Some of you who come here are probably more in the know than I on the proposed “name change” or whatever you want to call it of the Southern Baptist Convention. I, myself, have no problems with the Southern Baptist Convention name. Why change it? How many times has that been asked?
It seems to me we are proposing the change for those who hate God and Jesus Christ to call attention to the idea that we are willing to change to get them come and see what we are about. Now, that could just be a gross misstatement, or mis-understatement; if anything to me it is understated. It says to me that we are willing to change our name that we might just be willing to change some other things in order to accommodate the masses. Now I probably will be unable to attend the convention in New Orleans in June, but I know some of you, at least, will do the right thing and vote against the “change”.
By the way keep in mind that ABC television has a new show coming out that is called the GCB, about what I understand to be about professing Christian women who are nothing more than hypocrites. Mockery of Christ and His own. GCB for ABC means Good Christian B_ _ _hes (the word for a female dog). Used in that context I refuse to use the term. I find it very disrespectful to women of any class. Even if some do not mind being called “female dogs”.
It has been some time since I posted here at ALL THINGS BAPTIST, but I think this is about as Baptist as you can get.
Posted by T. A. Blankenship on March 20, 2012
“It is not expected that we should give a church history in this limited essay. All that will be done is to glance at the existence of the church in each successive century ; and we shall only be able to notice where the true church flourished in one or two places at the same time. . . . Owing to the different languages of those nations where the followers of Christ have lived. and to the asperities of their opposers, the church has been known by the name of Baptists, Anabaptists, Wickliffites, Lollards, Hugonots, Mennonites, Hussites, Petrobrusians, Albigenses, Waldenses, Paulicans, etc.; and to oppose image worship, infant baptism, transubstantiation, and the unwarrantable power of the Pope, have ever been characteristics of this people. . . .
We should keep in mind that nearly every question has two sides; and while the controversy between us and the pedobaptists respects church origin, we are happy to have their full concession that they are recent dissenters from the Roman Catholics; and that the Baptist church is not only the true church of God, but that for her ‘it is easy to trace a succession of witnesses for Jesus Christ against His rival at Rome.’”
(The above quote is from ”The Convert’s Guide to First Principles” by Israel Robords, pastor of the First Baptist Church of New Haven, CT. It was published in 1838, to instruct a large number of new converts in the church from a recent revival. The quote is from pages 78, 79, 97, and 98 of the book. Notice that in 1838 you have a New England pastor referring to a Baptist “succession” and a “true church.” This is just further proof that J.R. Graves and the Landmark movement did not teach anything new in Baptist history. A special thanks to Bro. Steve LeCrone for finding this important quote. Note: The last sentence of the quote includes a phrase from Brown’s Bible Dictionary, p. 152. )
Posted by Tim A. on July 5, 2011