WOW! Here's what I think: If baptism doesn't really mean anything, then Pastor Ascol is a rebel and a bad person. But if baptism really does mean something -- as an ordinance, as a sign, as the LBCF might define it -- I think it turns out he's actually advocating for a robust faith life in the church by using the ordinance not as a tally sheet, but as a sign of active obedience on the part of the sinner who comes to Christ.
If the accusation against baptists is that we are gnostics who trample God's promises under foot, why would a fellow like Ascol want to resist using the means of God's promises for those who are not able to receive those promises?
And think of the application to -- as we have seen in the past on this blog -- the idea of people experiencing multiple baptisms for the sake of celebration or what-have-you. What Ascol is advocating here is exciting: it's about having a faith life inside the church that isn't a token or a subculture. Personally, I'm with him.
Friday, January 06, 2006
[%] What? -Fewer- Baptisms?!
So I was reading Tom Ascol's latest piece on the need for modern reformation in the SBC, and it turns out he's in favor of fewer baptisms and better pastoral care as the method of evangelism in SBC churches.
0 comments:
Post a Comment