Travels in Baptist History First Baptist Providence Rhode Island The cost of compromise part five… by Jim Curran

Jim Curran Facebook

Admin  · 6h  · Travels in Baptist HistoryFirst Baptist Providence Rhode Island The cost of compromise part five- blurring the linesJoh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.I have often been a little shocked by how many accept and know more about revivalists than Baptist history. There have been a great many revivals that turned into wildfire. For example the last “Great Welsh Revival” was in fact a charismatic mess. The second great awakening in America came with some issues. There began to be a blurring of denominational lines. Within this revival there was also the rise of apostasies including the Campbellites and Adventism. In the wake of this revival was also the beginning seeds of liberalism sown by such as Henry Ward Beecher and Horace Bushnell. This blurring of lines and doctrine worked its way into Providence. “First” Makes the sad comment: “The second great awakening saw a change in the way individuals gained entry into the First Baptist Church. Previously, one had to be able to testify to a definite and profound conversion experience. Such a stringent requirement prevented any number of individuals, such as Nicholas Brown, from ever being baptized into the church. Such persons might live righteous upright lives and believe the tenants of Christianity but never undergo the existential experience of conversion. However by the 1840’s some began to gain admission by affirming the beliefs of the church, not by testifying to a conversion.” As much as the writer of “First” (J. Stanley Lemons) wants to dress up this up it WAS LETTING UNSAVED RELIGIOUS PEOPLE INTO THE CHURCH! This change had already been facilitated by pew rents and the control of the “Baptist Charitable Society” (Noted in part three) which was comprised of pew owners that were generally not members of the church. This was not the only issue happening at this time either for there was a blurring of denominational lines. In the early 1800’s members of First Baptist were disciplined for attending or holding to the doctrines of other denominations. In 1837 the church adopted a standard letter of dismissal to any other Baptist church and the following year in 1838 issued a “certificate of good standing” to an individual joining a church of a different denomination! There is a note later that in the 1890’s more were issued to the Episcopalians than any other denomination. By the end of the nineteenth century the church had moved toward “open communion.” (To clarify- the terms closed, close and open are often defined differently and a bit of a source of confusion I would use the term full- open for what happened here) Anyone was admitted to communion rather if they had been baptized or not. Considering the churches compromise on “membership” as well there was no doubt that unsaved people were participating as well. Each one of these compromises paved the way for further compromise. We would do well to learn from this as similar things are happening today. Similar to what happened with admission of church members some folks have gotten sloppy with evangelism concentrating on numbers over genuine conversion. Take time- if a person is not understanding coma back again rather than pressuring them into something that they do not believe. Another thing that we are seeing in droves is a move toward ecumenicism. Churches are dropping the Baptist name and in their worship becoming indistinguishable from Charismatics or non-denominational churches. There is a weakening of doctrinal statements to a point that anyone could agree as well. Other Baptists are imbibing such men as John Piper whose church is no longer Baptist in doctrine accepting baptism from others even to the point of infant baptism! Compromise is a slippery slope.

First Baptist Providence Rhode IslandThe cost of compromise part five- blurring the linesJoh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.I have often been a little shocked by how many accept and know more about revivalists than Baptist history. There have been a great many revivals that turned into wildfire. For example the last “Great Welsh Revival” was in fact a charismatic mess. The second great awakening in America came with some issues. There began to be a blurring of denominational lines. Within this revival there was also the rise of apostasies including the Campbellites and Adventism. In the wake of this revival was also the beginning seeds of liberalism sown by such as Henry Ward Beecher and Horace Bushnell. This blurring of lines and doctrine worked its way into Providence. “First” Makes the sad comment: “The second great awakening saw a change in the way individuals gained entry into the First Baptist Church. Previously, one had to be able to testify to a definite and profound conversion experience. Such a stringent requirement prevented any number of individuals, such as Nicholas Brown, from ever being baptized into the church. Such persons might live righteous upright lives and believe the tenants of Christianity but never undergo the existential experience of conversion. However by the 1840’s some began to gain admission by affirming the beliefs of the church, not by testifying to a conversion.” As much as the writer of “First” (J. Stanley Lemons) wants to dress up this up it WAS LETTING UNSAVED RELIGIOUS PEOPLE INTO THE CHURCH! This change had already been facilitated by pew rents and the control of the “Baptist Charitable Society” (Noted in part three) which was comprised of pew owners that were generally not members of the church. This was not the only issue happening at this time either for there was a blurring of denominational lines. In the early 1800’s members of First Baptist were disciplined for attending or holding to the doctrines of other denominations. In 1837 the church adopted a standard letter of dismissal to any other Baptist church and the following year in 1838 issued a “certificate of good standing” to an individual joining a church of a different denomination! There is a note later that in the 1890’s more were issued to the Episcopalians than any other denomination. By the end of the nineteenth century the church had moved toward “open communion.” (To clarify- the terms closed, close and open are often defined differently and a bit of a source of confusion I would use the term full- open for what happened here) Anyone was admitted to communion rather if they had been baptized or not. Considering the churches compromise on “membership” as well there was no doubt that unsaved people were participating as well. Each one of these compromises paved the way for further compromise. We would do well to learn from this as similar things are happening today. Similar to what happened with admission of church members some folks have gotten sloppy with evangelism concentrating on numbers over genuine conversion. Take time- if a person is not understanding coma back again rather than pressuring them into something that they do not believe. Another thing that we are seeing in droves is a move toward ecumenicism. Churches are dropping the Baptist name and in their worship becoming indistinguishable from Charismatics or non-denominational churches. There is a weakening of doctrinal statements to a point that anyone could agree as well. Other Baptists are imbibing such men as John Piper whose church is no longer Baptist in doctrine accepting baptism from others even to the point of infant baptism! Compromise is a slippery slope.