thanks for that. Sorry, I was making a mountain out of a molehill anyway. I really appreciate your voice in the blogosphere! BTW, change of subject, I hope your family is doing well.

“Baptists differ widely from large portions of the Christian world, and are persuaded that their own views are more scriptural, more in accordance with the Saviour’s commands. They must therefore feel themselves required to teach these things

as well as others.

Hence, the text lays upon us the duty of which I have been requested to speak — the duty of Baptists to teach their distinctive views.”

Interesting then that many Baptist churches don’t teach the other side, isn’t it?

“We insist that baptism ought to be simply what Christ practiced and commanded.”

That would be hard since Jesus never baptized anyone.

“We care nothing for the mode of baptism, the manner of baptizing, if only there is a real baptism according to the plain indications of Scripture.”

Gotta love this one, but boy the Yarnellites are gonna scream reductionism over it.

“Now, I repeat that we do not consider these externals to be intrinsically so important as the spiritual, or even the ethical, elements of Christianity.”

And another, if Brodus were alive today he would be shouted down at SBC Today. In this one, Broadus elevated ethical practices over the ordinances. Man o’ man.

“We are glad that as to one or another of these distinctive views some of our fellow-Christians of other persuasions agree with us more or less. We welcome all such concurrence, and it is not now necessary to inquire whether they hold those opinions with logical consistency. For ourselves, we do not claim to be fully acting upon these views, but we aim to do so, acknowledge ourselves blameworthy in so far as we fail; and we desire, notwithstanding our shortcoming in practice, to hold them up in due prominence before ourselves and others.”

Oh man, he has totally undercut the BI position on this one.

“Some are constantly going out of their way to find such topics through a bred-and-born love of controversy or a mistaken judgment as to its necessity and benefits. Others go out of their way to avoid all disputed questions, and want nothing to do with controversy of any kind. This latter class might be advised to study the history and recorded writings of a man named Paul. He did not shrink from controversy. Yea, and his Master and ours is polemical on every page of his recorded discourses, always striking at some error or evil practice of the people around him.”

For the sake of division, clamor, or the sake of peace cowering silence should find no place in the church. Let all be willing, adament and prepared to give a defense of the Gospel. We should speak as we have always done, being true to the temperment the Lord has graced us with and the openness which truth requires to set men at liberty.

“Let us gladly co-operate with our fellow-Christians of other persuasions in general Christian work as far as we can without sacrificing our convictions. Men who think ill of us are sometimes sorely perplexed They say, “Look at these narrow-minded, bigoted ‘close-communion’ Baptists! How zealously they work in our union enterprise! how loving they seem to be! I don’t understand it.” It is well to increase this perplexity. At the same time, we must not allow our conscientious differences to be belittled…We must learn how to distinguish between abandonment of principles and mere practical concessions in order to conciliate — a distinction well illustrated for us in Acts xv. and in Paul’ action as to Titus and Timothy. In the case of Titus the apostle would not yield an inch, would not give place for an hour, because a distinct issue of principle was made; and shortly after he voluntarily did, in the case of Timothy, what he had before refused, there being now no issue of principle. It may sometimes be difficult to make the distinction, but that is a difficulty we may not shirk. One of the great practical problems of the Christian life, especially in our times, is to stand squarely for truth and squarely against error, and yet to maintain hearty charity toward Christians who differ with us. This assuredly can be done. The very truest and sweetest Christian charity is actually shown by some of those who stand most firmly by their distinctive opinions.”

Great message and as he finishes with wise words: “Let us cultivate, I say, this unity among ourselves. In order to do so, our watchwords must be freedom, forbearance, patience. There can be no constrained unity among us. The genius of our ideas and institutions quite forbids it. That newspaper, seminary, or society which undertakes to coerce American Baptists into unity will soon weary of the task. We must be forbearing and patient, and not discouraged by many things which under the circumstances are to be looked for.”

The real key to end disputation and disruption thoughout Brodus’ paper was education about us and them, we and ours, wart, wrinkles and rubber noses. We learn, and teach, and study more. Perhaps God gives more light, perhaps he brings coalescence of competing thoughts in a unity of understanding, yet the one thing rings loudest, He has given us some to be pastors and teachers until we come, all of us, into the unity of the faith. Let us then boldy proclaim and polemically defend the great truths of Scripture, humbly accepting the fact that if any student learns, he is to share it with his master, for even the least shall be the greatest in the Kingdom.

Timmy said: “Yarnell’s concern is that placing something like believer’s baptism in the second-tier is undermining its importance or making it somehow nonessential.”

Broadus and Yarnell would not get along on this point. They would get along with TA and Timmy, and agree on concerns with the propensity to neglect the training in, and defense of, Baptist distinctives. Where Broadus would differ with Yarnell, also, is in the area of cooperation. Broadus, for as rigid as he would be considered today, would not have countenanced embracing the separatistic vitriol of Yarnell. And what shall we say then of Broadus, that he was not Baptist?

Sorry for the long post Timmy.

It’s become painfully obvious you aren’t listening. It might be better for us to either actually discuss the content of this post or for Timmy to just close it up and move on to the next post.

Dr. Yarnell believes that all doctrines are essential in importance…that none of them are to be shoved to the side as if they dont matter…as in joining with other denominations and letting sound, Bible teaching like baptism by immersion only of Believers only, and salvation by grace thru faith, and the requirements of elders/pastors/overseers, etc. He doesnt believe that we can relegate some doctrines to secondary in importance, as if they dont matter anymore…all in some people’s desire to form some kind of ecumenical SBC. I really believe that if you would talk to him, he would be more against the misuse and abuse of Dr. Mohler’s triage system. IOW, while he would accept a Presbyterian, who was baptised as a baby yet has put thier faith in Christ, as a fellow Believer; he would correctly say that they needed to be properly baptised, and he would have a hard time joining with them in starting Churches, forming seminary studies, etc. He would say that all the commands of Jesus are important.

I’m really not comfortable answering for Dr. Yarnell. I’m just saying what I think he would say from my interactions with him. In fact, he might disagree with me about accepting Dr. Mohler’s triage system, and that’s fine. But, I agree wholeheartedly with him that all the commands of Jesus are important, and just because baptism and the Lord’s Supper and men being elders are considered as second tier, they are still of the utmost importance in us obeying the Lord and being true to Scripture.

David

You said, “I believe in the theological triage system of Mohler. Of course, there are essentials of the Christian faith, and there are doctrines that are not so clearly spelled out in Scripture where there’s room for disagreement. I mean, someone must believe in the virgin birth, and the atoning death, and resurrection of the Lord to be saved. These are certainly doctrines that one must hold to in order to be considered Christian. And, baptism is not an essential doctrine. In other words, a Methodist can certainly be saved if he’s sprinkled on top of the head….his baptism is not correct, but I dont doubt his salvation if he has put his faith in Christ and shows evidence of salvation. So, baptism is certainly a second tier doctrine.

That’s almost precisely what I said in my article. No one wants to downplay the importance of baptism, and I don’t think anyone in the discussion is implying that. What I (and I think others) are saying is that while Baptism should be the inevitable fruit of a Christian, it does not make one a Christian or is in any way included in the salvation act.

You can be a Christian (first tier) and not be a Baptist (second tier), but you cannot be a Baptist (second tier) and be a Christian (first tier), or at least it is supposed to be that way (we know, however, one of the biggest challenges to our Baptist Identity is that there are many Baptists who bear no evidence of being regenerate (first tier)). That is why the gospel is so necessary and why I argued it is our greatest common denominator.

And as I have said elsewhere, I am not talking about the five-points of Calvinism. I am talking about matters pertaining to the person and work of Christ such as his incarnation, sinless life, substitutionary death, and bodily resurrection, matters pertaining to the sinfulness of man, and matters pertaining to salvation such as justification by faith, exclusivity of Christ, and so on.

Because of our *Christian * identity, we share things in common with believers who are not Southern Baptist and who are equally committed to the gospel and making it known around the world. There are things Baptists can learn from others, and this is stated reasons why, for example, Akin brings in guys like Acts 29, Driscoll, and Mahaney to SEBTS.

In any case, what you affirmed (as Tom Ascol pointed out), is opposite of what Yarnell and Foster have been arguing. Now, if our conversation can result in clarification and better understanding on both sides, that is great. I just think that it should be noted that what you just stated is something altogether different than what was being argued no more than a week ago.

David Worley: “I believe in the theological triage system of Mohler.”

++++++

Malcolm Yarnell: “New Testament Christianity has no secondary doctrines when it comes to the lordship of Jesus Christ. That’s why I say Baptism is not secondary nor is it tertiary. It is essential.”

David Worley: “Baptism is not an essential doctrine.”

++++++

Curiouser and curiouser.

David

So, David, does this mean that Presbyterians, Methodists, and others who don’t use or don’t agree with “Baptist” baptism are “running around living like lost men?” Because that is how Mr. Yarnell’s words are coming across. That is what is being disagreed with.

It would seem, from your last comment above, that you actually agree with those who are taking issue. You don’t really believe, as Mr. Yarnell seems to imply, that you must have a “Baptist” baptism to be a “true, born again Christian.”

I really do hope Mr. Yarnell is simply being misunderstood. He sure hasn’t done a good job of making himself clear so far.

I believe in the theological triage system of Mohler. Of course, there are essentials of the Christian faith, and there are doctrines that are not so clearly spelled out in Scripture where there’s room for disagreement. I mean, someone must believe in the virgin birth, and the atoning death, and resurrection of the Lord to be saved. These are certainly doctrines that one must hold to in order to be considered Christian. And, baptism is not an essential doctrine. In other words, a Methodist can certainly be saved if he’s sprinkled on top of the head….his baptism is not correct, but I dont doubt his salvation if he has put his faith in Christ and shows evidence of salvation. So, baptism is certainly a second tier doctrine.

But, like Dr. Yarnell, this doesnt mean that our belief about baptism is not important…as some seem to be implying here lately. It is important that a Christian get baptised, and it is important that it be done the right way for the right reason. It’s very important to the true child of God, who wants to please His Lord.

Thomas Twitchell,

What planet are you living on? And, did you actually read what I wrote about a Christian and baptism? And, Thomas, the Bible does say that someone, who is truly born again, will have a new “want to.” They will want to live for the Lord, who saved them. Part of that is that they will want to obey their Lord. In everything….including baptism. Do you really disagree with this? Or, am I reading you wrong? Because Brother, I have no idea where you’re coming from with what you wrote to me. “Baptist Gnosticism?” lol. Wow, Brother…what in the world are you talking about? There aint nobody adding baptism to the Gospel. I have no idea where you’re coming from with that. Let me make it very plain to you….baptism does not have anything to do with the saving of anyone’s soul. Baptism has no saving efficacy to it whatsoever. A person who gets saved in a hospital bed, and who dies before they get baptised goes to Heaven just like the thief on the cross did. BUT, a true, born again Christian… someone who truly comes to know the Lord…will want to obey their Lord. Someone who claims to be saved, and they still run around living like a lost man, not desiring the things of God, is probably not saved. And, being baptised is a command of the Lord. Do you even agree with that?

David