Contend for the Faith
I often derive the bulletin articles I write each week from subjects that pique my interest and help encourage me in my walk for the Lord. All do this in some way whether they are positive affirmations or negative rebukes. Knowing what to do and not to do have equally encouraging effects. Other articles are like the one today. This one comes from the frustration of the degradation of truth that we as Baptists should stand for.
Let me set the stage. A few weeks ago, on the observance of the Lord’s Supper, I authored an article referring to a 19th century work by Edward Hiscox titled The New Directory for Baptist Churches. Most of you have never heard of it, but it had widespread circulation for many years around the turn of the 20th century. My article commented on the remarkable consistency of our liturgy in the Lord’s Supper compared to Hiscox’s description of Baptist practice in his time. In conversation with members of the church, we discussed Baptist practices in which I commented that I am unashamedly Baptist. I am convinced the biblical principles we observe should not change.
You may wonder where this is leading and why I am fidgety with a burr under my saddle. With limited space, I must get to the point. In my renewed interest in Hiscox’s book which I have owned for many years, I discovered a rewrite and updating of the book by a contemporary Baptist pastor. The apostle Peter wrote: “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.” (1 Peter 1:23). Most of us would agree this verse sets the standard for an immutable, infallible word from God. If our practices were biblical and valid in the 19th century (and before), they are, according to the word, still biblical and valid today. It was disheartening—no, a better word is disgusting—that a modern pastor would insert unbiblical practices into Hiscox’s work and pretend that Hiscox would sanction them as if he had written them himself.
These changes included the possibility of membership in a Baptist church without baptism, the acceptance of infant baptism if circumstances warranted it, the sanction of private communion, the possibility of membership association for those noncompliant with church discipline and doctrine (in other words the sanction of individual conviction over the agreed doctrines of the membership under the guise of soul liberty) among other irregularities. These were troubling enough and are factors that undermine and destroy the church. However, added to this was ecumenical cooperation with churches that are not of like faith and order. The topping on this mishmash of the devil’s concoction came in the section on ministerial ordination. This Baptist (?) sanctioned the ordination of women to the pastorate. In my experience this heresy is the last step before the acceptance of homosexuality in the church. Indeed, the approval of the National Council of Churches and World Council of Churches followed. These two groups are heretical and accepting of the previous issues. They defile the meaning of church.
My extreme disappointment is the attachment to Edward Hiscox with the title, The New Hiscox Guide for Baptist Churches. New indeed! My further discovery was the author’s affiliation with the American Baptist Churches USA, a group we do not recognize as Baptists, and neither would we accept their baptisms as valid. Baptists face the degradation of faith and practice with groups such as these that dilute the name and disguise the truths Baptists died for. We will remain historical Baptists believing we are the same with the church Christ founded. We will earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints (Jude v. 3).
Pastor V. Mark Smith