closer to other denominations in beliefs and practices than they are to other self-professed "Baptists".

 

So if I'm reading this right you've contacted a church that you're not a member of about a ministry event they held where you don't approve of their choice of speakers. And now you're posting on an internet board trying to get people to be upset with you over an event at a church that none of us belong to.

What's the deal, don't you have enough to do?

 

Ouch!Guitarpreacher you put a hurtin on the new kid in town. Yet you were money on that play.

Dr. D James Kennedy. He is a fine, distinqished, christian gentleman who has had a wonderful ministry here on earth. He is a sprinkler and egads! I believe you would call him a fundamental presbyterian. I'm pretty sure he will be in heaven. To bad some will never enjoy listening or reading something from a fellow like that all because he wasn't a baptist.
Some baptist are gonna have alot of catching up to do in heaven. I mean having to go around and introduce themselves to all them folk they thought weren't gonna make it.

 

You know, there are people out there that I won't fellowship with. There are others out there that I will fellowship with, but I'd never allow them to preach in my church. (Once when I was a youth pastor I had my AoG cousin speak to my youth group. He did a fantastic job, and said nothing that was out of line, but I spent the entire time on pins and needles afraid of what he might say. I decided then, never again) But for the most part, there are more things we have in common with other denominations than there are things that divide us. I've been both Christian and Baptist for quite a while now, and there are two things I'm becoming more and more aware of: #1, you don't have to be my twin to be my brother. And #2, it never ceases to amaze me how often God uses and blesses people that disagree with me.

And dfi, I'm a bit of a smart alec, and sometimes because you can't see my grin, what I type comes across as a bit harsh. Sorry if my post came off that way, harshness was not my intent.

 

dfi, did this guest speaker speak in the regularly scheduled services of said church or was he speaking at a 'Ten Commandments' rally or something of that nature? To me that makes a difference.

A Baptist church I belonged to used to host a Neighborhood Watch meeting every month. The man who was leader of the NW program just happened to be a Presbyterian pastor. Word got around that our church was 'liberal' because we let this group led by this pastor use our facilities.

 

I think dfi is talking about Ian Paisley speaking at Clarence Sexton's church. Yes, I would disagree with Paisley on infant baptism and calvinsm but as long as he's not preaching on those topics I would have no problem with going to hear him speak or TBC having him as a speaker. What I can't get though is if you follow your reasoning dfi D.L. Moody(Congragationalist) and Billy Sunday (Presby) wouldnt be invited to preach at an IFB church.

 

I am IFB (and then some) and I went to Tulsa Ok to stand with a man who pastored a charismatic church. He was jailed on a religious liberty principle. All the big boy charismatics acted like he didn't exist and nobody else cared. He was eventually vindicated. I learned a long time ago, first they take the Methodists, then the charasmatics, then the Lutherans and when they come for the Baptists there is no one else left. It is good to stand together on some issues. Pick your battles and then remember the buddy in the foxhole with you is on your side and it doesn't matter what he looks like or smells like.
Thanks -------Bart
.....a free people will not remain free when they are enslaved in sin, God save the USA.

 

I recall the days back in the 50's and 60's where the line was crossed often and even before that. H. A. Ironside(Brethren), William Culbertson (Reformed Episcopal), G. Campbell Morgan(Congragationalist), A.W.Tozer(CMA) J. Vernon McGee(Presbyterian) to name a few. If one was Calvinism, arminianism or neither when they crossed they found ground where they could agree. I'm not calvinism but D James Kennedy has been known to speak in some SBC and IFB churches over the years and done a great job. He has said many times the reason he is a Presbyterian is because they are truer to John Calvin's teaching but he has spoke at many a Baptist church and many who disagree with Calvinism.
This crossing the line is rather new, lets say the last 40 years or so. As long as what they preached was true to the Bible and the doctrines of the church where they were preaching. At so many places we who disagree can agree and be true to the Bible and God on that passage.

 

Very true, Bob. The early independent Baptists had much contact with other groups until the Graham New York crusade of 1957 stirred the waters and most groups abandoned Fundamentalism.

I recall John R. Rice saying (I believe in the 1960's) that he used to have city-wide crusades and invite all Bible believers. He would even take help from the Pentecostals (this was before the Charismatic movement), saying that he wouldn't preach on baptism if they would keep quiet about tongues, and everyone would try to win souls.

I went to BJU in 1970-1972 (transferred to Tenn. Temple), and had Presbyterian and Methodist roommates who were Fundamentalists. However, when Dr. Bob III came out to Japan about 15 years ago he told us that BJU was about 95% Baptist now.

It is the Baptist distinctive of "the Bible as the sole rule of faith and practice" that, in the long run, has sustained the Fundamentalist movement.

 

John you are correct. I believe John and Bill Rice both invite all Bible believers and so did Oliver B. Greene in their crusades. I also believe that Hyman Appelman, Fred Brown and John Carrara invited all to come to their meetings, and spoke in many churches that might have crossed a line or two.

 

The main thing is whether or not this guest preacher believes in JESUS CHRIST AS LORD AND SAVIOR. That's the foundation. The parts built upon the foundation may be different from one another, long as they're built upon that same foundation.

 

I remember (as a fellow student of John's at TTU) having a chapel speaker who was a Presbyterian missionary to the tribal folks. We also had SBC speakers both in chapel and in church. Nothing was said about it then because all of the 'fundies' did it. (Same thing could be said about the use of certain Bible versions in the classroom- 'nuff said)

It wasn't until later, late 70's or early 80's (I think) that 'secondary separation' raised it's ugly head and the hairsplitting started.

Forgive me if this is off topic. It is Monday and I am still recovering.