Monday, May 29, 2006

walking with chris#links

walking with chris#links

/dev/Sunnybrook/Blog: Increasing Google Page Rank for Blogs and Other Sites

/dev/Sunnybrook/Blog: Increasing Google Page Rank for Blogs and Other Sites

Saturday, May 27, 2006

the cult of oprah

When I said it no one really listened and a few chuckled. Casting Crowns sang about it and people began to take notice. Now Marc Driscoll has blogged about it and the world is begining to listen for the first time. It might be to late but Marc is echoing what I have been saying, and I think he says it nicer than me.

Wednesday, May 24, 2006

The Testimony of Charles Spurgeon

i have heard but have not found yet, that Spurgeon wrote a fore word to a baptist history in whcih he was seen to be still be holding to the landmarks. while i have not found this yet, i do offer you this from Three Witnesses for the Baptists , By Curtis A. Pugh, Chapter Two -The First Witness. Also included are footnotes to the sources for verification and refrence
Charles Haddon Spurgeon is said to be the most extensively read preacher since the apostles. His books and sermons have been reprinted numerous times both as collections and as individual pieces. Spurgeon (1834-1892) was converted during his teenage years and shortly thereafter began to preach. He was privileged to preach to multitudes both in rented auditoriums and in the meeting houses of his own church in London, England. Under Spurgeon's leadership this congregation built a meeting house known as the Metropolitan Tabernacle which would seat six thousand people. Whereas Mr. Spurgeon was not nearly as conscientious in church polity as we think consistent with Bible principles, he evidences a clear understanding of the origin of Baptist churches.

Before the congregation moved into the Metropolitan Tabernacle, while still meeting at the New Park Street location in 1860, Spurgeon preached these words:

"I am not ashamed of the denomination to which I belong, sprung as we are, direct from the loins of Christ, having never passed through the turbid stream of Romanism, and having an origin apart from all dissent or Protestantism, because we have existed before all other sects..." [9]

During the next year, 1861, after moving to the new Tabernacle, Spurgeon proclaimed:

"We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther or Calvin were born; we never came from the church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the very days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel underground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents." [10]

Later, that same year Spurgeon boldly proclaimed for all the world to hear:

"And now it seems to me, at this day, when any say to us, 'You, as a denomination, what great names can you mention? What fathers can you speak of?' We may reply, 'More than any other under heaven, for we are the old apostolic Church that have never bowed to the yoke of princes yet; we, known among men, in all ages, by various names, such as Donatists, Novatians, [sic] Paulicians, Petrobrussians, Cathari, Arnoldists, Hussites, Waldenses, Lollards, and Anabaptists, have always contended for the purity of the Church, and her distinctness and separation from human government. Our fathers were men inured to hardships, and unused to ease. They present to us, their children, an unbroken line which comes legitimately from the apostles, not through the filth of Rome, not by the manipulations of prelates, but by the Divine life, the Spirit's anointing, the fellowship of the Son in suffering and of the Father in truth." [11]

Such evidence shows that Mr. Spurgeon was not backward about openly and frequently speaking out concerning the history of the people now called Baptists! This writer wishes all Baptist ministers were so forward in this matter!

In 1881, some TWENTY YEARS LATER, Spurgeon was still preaching the same things regarding the origin of Baptists. It is most significant that after twenty years of further study, ministry, and association with both Baptists and others, Mr. Spurgeon still believed in the apostolic origin and perpetuity of Baptist churches. He declared:

"History has hitherto been written by our enemies, who never would have kept a single fact about us upon the record if they could have helped it, and yet it leaks out every now and then that certain poor people called Anabaptists were brought up for condemnation. From the days of Henry II [A.D. 1154-1189] to those of Elizabeth [1558-1603] we hear of certain unhappy heretics who were hated of all men for the truth's sake which was in them. We read of poor men and women, with their garments cut short, turned out into the fields to perish in the cold, and anon of others who were burnt at Newington for the crime of Anabaptism. Long before your Protestants were known of, these horrible Anabaptists, as they were unjustly called, were protesting for the 'one Lord, one faith, and one baptism.'" [12] [Brackets mine: C.A.P.].

[9] C.H. Spurgeon, NEW PARK STREET PULPIT, Vol. 16, 1860, (Pasadena, Texas, Pilgrim Publications, 1973 reprint), p. 66.

[10] C.H. Spurgeon, METROPOLITAN TABERNACLE PULPIT, Vol. 7, 1861 (Pasadena, Texas, Pilgrim Publications, 1973 reprint), p. 225

[11] Spurgeon, ibid., Vol. 7, p. 613.

[12] Spurgeon, ibid., Vol. 27, p. 249.

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

mark's book

i got mark driscoll' s book confessions of a reformissionary rev. on 5/19/06. i left for church that friday night and did not ge a chance to crack it open till about 10:00 pm or so saturday night. but i finished it that night/morning. i closed the book at around 2 am. a simply great book that needs to be read. Not only that but mark's style of writing and his openess about the early work at mars hill make it easy to read. the book just makes you wnat to read it. I read the whole hing and the napped, got up and went to church and preached.
anyway more to come

graduations

Saturday the 20th of May was a momentous day for the Price family. After a long time I graduated with a B.A.R. or a Bachelor of Arts of Religion. The unique thing is that my daughter will be graduating May 25th from kindergarten. The ceremony was wonderful with Dr. John M. Adams of Mantachie, Ms as the commencement speaker.


One unique feature of the service was the hooding of M.Div. student Dr. Dan Baber. Dan is a teaching elder at a Church plant, father of five, husband of one and a emergency room doctor. When they hooded him, the seminary staff did not just give applause. They rose to thier feet and gave him a standing ovation. Dan is rumored to have never recieved anything less than a hundred on his work at B.M.A.T.S.


This was not the only standing ovation for he day. Jim Shine, Pastor of Enterprise Baptist Church of Jacksonville, Tx and New Testament Greek Professor at B.M.A.T.S. had studied at Baylor Univeristy many years ago for his Ph.D. He left after about Thirty hours due to theological diffrences. He is not the first nor the last. The Seminary conferred upon him a honorary Doctorate of Divinity. Bro. Shine, can not be called Dr. Shine, which is somethign he has always told his students not to do becuase he felt it should be reserved for those who have earned it.

The D.D. was become a meaningless degree due to some handing it to anyone who walked by. But this was not always so.



From Wikipedia - In the United Kingdom, D.D. has traditionally been the highest doctorate granted by universities, usually conferred upon a religious scholar of standing and distinction. In descending order of seniority, the D.D. degree is followed by LL.D. (or D.C.L.) for law, M.D. (or D.M.) for medicine, Litt.D. (or D.Litt.) for letters, and D.Sc. (or Sc.D.) for science. The high status of the D.D. qualification in British universities owed to their traditional affiliation with the Christian church. As universities became increasingly secular in the 20th century, the D.D. degree lost much of its preeminence in practice, though officially it is still the most senior qualification at the universities of Oxford, Durham, and Cambridge

Friday, May 19, 2006

Wednesday, May 17, 2006

mark it up!

i am not a great book marker. sometimes my lines are not straight. sometimes i underline the wrong stuff, or i am not sure what to underline. i want to keep great notes, but some times my writing is poor. i have found three articles that will help you and me.


scot mcknight has a helpful post on how to mark a book when you read it.

al moler has agreat one on his together for the gospel about marking books. in paragraph six on his post


mortimer j. adler has a great article on his site abouthow to mark abook

Saturday, May 13, 2006

Spurgeon was not of reformed tradition

in the Words of Charles Spurgeon:

"We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther and Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel under ground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor, I believe, any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man..."

Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1861). Volume 7, Page 225.

Friday, May 12, 2006

baptists afraid of water!

i read this over at Ministry and Music - Seeking the Old Paths . i just made laugh.

http://baptistsearch.blogspot.com/2006/05/baptists-afraid-of-water.html#comments

abstracts of priniciples affrims the landmarks

Many of the Reformed Theology Group cling to the Abstracts of Principles as proof of many of their doctrines (NOT ALL do this). I have many time wondered way they would turn to this and not scripture or some thing earlier in the spectrum on theological time. This in not of true importance here though. Let us look at Abstract XVI and see how it affirms one of the landmarks of a true church.


XVI. The Lord's Supper.The Lord's Supper is an ordinance of Jesus Christ, to be administered with the elements of bread and wine, and to be observed by His churches till the end of theworld. It is in no sense a sacrifice, but is designed to commemorate His death, to confirm the faith and other graces of Christians, and to be a bond, pledge and renewal of their communion with Him, and of their church fellowship.


Now as we slow examine this abstract we find that this ordinance has given to the Churches by Christ to observe, not the universal church (catholic church). Additionally we find that this is to be done by the churches until the end of the world; this seems to have smacking of perpetuity to it, that Christ’s Churches would have never been extinguished and lost. Furthermore, the term Churches is used and not Church, a singular noun. The ordinance is to be celebrated in multiple, autonomous, singular churches, not in a universal church. As for Christians they are to be members of a church and not freelancing their faith in a lone ranger way. Scripture would warn and command against this. The real kicker here to use the vernacular is that the abstract says that this celebration of the ordinance of the Lord's Supper is to be between Christ and Church. How could one bond, pledge and "renew" their fellowship with Christ and a stranger? Where would the renewal be? Would there not have to first be a relationship to begin with? That would be new, no renew.

Additionally, Abstract XV on baptism says that baptism “is prerequisite to church fellowship, and to participation in the Lord's Supper.” This means that one must be are regenerate baptized believer prior to being a member of the Church and being allowed to partake in the Lord’s Supper. Does his not set a fence at the table?

Abstract XIV reads, “The Lord Jesus is the head of the Church, which is composed of all His true disciples, and in Him is invested supremely all power for its government. According to His commandment, Christians are to associate themselves into particular societies or churches; and to each of these churches He hath given needful authority for administering that order, discipline and worship which He hath appointed. The regular officers of a Church are Bishops or Elders, and Deacons." From this abstract we find that the Church in question has to be the local, not a universal or we would be given over to a Roman Catholic church government. This would mean one could vote at any church anytime. And that you pastor was now over all, he was a pope.

Unfortunately, I do not have the time to fully work though all the ramifications of this. Yet, I would like to hear you feed back on this.

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

perpetuity of the church

"Perpetuity of the church is a doctrine which is cherished by Missionary Baptists. By perpetuity is meant that there has never been a day since Christ founded His church when there was no scriptural church upon earth. The church shall continue in existence until He shall come again. Church ‘succession’ is another term which denotes perpetuity, implying that churches have succeeded in all ages the one founded by Christ. Baptists believe in a succession of churches---not of the apostles, as taught by the Roman doctrine of ‘apostolic succession.’"


D. N. Jackson, Baptist Doctrines and History, p. 53

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

persecute the church

"It would be a godsend if the Church would suffer persecution today; she hasn't suffered it for hundreds of years. She is growing rich and lagging behind. Going back."


-Billy Sunday, The Need for Revivals, From "Billy Sunday: The Man and His Message", by William T. Ellis, Philadelphia: John C. Winston Co., 1914

pendleton - true churches

From: "Ben Stratton" http://us.f327.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=benstratton@iolky.com&YY=44993&order=down&sort=date&pos=0

Date: Wed May 3, 2006 6:21pm(PDT)
Subject: Pendleton - True Churches

"If Pedobaptists fail to exemplify the precepts of the New Testament in reference to the subjects and the action of baptism, they have no churches among them. They have their organizations, but they are not gospel organizations. It will be said that there are good, pious men among Pedobaptists. This is cheerfully conceded, but it proves nothing as to the evangelical nature of those organizations. There are good, pious men in Masonic Lodges, Bible Societies, Temperance Societies, and Colonization Societies; but Masonic Lodges, Bible Societies, Temperance Societies, and Colonization Societies are not churches of Christ. Nor are Pedobaptist societies."
J.M. PendletonJames M. Pendleton [1811-1891] was a noted Baptist pastor, author, professor, and theologian during the nineteenth century. The above quote is from his 1854 book "An Old Landmark Reset" on page 10. Pendleton acknowledged that there are saved individual in non-Baptist churches, but because of their unbiblical doctrines, their churches can not be considered New Testament Churches.)
__________________________________________________
*** If you enjoy these messages, why not tell someone else about them.
"One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism."
Ephesians 4:5Homepage: The Landmark Southern Baptist:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LandmarkSouthernBaptist ------------------------------------------------------------------------Yahoo! Groups Links<*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LandmarkSouthernBaptist/<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: http://us.f327.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=LandmarkSouthernBaptist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com&YY=44993&order=down&sort=date&pos=0<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

more door

D. N. Jackson, once a leader in the A.B.A. and then in the N.A.B.A. (now know was the B.M.A.A. - Baptist Missionary Assocation of America wrote, "Baptism is one way of making a confession of faith in Christ. Scriptural baptism is performed by the authority of the triune God (Matthew 28:19-20). No one without baptism is qualified for membership in a church, but baptism does not wholly qualify him. It is the ceremonial qualification he is required to meet. It is the first act of Christian obedience after one's profession, although one may have the opportunity to witness for Christ as Saviour before he is baptized."

Again Bro. Jackson said, "The rite of water baptism, as a mode, is a condition of membership. It is a primary condition, as membership cannot be Scripturally obtained without it. It is a condition and not the door into a church. The "door" is the voice of the church by which members may be received and by which they may be dismissed. Any act that is made the door of admission must of necessity be made the door of dismission. Baptism, therefore, cannot meet that requirement, as it would be impossible to "unbaptize" a person! In New Testament cases baptism always preceded one's initial church membership (Acts 2:41; 10:47). Baptism is a primary condition of church membership only as it presupposes the subject's regeneration and profession of faith in Christ."

Bro. Jackson makes a very interesting point. He argues that if baptism is the door into the church, would it not also be the door out. He says that the "door" is the voice of the church by which members are to be received and by which they are dismissed.

Churches receive and dismiss members by some form of action, usually. It may be a negative vote wherein the moderator simply asks if any object to the reception. When one comes from another church by letter or statement, it is the action of the church or the voice of the church that receives him into the fellowship.

Members are dismissed by church action. If it be by withdrawing of fellowship it is church action that does this (See Matt. 18:15-18; I Cor. 5:1-11). If one is dismissed by letter, that is done by church action. Of course, if one dies, the church takes no action for they have no say in the death of a member. In every other case, the way in or the way out of the church is by the voice of the church, the action of the body. Is baptism the only door to the church?

more can be found here @
The Grace Proclamator and Promulgator, Vol. XV, No., 1 January 1, 1999


the door

In a message on baptism, Eld. John Gilpin relates an event in which a woman baptized by a Campbellite church sought membership in the church he pastored. She sought to come on the basis of her baptism.
Among other things, Bro. Gilpin said, I told her that it would be necessary to rebaptize her, as Baptist baptism was the only door into a Baptist Church. Note that he said that baptism was the "only door" into a Baptist church. Gilpin held baptism was not only the door, it was the only door into a Baptist Church.






Gilpin quotes are from "The Bible and Water Baptism", The Baptist Examiner, Vol. 43, No. 46, December 6, 1965, P. 5

Thursday, May 04, 2006

with Jesus or with Witsett

So when did the Baptist Church or a believing Body begin? Whitsett would leave the Baptist's as a Roman Catholic-lite splinter group, a new denominaion created by man. This type of belief is said by many greater than me to have sot been accepted till after the 19th century.
[p. 143] Here is an extract from the encyclopedia article:

"The earliest organized Baptist Church belongs to the year 1610 or 1611. . . . Ezekiel Holliman baptized Williams and the rest of his company. The ceremony was most likely performed by sprinkling; the Baptists of England had not adopted immersion, and there is no reason which renders it probable that Williams was in advance of them."
Doctor Henry M. King of Rhode Island pointed out this as an attack on the Baptists, and criticized rather sharply Doctor Whitsitt's position. Next Dr. J. H. Spencer, the Kentucky Baptist historian, wrote an article which appeared in the Western Recorder in which he strongly dissented from Doctor Whitsitt's position. Dr. T. T. Eaton, editor of the Western Recorder, was at this time in Europe, but Mrs. Joe Eaton Peck, who had charge of the paper in the absence of her brother, took up the matter in the Recorder and most vigorously assailed Doctor Whitsitt's position, maintaining that the Baptists, under different names, had had a continuous history, and a uniform practice on baptism, from the beginning of the Christian era.
After the return of Doctor Eaton he took up the controversy and became the leader of the opposition to Doctor Whitsitt's position. The friends of Doctor Whitsitt (known in the controversy as "Whitsittites") started and used the Baptist Argus as an organ of propaganda and defense, while the "Anti-Whitsittites," as they were called, used the Western Recorder for the same purpose. This, of course, made the controversy all the more bitter and personal in

Tuesday, May 02, 2006

criswell on emergent

I just got a copy of the Criswell Theological Review. The theme for this go around is The Emergent Church. I give a read through and let you know as I go.

a little history reminder

The Whitsitt Controversy happen many years ago. so long ago that we, as baptist have forgotten. Here a link to Nolin on this subject as well as an excerpt from his writing to remind you and stir intrest. Let me know what you think.


History of Kentucky Baptists -- 1770-1922, By William Dudley Nowlin

Chapter 13 [p. 142]
What is known as "The Whitsitt Controversy" began in the spring of 1896. Doctor Whitsitt wrote an article on the Baptists for Johnson's Encyclopedia, in which he set forth his theory that the English Baptists did not begin to baptize by immersion until 1641, when a part of the Anabaptists, as they were then called, began immersion. Doctor Whitsitt in this article used language which many Baptists interpreted to mean that immersion as a Christian ordinance was started at that time. It is but fair to Doctor Whitsitt, however, to say that he in the introduction to his book "A Question in Baptist History," a book called out by the controversy, says:

"Immersion as a religious rite was practiced by John the Baptist about the year 30 of our era, and was solemnly enjoined by our Saviour upon all his ministers to the end of time. No other observance was in use for baptism in New Testament times. The practice, though some times greatly perverted, has yet been continued from the apostolic age down to our own. As I understand the scriptures, immersion is essential to Christian baptism."