The consequences of an encyclopedic view of the Scriptures …

Paul concludes a solid post with,

So to re-baptize people because of our doctrinal differences with them (because they are not of â??Ã?úlike faith and orderâ??Ã?ù) is not supported in the Bible in either direct teaching or in example. Some will say, â??Ã?úWell, what you have said isnâ??Ã?ôt Baptist.â??Ã?ù Then I would simply have to repeat that if it is Biblical but isnâ??Ã?ôt Baptist then Baptist must go before Biblical goes.

About the Author
Husband to Patty. Daddy to Kimberly and Tommie. Grandpa Doc to Cohen, Max, Fox, and Marlee. Pastor to Snow Hill Baptist Church. Graduate of Oklahoma Baptist University and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Reading. Photography. Golf. Colorado. Jeeping. Friend. The views and opinions expressed here are my own and should not be construed as representing the corporate views of the church I pastor.

2 comments on “The consequences of an encyclopedic view of the Scriptures …

  1. says:

    Todd – I might be a bit dense, and I’m certainly not Baptist (so perhaps I should just mind my own business ;), but I keep seeing this stuff on your site as well as at Steve McCoy’s and it always brings the same question back to me. How similar is this to the Donatist controversy of the fourth and fifth century? At the very least, it has familiar echoes – one group denouncing baptisms performed by another as invalid. The interesting thing to me is that in the end the Donatists were declared heterodox at best, and heretical in some quarters.

    Anyway – it seems, looking on from the outside, that it’s an odd time in your tradition. 😉

  2. Anonymous says:

    Scott – you are not dense. you rightly draw out the similarities between the Donatist controversy and what you have been reading among some of we Southern Baptists. another irony is the conviction by some to have anabaptist roots. yet, many who push the issue in favor of declaring a baptism invalid would in no way view themselves as pacifist. even more, many would prefer some kind of theocratic state. it is interesting those hardliners in our tradition seem to have forgotten some of what they should have picked up in their church history. but then again, most believe real church history is a product of the 16th century so they would be wholly unfamiliar with and dismiss anything that occured in the fourth and fifth centuries.

    it is an odd time …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.