The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum SBC to leave or not to leave?

SBC to leave or not to leave?

There are many faithful Churches and Christians who are leaving the SBC. There are also faithful Churches and Christians who choose to stay and fight without compromising.

Who is right and is it a black and white issue?

I have heard both sides of this issue and I do not think it is a black and white issue.

I was given an article recently; that although I have not made my own decision; I believe is at least worth considering.
I myself do not belong to the SBC, but I have a few friends and pastors/theologians that I am a fan of that belong to the SBC.

https://americanreformer.or

Tom

Although I do in a way, I really do not understand the SBC. It is really not a denomination; just a convention of supposedly like-minded chuches. They got the Lottie Moon fund for missionaries, but that is practically the only thing they do together. The SBC national assembly only make some announcements, but nothing is binding. I'm not sure how they were able to kick out the Saddleback Church a few years ago.

They certainly call themselves a denominational.
They even have a statement of faith; they are supposed to
adhere to.
A local Church can leave; or the denomination can vote to
kick a Church out of the denomination.

Tom

What does Scripture tell us?
“Be ye not unequally yoked together.”

This applies first to our religious or ecclesiastical connections. How many Christians are members of so-called “churches,” where much is going on which they know is at direct variance with the Word of God either the teaching from the pulpit, the worldly attractions used to draw the ungodly, and the worldly methods employed to finance it or the constant receiving into its membership of those who give no evidence of having been born again. Believers in Christ who remain in such “churches” are dishonoring their Lord. Should they answer: “Practically all the churches are the same, and were we to resign, what could we do? We must go somewhere on Sundays,” such language would show they are putting their own interests before the glory of Christ. Better stay at home and read God’s Word, than fellowship that which His Word condemns.
~ A.W. Pink

It is difficult to be without a church. It is far worse to affirm what is called a church but is in essence, a synagogue of Satan. A true Church is given to the exercising of Church discipline. One of the three marks of a true Church. A true believer may discipline a false church by leaving or not attending its services.

Take a look at what the Belgic Confession teaches:

Belgic Confession
Article 29. The Marks of the True Church.
We believe that we ought to discern diligently and very carefully from the Word of God what is the true church, for all sects which are in the world today claim for themselves the name of church.

We are not speaking here of the hypocrites, who are mixed in the church along with the good and yet are not part of the church, although they are outwardly in it. We are speaking of the body and the communion of the true church which must be distinguished from all sects that call themselves the church.

The true church is to be recognized by the following marks:
1. It practices the pure preaching of the gospel.
2. It maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them.
3. It exercises church discipline for correcting and punishing sins.

In short, it governs itself according to the pure Word of God, rejecting all things contrary to it and regarding Jesus Christ as the only Head. Hereby the true church can certainly be known and no one has the right to separate from it.

Those who are of the church may be recognized by the marks of Christians. They believe in Jesus Christ the only Saviour, flee from sin and pursue righteousness, love the true God and their neighbour without turning to the right or left, and crucify their flesh and its works. Although great weakness remains in them, they fight against it by the Spirit all the days of their life. They appeal constantly to the blood, suffering, death, and obedience of Jesus Christ, in whom they have forgiveness of their sins through faith in Him.

The false church assigns more authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God. It does not want to submit itself to the yoke of Christ. It does not administer the sacraments as Christ commanded in His Word, but adds to them and subtracts from them as it pleases. It bases itself more on men than on Jesus Christ. It persecutes those who live holy lives according to the Word of God and who rebuke the false church for its sins, greed, and idolatries.

These two churches are easily recognized and distinguished from each other.
Rev 2:9; Rom 9:6; Gal 1:8; 1 Tim 3:15; Acts 19:3-5; 1 Cor 11:20-29; Mt 18:15-17; 1 Cor 5:4-5, 13; 2 Thes 3:6, 14; Tit 3:10; Jn 8:47, 17:20; Acts 17:11; Eph 2:20; Col 1:23; 1 Tim 6:3; 1 Thes 5:21; 1 Tim 6:20; Rev 2:6; Jn 10:14; Eph 5:23; Col 1:18 Jn 1:12; 1 Jn 4:2 10Rom 6:2; Php 3:12; 1 Jn 4:19-21; Gal 5:24; Rom 7:15; Gal 5:17; Rom 7:24-25; 1 Jn 1:7-9; Acts 4:17-18; 2 Tim 4:3-4; 2 Jn 9; Jn 16:2

Titus 3:10,11 A factious man after a first and second admonition refuse; 11 knowing that such a one is perverted, and sinneth, being self-condemned.

Mt 18:15-17 And if thy brother sin against thee, go, show him his fault between thee and him alone: if he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he hear thee not, take with thee one or two more, that at the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be established. 17 And if he refuse to hear them, tell it unto the church: and if he refuse to hear the church also, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican.

1 Cor 5:4-5 in the name of our Lord Jesus, ye being gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

1 Cor 5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Put away the wicked man from among yourselves.

2 Thes 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which they received of us.

2 Thes 3:14,15 And if any man obeyeth not our word by this epistle, note that man, that ye have no company with him, to the end that he may be ashamed. 15 And yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

Chestnutmare
I agree for the most part with what is said above.
Yet, we are speaking of the SBC, not individual Churches.

I have been a believer now for about 45 years.
I have in that time, mainly because of moves to different cities and heresy coming into
the local Church, left.

Also during that time, I have been in faithful Churches, who had to decide
whether to leave their denomination, or stay and fight to try to return their denomination to their statement of faith; until it becomes evident it is a fruitless endeavour.

Basically, what I have found is there has never been a denomination in that 45
years, that has not been affected by liberalism to one degree or another.

Tom

Four years ago my husband and I moved to rural Missouri for his retirement. We had owned property here for 25 or more years, so I knew the move would happen. In preparation I spent years investigating local churches and inquiring of potential church plants to Presbyteran and Reformed Baptist leaders/pastors. There was nothing in the works at that time. So, I continued to pray because I have to be part of a church; I believe in church membership anb fellowship with the saints. Being alone in a rural area without a church is not an option for me. After the move, I went to a rural Baptist church we would pass on our trips to our property. It's a small SBC congregation with a pastor who preaches the Bible. I explained to the pastor that I am Presbyterian, but could not find a conservative Presbyterian church in our area. He welcomed me and agreed that the local PCUSA with a woman pastor would not be a good fit for me. After attending a year, I joined the little SBC and I don't regret it. They all know I'm Reformed Presbyterian, but more importantly, they know I'm part of the body of Christ. We are pretty much an independent congregation - the affiliation with the SBC is loose, IMO. I don't have a problem with it.

Welcome to The Highway Discussion Board.

Very happy to learn you found a conservative Scripture-honoring church in your area. Today such places are few and far between it seems. I was in a similar situation many years ago and ended up going to a Reformed Baptist church which welcomed me warmly despite my 'odd' paedobaptist views. They took me as I was and didn't demand I conform to their unique Baptist practices. Soooooo, I'm wondering if this church you now a member of required that you submit to adult baptism by immersion if you had not done so in your Christian life? I once tried to join a Baptist church in Canada but even after they determined that I had a more than credible profession of faith and had more than a rudimentary knowledge of the faith , since I had been baptized as an infant and as an adult but not by immersion, I could not qualify to be a member there nor partake of the Lord's Supper; aka: I was deemed an unbeliever. Thus the reason for my asking the question.

You were deemed “an unbeliever”?

Wow! Perhaps that is what you considered them to deem you? That is definitely going too far, on their part!

I personally do not know of any Reformed Baptist Churches that would consider you an unbeliever on those grounds.

Reformed Baptist Churches are very fond of many Paedo-Baptists. In fact, on occasion quote Paedo-Baptists like Calvin, Knox, Owen, and Sproul in their sermons.

That said the issues you bring up, are definitely important issues and is an in house debate within Reformed Baptist circles.

I particularly believe Paedo-Baptists who because of conscience issues should be allowed to
partake in the Lord’s Suppers, if they have shown themselves to be true believers. Which is something that should be required of everyone in the congregation.
Membership should be allowed as well, with the exception being they cannot hold an office like deacon or elder.

I mentioned earlier Founders Ministries. Tom Ascol is the president of Founders Ministries and on this issue, believes Paedo-Baptists should be allowed to partake in the Lord’s Supper. He also believes they should be allowed to become members; but can’t hold an office such as deacon or elder.

Another member of Founders Ministries, Tom Nettles apparently has a new book on this.

Tom

I was baptized as a teenager, so there was no problem with me joining. I am blessed to have found a faithful remnant to Worship with; BTW - the pastor has mentioned Luther and Calvin favorably in his sermons. I don't know that the congregation knew who he was talking about, but he's a faithful minister from what I can tell.

I've been thinking about your question of rebaptism - I think that if I had not been baptised as a teenager in an evangelical church and was baptised as an infant, the congregation would probably request I be rebaptized. In that situation, I would not have joined the church, but instead attend only for Worship. In some ways I still do not participate fully due to conscience sake. For example, I do not pray outloud for the assembly, nor do I attend business meetings. Frankly, I don't sing all the Worship songs either as my background is RPCNA (Exclusive Psalmody). I'm probably seen as an odd duck, but as long as they respect my differences, I see no reason to leave. But we are small, so they are willing to have me.

My heart is gladdened to hear you have a church that is quite sound in the faith and hopefully in its worship. The issue for the church I mentioned above wasn't the "age" factor but the mode factor. I have argued here in the past that such a position is actually a denial of the true Gospel and "sola fide" (faith alone without works). Making immersion a requirement for salvation certainly fits that unfortunate category of "faith+works=justification". Barring someone from the Lord's Table to whom the Lord Christ Himself calls to all His sheep and be uplifted and blessed by His Spirit is a serious issue, IMO. Enjoy what the Lord has provided for you for now and eternity.

Pilgrim

I think I understand your consternation.

If indeed they were making immersion a requirement for salvation, then that is indeed troubling.
Yet, personally speaking as all Baptists do; I believe in immersion. Yet, not as a requirement for salvation.

If they were consistent; they would say a Paedo-Baptist like RC Sproul was not a real Christian because he was not baptized by immersion.

I am curious, would they go that far?

If they say yes; even as a Baptist myself, I would not go there.

Tom

Tom, we've been around this topic before, remember? IF any church refuses a person who gives a credible profession of faith and desires to join a church is refused because that person has not done x or xx or xxx, etc. and thus is barred from the Lord's Table, then that church is guilty of holding to faith + works= justification. Believers are called by Christ Jesus to come to partake of the Lord's Supper. Unbelievers and those who are under discipline and unrepentant are barred from the Table. Those who have examined themselves and desire to come CANNOT be barred from the table. To tell someone they are not worthy/qualified to partake of the Lord's Supper is equivalent to have determined one is not a believer. The formulate is iron clad and it is not rocket science. It is permissible to perhaps not allow membership in a local assembly theoretically, but not bar them from the Lord's Table. I have been in several churches, both Presbyterian and Baptist where this issue was a non-issue. Some Baptists did not want to join the Presbyterian Church because of the doctrine of paedobaptism (whether they actually understood the reasoning or not is another matter), but they definitely gave a credible profession of faith. Those individuals were allowed to go to the Lord's Table and were openly welcomed to do so. Conversely, I have attended Baptist churches that allowed paedobaptists to partake of the Lord's Table for like reasons. The MODE OF BAPTISM wasn't even discussed because it would have been a requirement to determine one's state of salvation. In all of the cases without exception, if one made a credible profession of faith and was not under discipline (of good repute) then the Lord's Table was open to ALL who professed to belong to Christ. This is classically known as a "Close Table" vs. "Open Table" and "Closed Table". I'm assuming you know the differences, right?

I know several people who were baptized in a Presbyterian church, who were denied membership into a SBC until they were bapiized. I'm not sure it was the mode that was the problem, but paedobaptism definitely was.

Pilgrim

I guess I was not clear.
I was basically saying I agree with you.

Tom