by
R. Albert Mohler, Jr. and Daniel L. Akin
Few things in life are more tragic and heartbreaking than the death of a baby or small child. For parents, the grief can be overwhelming. For the minister, to stand over a small, white casket and provide comfort and support seems to ask for more than he can deliver.
Many console themselves with the thought that at least the child is now in a better place. Some believe small children who die become angels. They are certain these precious little ones are in heaven with God.
However, it is important for us both to ask and answer some important questions if we can. Do those who die in infancy go to heaven? How do we know? What evidence is there to support such a conclusion? Sentimentalism and emotional hopes and wants are not sufficient for those who live under the authority of the Word of God. We must, if possible, find out what God has said.
It is interesting to discover that the Church has not been of one mind on this issue. In fact, the early and medieval Church was anything but united. Some Church Fathers remained silent on the issue. Ambrose said unbaptized infants were not admitted to heaven, but have immunity from the pains of hell. Augustine basically affirmed the damnation of all unbaptized infants, but taught they would receive the mildest punishment of all. Gregory of Nyssa offered that infants who die immediately mature and are given the opportunity to trust Christ. Calvin affirmed the certain election of some infants to salvation and was open to the possibility that all infants who die are saved. He said, “Christ receives not only those who, moved by holy desire and faith, freely approach unto Him, but those who are not yet of age to know how much they need His grace.” Zwingli, B.B. Warfield and Charles Hodge all taught that God saves all who die in infancy. This perspective has basically become the dominant view of the Church in the 20th century.
Yet, a popular evangelical theologian chided Billy Graham when at the Oklahoma City memorial service he said, “Someday there will be a glorious reunion with those who have died and gone to heaven before us, and that includes all those innocent children that are lost. They’re not lost from God because any child that young is automatically in heaven and in God’s arms.” The theologian scolded Dr. Graham for offering what he called “. . . a new gospel: justification by youth alone.”
It is our conviction that there are good reasons biblically and theologically for believing that God saves all who die who do not reach a stage of moral understanding and accountability. It is readily admitted that Scripture does not speak to this issue directly, yet there is evidence that can be gleaned that would lead us to affirm on biblical grounds that God receives into heaven all who have died in infancy. Some evidence is stronger than others, but cumulatively they marshall strong support for infant salvation. We will note six of them.
First, the grace, goodness and mercy of God would support the position that God saves all infants who die. This is the strongest argument and perhaps the decisive one. God is love (1 John 4:8) and desires that all be saved (1 Timothy 2:4). God is love and His concern for children is evident in Matthew 18:14 where Jesus says, “Your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost.” People go to hell because they choose in willful rebellion and unbelief to reject God and His grace. Children are incapable of this kind of conscious rejection of God. Where such rebellion and willful disobedience is absent, God is gracious to receive.
Second, when the baby boy who was born to David and Bathsheba died (2 Samuel 12:15-18), David did two significant things: 1) He confessed his confidence that he would see the child again and, 2) he comforted his wife Bathsheba (vs. 23-24). David could have done those two things only if he was confident that his little son was with God. Any other explanation does not do justice to the text.
Third, in James 4:17, the Bible says, “Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” The Bible is clear that we are all born with a sin nature as a result of being in Adam (Roman 5:12). This is what is called the doctrine of original sin. However, the Scriptures make a
distinction between original sin and actual sins. While all are guilty of original sin, moral responsibility and understanding is necessary for our being accountable for actual sins (Deuteronomy 1:30; Isaiah 7:16). It is to the one who knows to do right and does not do it that sin is reckoned. Infants are incapable of such decisions.
Fourth, Jesus affirmed that the kingdom of God belonged to little children (Luke 18:15-17). In the passage he is stating that saving faith is a childlike faith, but He also seems to be affirming the reality of children populating heaven.
Fifth, Scripture affirms that the number of saved souls is very great (Revelation 7:9). Since most of the world has been and is still non-Christian, might it be the untold multitude who have died prematurely or in infancy comprise a majority of those in heaven? Such a possibility ought not to be dismissed too quickly. In this context Charles Spurgeon said, “I rejoice to know that the souls of all infants, as soon as they die, speed their way to paradise. Think what a multitude there is of them.”
Sixth, some in Scripture are said to be chosen or sanctified from the womb (1 Samuel 1:8-2:21; Jeremiah 1:5; Luke 1:15). This certainly affirms the salvation of some infants and repudiates the view that only baptized babies are assured of heaven. Neither Samuel, Jeremiah or John the Baptist was baptized.
After surveying these arguments, it is important for us to remember that anyone who is saved is saved because of the grace of God, the saving work of Jesus Christ and the undeserved and unmerited regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. Like all who have ever lived, except for Jesus, infants need to be saved. Only Jesus can take away their sin, and if they are saved it is because of His sovereign grace and abounding mercy. Abraham said, “Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Genesis 18:25). We can confidently say, “Yes, He will.” When it comes to those incapable of volitional, willful acts of sin, we can rest assured God will, indeed, do right. Precious little ones are the objects of His saving mercy and grace.
CONCLUSION
On September 29, 1861, the great Baptist pastor, Charles Spurgeon, preached a message entitled “Infant Salvation.” In that message he chastened some critics who had “. . . wickedly, lyingly, and slanderously said of Calvinists that we believe that some little children perish.” Similar rumblings have been heard in some Baptist circles of late. Spurgeon affirmed that God saved little ones without limitation and without exception. He, then, as was his manner, turned to conclude the message with an evangelistic appeal to parents who might be lost. Listen to his plea:
“Many of you are parents who have children in heaven. Is it not a desirable thing that you should go there too? And yet, have I not in these galleries and in this area some, perhaps many, who have no hope hereafter? . . . . Mother, unconverted mother, from the battlements of heaven your child beckons you to Paradise. Father, ungodly, impenitent father, the little eyes that once looked joyously on you, look down upon you now and the lips which had scarcely learned to call you “Father” ere they were sealed by the silence of death, may be heard as with a still, small voice, saying to you this morning, “Father, must we be forever divided by the great gulf which no man can pass?” If you wilt, think of these matters, perhaps the heart will begin to move, and the eyes may begin to flow and then may the Holy Spirit put before thine eyes the cross of the Savior . . . if thou wilt turn thine eye to Him, thou shalt live . . .”
Little ones are precious in God’s sight. If they die, they go to heaven. Parents, who have trusted Jesus, who have lost a little one, if they have trusted Jesus, can be confident of a wonderful reunion someday. Are you hopeful of seeing again that little treasure God entrusted to you for such a short time? Jesus has made a way. Come to Him now and someday you will see them again.

Professors contest global warming alarmism By Benjamin Hawkins FORT WORTH, Texas (BP)–Two professors from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary have weighed in on the debate surrounding the U.S. Senate’s consideration of cap-and-trade legislation and the United Nations’ Dec. 7-18 summit on climate change in Copenhagen, Denmark. Professors Craig Mitchell and Benjamin Phillips contributed to a document criticizing global warming alarmism. The document, titled "A Renewed Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor," was published by the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation and released during a Dec. 3 meeting of evangelical scholars at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. Mitchell, an assistant professor of ethics at Southwestern and lead author of the theology, worldview and ethics portion of the document, participated in the panel discussion at the Heritage Foundation. He insisted that worldviews inform the alarmists’ stance on climate change by determining what data they accept as valid, as well as their interpretation of that data. According to the worldview of many global warming alarmists, the earth stands in a delicate balance that humans can easily upset, Mitchell said. They often consider humans to be parasites on the earth. On the contrary, the Christian worldview teaches that the earth’s climate and ecosystems are "robust." "God created the earth to support life in general and human life in particular," and God endowed humankind with "authority over this earth," Mitchell said. This "robust creation" is not "some weak, delicate thing that man can destroy, because this earth is going to be here as long as God wants it to be here, not one second less. It is going to serve His purposes." GLOBAL WARMING, ENERGY & MORALITY Church-going voters within the United States "are going to unleash disastrous economic forces upon themselves and upon others" if they heed global warming alarmists and support cap-and-trade legislation, said Mitchell, who is currently adding a master’s degree in economics to three other master’s degrees and a Ph.D. in Christians ethics. This legislation is an attempt to decrease carbon-based forms of energy, such as coal and natural gas. According to Mitchell, "carbon is the cheapest, most efficient way to produce energy," and the United States has an abundant supply of coal and natural gas, alongside its reservoirs of oil. Some scholars suggest that this supply of fossil fuel could last hundreds of years. While global warming alarmists attempt to decrease the use of carbon-based energy sources, the energy needs in the nation increase on an annual basis. "The growth of the economy largely requires the growth of the country’s energy supply," Mitchell explained. "And so, if you are continually cutting the means of energy production, the result is that you are going to hurt a country’s economy. And as you do that, there is going to be increased unemployment in this country, and a host of other problems are going to follow that." Within the United States, cap-and-trade legislation may, "as a minimum, cost the nation $200 billion a year in increased taxes." It will also increase the cost of electricity, possibly doubling it for everybody in the country. In developing nations, however, such legislation based on global warming is a matter of life and death. In many of these countries, the poor spend much of their time chopping wood and finding human and animal dung to burn in their homes for lack of more advanced forms of heating. The smoke produced by this burning wood and dung contributes to health problems, such as tuberculosis, among women and children. If applied to these nations, cap-and-trade legislation could prevent the development of affordable, cleaner forms of energy that would prevent such health issues. In the theology, worldview and ethics chapter of "A Renewed Call to Truth," evangelical scholars insisted that, "while laws should protect the environment, they should never do so at the expense of human life and well-being." The document then notes that "reductions in energy use (caused by mandated shifts from fossil fuels to more expensive alternatives) would consign about two-thirds of the human population to added decades or even generations of severe poverty and the attendant high rates of disease and premature mortality." According to Mitchell, the scientific data collected by global warming alarmists do not justify such economic and human costs of hasty legislation. CLIMATEGATE & THE ETHICS OF SCIENCE In fact, Mitchell argues that the data used to support global warming has been in debate from the beginning. Around the world, people have questioned the scientific support of global warming, especially since the emergence of what’s become known as Climategate, the scandalous release of e-mail correspondences implying that scientists have doctored statistics to support global warming. According to Mitchell, this scandal raises serious ethical issues and illustrates the limitations of science. "There is a kind of morality associated with science, and to do science correctly, to do it morally, means that you not only look at everything, but you report everything," said Mitchell, who has degrees in engineering and has worked as a "rocket scientist" for the United States Air Force, testing ballistic missile systems, as well as air- and spacecraft. People often imagine scientists as "cold and analytical" researchers "who are just pursuing the truth," Mitchell said. But he noted that philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn, in his widely read book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," dismisses this popular view of scientific practice. "Kuhn says many scientists are people who are really after power," Mitchell said, "and you know what, the sad truth of the matter is that, at least with that part, he is right." In his book, Kuhn also suggests that a community of scientists working within an accepted framework (i.e., "paradigm") will ignore contradictory data (i.e., "anomalies") until they are forced to change their paradigm. In the climate change debate, Mitchell said, there are no anomalies. "There are just major holes that they have ignored," he said. "I don’t think that this really amounts to the model that Kuhn talks about … because there is not just a little hole here and a little hole there that people are poking into the existing paradigm. You are talking about thirds and fourths of the paradigm. The thing can’t stand its own weight." Science itself has limitations, Mitchell added. As an "empirical, inductive approach to knowledge," science cannot guarantee certainty even when it is done correctly. Philosophers of science recognize, for example, that "for any given set of data, there are an infinite number of interpretations of that data." For this reason, scientists must continually test the data and change their theories based on the results of those tests. Ultimately, a scientist’s worldview will determine the way he uses and interprets the data he gathers. "Your worldview," Mitchell said, "drives your agenda, drives your morality and drives how you look at the data, or how you don’t look at the data." CHRISTIANS & THE ENVIRONMENT Despite his skepticism toward cap-and-trade legislation and human-caused climate change, Mitchell said that Christians must not ignore the environment. The biblical worldview requires that humans responsibly and productively care for creation. "There was a time," Mitchell said, "when there really was an issue of air pollution in this country. People took action, and in most places in the country, the air is far cleaner than it was. You look at the Great Lakes, which at one point were incredibly polluted, but things have turned around. There is a legitimate concern for the environment that we should have." Mitchell said Christians can learn more about the environment and the global warming debate by accessing resources provided by conservative organizations such as the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, the Cornwall Alliance and the Heritage Foundation. The Cornwall Alliance’s statement on global warming is available at cornwallalliance.org, and video and audio recordings of the panel discussion at the Heritage Foundation are available at heritage.org. –30– Benjamin Hawkins writes for Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Unholy Trinity
I don’t watch much television, and when I do I generally avoid the Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN). For many years TBN has been dominated by faith-healers, full-time fund-raisers, and self-proclaimed prophets spewing heresy. I wrote about the false gospel they proclaim and the phony miracles they pretend to do almost two decades ago in Charismatic Chaos (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992. See especially chapter 12). I had my fill of charismatic televangelism while researching that book, and I can hardly bear to watch it any more.
Recently, however, while recovering from knee-replacement surgery, I decided to sample some of the current fare on TBN. From a therapeutic point of view it seemed a good choice: something more excruciating than the pain in my leg might distract me from the physical suffering of post-surgical trauma. And I suppose on that basis the strategy was effective.
But it left me outraged and frustrated—and eager to challenge the misperceptions in the minds of millions of unbelievers who see these false teachers masquerading as ministers of Christ on TBN.
I’m outraged at the brazen way so many false teachers twist the message of Scripture in Jesus’ name. And I’m frustrated because I’m certain that if these charlatans were not receiving a large proportion of their financial support from sincere believers (and silent acquiescence from Christian leaders who surely know better), they would have no platform for their shenanigans. They would soon lose their core constituency and fade from the scene.
Instead, religious quacks are actually multiplying at a frightening pace. One thing I discovered to my immense displeasure is that TBN is by no means the only religious network broadcasting poisonous false doctrine around the clock. The channel lineup I receive includes at least seven other channels whose schedules are filled with false teachers and charlatans. There’s The Church Channel, Daystar, GodTV, World Harvest Television (LeSEA), Total Christian Television, and several others. Some of them feature blocs of family television programing and a few fairly sound teachers who provide moments of escape from the prosperity preachers. But all of them give prominence to enormous amounts of heresy and religious claptrap—enough to make them positively dangerous. And TBN is singularly responsible for kicking that door open so wide.
The continued growth and influence of TBN is baffling for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the thick aura of lust, greed, and other kinds of moral impropriety that surrounds the whole enterprise. A long string of scandals involving notable charismatic televangelists between 1988 and 1992 should have been sufficient reason for even the most credulous viewers to scrutinize the entire industry with skepticism. First came the international spectacle of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker’s moral, marital, and financial collapse. That was followed closely by the revelation of Jimmy Swaggart’s repeated dalliances with prostitutes. Shortly afterward, an episode of ABC’s Primetime Live exposed clear examples of deliberate fraud on the part of three more leading charismatic televangelists. Those incidents were punctuated by a score of lesser scandals over several years’ time. It is clear (or should be)—based on empirical evidence alone—that preachers promising miracles in exchange for money are not to be trusted. And for anyone who simply bothers to compare Jesus’ teaching with the health-and-wealth message, it is clear that the message that currently dominates religious television is "a different gospel; which is really not another" (Galatians 1:6-7), but a damnable lie.

TBN is by far the leading perpetrator of that lie worldwide. Virtually all the network’s main celebrities tell listeners that God will give them healing, wealth, and other material blessings in return for their money. On program after program people are urged to "plant a seed" by sending "the largest bill you have or the biggest check you can write" with the promise that God will miraculously make them rich in return. That same message dominates all of TBN’s major fundraising drives. It’s known as the "seed faith" plan, so-called by Oral Roberts, who set the pattern for most of the charismatic televangelists who have followed the trail he blazed. Paul Crouch, founder, chairman, and commander-in-chief of TBN, is one of the doctrine’s staunchest defenders.
The only people who actually get rich by this scheme, of course, are the televangelists. Their people who send money get little in return but phony promises—and as a result, many of them turn away from the truth completely.
If the scheme seems reminiscent of Tetzel, that’s because it is precisely the same doctrine. (Tetzel was a medieval monk whose high-pressure selling of indulgences—phony promises of forgiveness—outraged Martin Luther and touched off the Protestant Reformation.)
Like Tetzel, TBN preys on the poor and plies them with false promises. Yet what is happening daily on TBN is many times worse than the abuses that Luther decried because it is more widespread and more flagrant. The medium is more high-tech and the amounts bilked out of viewers’ pockets are astronomically higher. (By most estimates, TBN is worth more than a billion dollars and rakes in $200 million annually. Those are direct contributions to the network, not counting millions more in donations sent directly to TBN broadcasters.) Like Tetzel on steroids, the Crouches and virtually all the key broadcasters on TBN live in garish opulence, while constantly begging their needy viewers for more money. Elderly, poor, and working-class viewers constitute TBN’s primary demographic. And TBN’s fundraisers all know that. The most desperate people—"unemployed," "even though I’m in between jobs," "trying to make it; trying to survive," "broke"—are baited with false promises to give what they do not even have. Jan Crouch addresses viewers as "you little people," and suggests that they send their grocery money to TBN "to assure God’s blessing."
Thus TBN devours the poor while making the charlatans rich. God cursed false prophets in the Old Testament for that very thing (Jeremiah 6:13-15). It’s also one of the main reasons the Pharisees incurred Jesus’ condemnation (Luke 20:46-47). It’s hard to think of any sin more evil. It not only hurts people materially; it deludes them with groundless hope, deceives them with a false gospel, and thereby places their souls in eternal peril. And yet those who do it pretend they are doing the work of God.
That’s not all. Almost no false prophecy, erroneous doctrine, rank superstition, or silly claim is too outlandish to receive airtime on TBN. Jan Crouch tearfully gives a fanciful account of how her pet chicken was miraculously raised from the dead. Benny Hinn trumps that claim with a bizarre prophecy that if TBN viewers will put their dead loved ones’ caskets in front of television set and touch the dead person’s hand to the screen, people will "be raised from the dead . . . by the thousands."
Ironically, one doesn’t even need to be an orthodox Trinitarian in order to broadcast on the Trinity network. Bishop T. D. Jakes, well known for his rejection of the Nicene creed in favor of oneness Pentecostalism, is a staple on TBN. Benny Hinn has repeatedly attempted to revise the doctrine of the Trinity in novel ways, notoriously teaching at one point that there are nine persons in the godhead.

And yet evangelical church leaders typically show a kind of benign tolerance toward the whole enterprise. Most would never endorse it, of course. They may joke about the gaudiness of the big hair and tawdry set decorations on TBN. Ask them, and they will most likely acknowledge that the prosperity gospel is no gospel at all. Press the issue, and you will probably get them to admit that it is a dangerous form of false doctrine, totally unbiblical, and essentially anti-Christian.
Why, then, is there no large-scale effort among Bible-believing evangelicals to expose, denounce, refute, and silence these false teachers? After all, that is what Scripture commands church leaders to do when we encounter purveyors of soul-destroying substitutes for the true gospel:

The overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict. For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach for the sake of sordid gain (Titus 1:7-11).

Those who remain silent in the face of such grotesque lies may in fact be partly responsible for turning people away from the truth. Consider the testimony of William Lobdell, religion reporter for the Los Angeles Times, who once considered himself a devout evangelical Christian, but after doing a series of investigative reports on the moral and doctrinal cesspool at TBN; then "finding that his investigative stories about faith healer Benny Hinn and televangelists Jan and Paul Crouch appear to make no difference on the reach of these ministries or the lives of their followers, he [gave] up on the beat and on religion generally."
All those who truly love Christ and care about the truth have a solemn duty to defend the truth by exposing and opposing these lies that masquerade as truth. If we fail in that duty because of indifference, apathy, or a craving for the approval of men, we are no less guilty than those who actively spread the lies.

(By John MacArthur)

A new song learnt Sunday night at the Tab.

Here are some interesting thoughts from a very able Baptist Theologian. The issue presented speaks to concerns raised by folk on both sides of the divide.

Unauthorized consent: Self-perpetuating trustee boards violate historic Baptist principles by Dr. Malcolm B. Yarnell, III  June 19, 2002 –

From their earliest days, Baptists have stood for responsible participation by every Christian in the communal decision-making  processes. They have also been jealous to preserve this sanctified sense of ecclesiastical democracy. Those same churches  grant the authority by which Baptist leaders publicly act on behalf of their churches to them.
Unfortunately, today, some of those leaders have violated this Baptist ideal of communal decision-making. Deceptively, many of  the leaders who have usurped the authority of the churches claim they are doing so in order to preserve those same Baptist principles and distinctives.  A historical review of Baptist principles may put this activity in its proper light.

A little Baptist history
John Smyth, the pastor of the First Baptist church in modern times, found the authority to re-institute believers’ baptism not on the basis of his own personal opinion but on the basis of a congregational decision. This pioneer among Baptists affirmed both the leadership of pastors and the congregation’s ultimate responsibility to Jesus Christ. He would not countenance any effort by the people to keep their minister from preaching the Word, but he was also careful to preserve the flow of authority from Christ to the church.  "The care of the whole church jointly must be to keep her power given her by Christ, and not to suffer any known sin, or any  tyranny or usurpation over them," Smyth wrote in 1607.
The church must make sure that she does not surrender the authority that has been grated to her by her Prophet, Priest and King– Jesus.

Thomas Helwys was a prominent member of that first congregation. Because he believed that Smyth was forsaking his Baptist principles by seeking communion with the Dutch Anabaptists, this layman separated from his pastor. Helwys bravely returned with a small congregation to the persecution he knew they would encounter in England. This was the first Baptist church on English soil and was the forerunner to those Baptist churches that exist to this day.
In his book, A Short Declaration of the Mystery of Iniquity, Helwys claimed the authority to organize churches did not come from the bishop of Rome nor from the English monarch and his bishops. He rejected the location of church authority in any one person or small group of people removed from the local church. This also drove him to reject the Presbyterian model being promoted by the Puritans, who allowed local churches some authority but located it primarily in regional or national synods that were dominated by pastors and prominent laymen.

Rather, Helwys believed that the true church was found only where local congregations of baptized believers were gathered. It  was in the local churches that Christian authority was to be found. Anyone trying to usurp the churches’ authority was declared to be under the sway of Antichrist. Using apocalyptic language to make his point, Helwys identified the first beast of Revelation with
the papal form of church government and the second beast with Episcopal government; Puritans and non-Baptistic Congregationalists were false prophets. These powerful oligarchies did not care for such revolutionary political theology. Helwys was thrown in Newgate Prison in 1612 and is believed to have died there a few years later, a martyr for Baptist ecclesiology.

As the churches grew in number in England and America, they began to organize themselves in local, regional and/or national associations and conventions. Because the same Christ who was the King of the Baptist church at Horsleydown was also the King of the Baptist church at Finsbury Fields, the unity of Christ demanded the union of the churches. The association met this  demand for Christian unity among Baptists. These associations were organized for two major purposes." On the one hand, they  were formed to pool resources of the churches for the sake of benevolent, missionary/evangelistic and educational enterprises. On the other hand, they were formed to help foster unity in faith and practice. Yet, while the churches associated for the sake of unity and even demanded that their associations exclude errant churches, they also respected the local nature of church authority.

"The churches cannot invest messengers with any of the rights, powers, authority, or responsibilities of the churches themselves," former SBC President and Mercer University President J.B. Gambrell noted in 1900.  Gambrell believed the churches should cooperate and pool their resources, but they should never let go of the power they have received from their Lord. Messengers represent their churches only for a short period of time, and are subsequently held accountable by the churches. Messengers or trustees or denominational servants cannot be fully vested with the churches’  authority. Indeed Baptist leaders are on a very short ecclesiastical leash! Their powers to act can and should be withdrawn when they cease to accomplish the churches’ will.

Gambrell believed the boards of the various denominational enterprises are "channels" by which the local churches come together to build the kingdom of God. The denominational enterprises are not ends to themselves but "means" to the end of building God’s kingdom. When the power of the local churches is "transferred" to a board, the board is participating in an "apostasy from the New Testament ideal" and has adopted the Roman or Presbyterian model instead.
Historically, Baptists were scandalized when elitists tried to grab control of Baptist institutions. When Rhode Island College was established in the early 1760s, the Baptists fashioned a rough draft of a constitution that gave Baptist trustees the governing power. The primarily Presbyterian or Congregationalist faculty, however, presented a revised charter to the state authorities and were almost successful in giving ultimate authority to the "fellows" of the new school. The Baptists responded by letting the state government know they had been "misled" and "imposed upon." They then called together Baptists from as far away as Philadelphia and brought forward a second revision that returned the primary authority to the Baptists.  "Thus the Baptists narrowly escaped being jockeyed out of their college by a set of men in whom they reposed entire confidence," Baptist historian H. Leon McBeth writes in his book, A Sourcebook for Baptist Heritage.

Revering the line of authority
Even when well-meaning Baptists temporarily violate the line of authority that stretches from Christ to the churches, Baptists will become incensed.
For example, in 1817, Richard Furman, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Charleston, S.C., and first president of the Triennial Convention, proposed the establishment of the first Baptist theological seminary in the United States. Since the convention, to which both southern and northern Baptists belonged, met only every third year, this meant action could not be taken for three years. Anxious to begin the much-needed enterprise, the convention board met in 1818 and authorized a new seminary. The board acted without authority, and to make matters worse, the venerable Luther Rice bought land for the seminary in Washington, D.C., near the White House, again without authority.
Furman, rather than being elated by these developments, objected to the manner in which decisions affecting all Baptists were being made by an elite who were not thus empowered to act. (To add insult to injury, the proposed seminary that these early Baptists built for themselves has long since ceased to serve the churches.) Baptists have never appreciated their divinely given authority being usurped, even by fellow Baptists who have the best of intentions.
How does the line of authority from Christ to the churches govern the institutions that Baptists build? Perhaps the dying words of B.H. Carroll, the founder of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, can inform us. The commission he gave to his successor, L.R. Scarborough, traced the authority of the Cross of Christ through the churches to the convention and the board of trustees; from thence it flows to the faculty and ultimately, the individual professor. The authority to operate as a Baptist educational institution could — and should — be withdrawn if and when heresy became a problem.
"Lee, keep the seminary lashed to the Cross," Carroll said. "If heresy ever comes in the teaching, take it to the faculty. If they will not hear you and take prompt action, take it to the trustees of the seminary. If they will not hear you, take it to the Convention that appoints the board of trustees, and if they will not hear you, take it to the great common people of our churches. You will not fail to get a hearing then."
Carroll had a strong assumption that the Baptist churches would want to intervene if God were not being honored in one of their institutions. Denominational servants and institutions must respect the lines of authority. "The great common people of our churches" are the last hope for our institutions on this side of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

The Missouri situation
Recently, I was asked by a local church in Parkville to speak to the defunding of five Missouri Baptist institutions by the Missouri Baptist Convention. Having only recently been introduced to this historic state’s Baptist life, I could not speak to the specific issues under consideration. However, as a committed Baptist and an historical theologian, I could — and did speak — to the principles that have informed Baptists through the last four centuries. Those principles, I believe, call for the churches to rise up and demand that their institutions submit to the will of the churches.
Not being a lawyer, I cannot speak to the legal issues that are involved. However, being a scholar, I can speak to the theological principles at issue. It is time that the people in the pews rise up with their pastors to call the boards of these Missouri Baptist institutions to submit to the common will. Those boards that will not submit are not acting in a Baptistic manner. Those board members must ask themselves whether they can verbally maintain the Baptist principle of local church authority while violating that same principle with their actions.
Of course, many will point out that Baptist educational institutions in other states have taken similar steps towards self-perpetuating boards. This is true, and the fruit of such non-Baptistic activity is now being borne. Wake Forest, Baylor, Furman, Stetson, Richmond, Mercer, Samford, Mississippi and Meredith have all declared their autonomy from their state conventions.
Most of these schools have aligned themselves with the liberal camp of Baptist life; some have seen Christian emphases removed from campus life. It is a basic truism in historical research that when a college loosens its moorings to the church, it will drift away from any significant Christian focus.  The great Baptist schools established with such sacrifice by our forefathers are slowly being lost. When will these boards, whether in Missouri or elsewhere, have the integrity to return their governance to the churches? When will the people rise up and demand that Baptist institutions function for the purposes for which they were established and in the way in which they were meant to function? My prayer is that these formerly Baptist institutions will become Baptist once again, and sooner rather than later.

(Malcolm B. Yarnell, III, Ph.D., was dean of faculty and associate professor of historical theology at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is now  Associate Professor of Systematic Theology, Director of the Oxford Study Program, Director of the Center for Theological Research, and Editor of the Southwestern Journal of Theology at South Western Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth Texas and at The Center for Theological Research [CTR], as Director. Dr. Malcolm Yarnell, which seeks to promote evangelical Baptist theology among Southern Baptists )

Several Baptist churches in New South Wales are considering the opportunity of a 4 day evangelistic crusade and Kids Bible Club during the July School holidays in 2010.  Teams from the Southern Baptist Convention in the USA will come out from several churches there and conduct morning Kids Club  VBS’s  (Vacation Bible Schools) and Evening Meetings  July 10th – July 14th   consisting of a Saturday night fellowship, Sunday services and then Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday mornings for the VBS and Evenings for evangelistic services.

The US team would then go sight seeing on Thursday, and then return to the USA on Friday July 16th.

Participating Pastors and churches would be responsible for all of their team’s travel and accommodation whilst in Australia.

If you would like to be involved please contact Rev. Steven Grose quickly.

I am having trouble getting Telstra to connect my new Telstra prepaid mobile phone to Telstra’s network. 

I bought the phone on Friday, visited 2 Telstra shops who said , sorry they can’t help me (they referred me to each other) went in and spent 2 …hours at the Telstra shop Charlestown Monday and about 7 hrs on the phone Telstra so far.  I have been informed the phone number  was quarantined. I guess it caught swine flu.

Thank you to Alycia Halse for being the first to get through.   “All the Blessings Of Life” is in the post.

The time from start to finish… 7 full days,  and 9 hours of discussions with Telstra technicians