Tuesday, February 15, 2011

The Failure of the American Baptist Culture and 89 other 'politically incorrect' books online for FREE!!!

In the combox of the An Enlightened Lecture - Lesley Hazleton: On reading the Koran thread, Ken Temple shared some of his personal views on the issue of the church and state (link). His comments brought back to mind a number of books I read back in the mid-late 80s and early 90s that delved deeply into this issue. Ken's Baptist worldview brought to the fore one book in particular, The Failure of the American Baptist Culture (edited by James Jordan, published 1982). A Google search revealed that this book is available online for free:

LINK TO - The Failure of the American Baptist Culture

But this is merely the 'tip-of-the-iceberg', for an additional 89 books (and 800+ issues of newsletters) on this and related topics are also available for FREE:

http://www.commentary.net/freebooks/; How To Use This Site

It is my hope that every Baptist and/or Evangelical in America, who takes the Bible seriously, will read The Failure of the American Baptist Culture, and follow this book up with Dr. Bahnsen's, By This Standard, and then Dr. North's, Political Polytheism—this trio of books provides a devastating critique of the Anabaptist/Baptist tradition that began back in the 16th century, and has come to dominant the mindset of American evangelicalism.


Grace and peace,

David

22 comments:

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord....

Things are getting interesting at articulifidei again! smile...

The thing that gets me is this so called 'just war' doctrine. How do the Protestants rail on Catholics and Orthodox time and again and yet support the 'just war'. What Biblical basis do they have for it?

I was given a link once to C.S Lewis but I honestly found it lacking any substance. Though C.S Lewis can write one great fantasy novel that's for sure.

For example I don't find people like these kind of baptist consistent in their world view. Why are they not a Quaker when it comes to war and peace?

Ken said...

The book on the failure of the Baptist culture is interesting.

GV19 quoted Theonomist Gary North at his own web-site, trying to say that Theonomists are behind our military efforts, etc.

There are just wars. Romans 13:1-8 seems to justify both just police action against evil and defensive wars against evil aggressors.

The Muslims attacked first. 628-732 AD. 800s-900s-1071 - Battle of Manzikert near Van, Seljuk Turks defeated Byzantines.

"railing on Roman Catholics by Protestants about the Crusades" -

The crusades (1095-1299 AD) was response to all of that. It would not have been so bad, except they carried it out wrongly, with lots of atrocities, and the false theology of indulgences and penance and purgatory drove it.

when mistakes are made and excesses and atrocities are carried out; it ruins the rest of the noble and good heroic defensive fighting against evil. ( like the Abu Gharib scandal and other mistakes of killing civilians ruins the testimony of all the other good noble and justice accomplishment in Iraq and Afghanistan.)

The Crusades were certainly understandable from a human point of view why Europe would launch them in response and with a feeling of justice and self-defense.

Another problem is that we learn about the Crusades in government schools when young from a very leftist/atheist/secular/pagan/skeptic/Darwinian perspective and bias and so we were taught to feel bad and guilty about the Crusades.

Then 9-11-01 hit and some of us went back and studied the details and realized the crusades were not totally evil; and that Islam attacked first unjustly; and then some of us studied the Qur'an and Hadith and saw all of the violent texts of commanding to fight the pagans where ever you find them and fight the people of the book and we realized we were taught wrongly.

David Waltz said...

Hi GV19,

Thanks for responding; you wrote:

>>The thing that gets me is this so called 'just war' doctrine. How do the Protestants rail on Catholics and Orthodox time and again and yet support the 'just war'. What Biblical basis do they have for it?>>

Me: Well, IMHO...NONE!!! [Grin]

For the record, consistent Calvinists do not have a 'beef' with the Augustinian position on warfare; a number of Reformed scholars note the Calvin relied heavily on Augustine for his take on warfare (though there is currently a good deal of controversy among Reformed scholars over the role that so-called 'natural law' has to play in this issue).

See the following link for descent introduction into Augustine/Aquinas/Calvin connections:

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/mine/good_wars.htm


Now, with that said, it sure seems to me that the only other consistent Protestant position on warfare would be that of the Anabaptist; which btw, has been consistently followed by the Mennonites, Jehovah's Witnesses, most Adventist sects, and most Socinian sects.

Grace and peace,

David

Ken said...

What Biblical basis do they have for it?>>

Me: Well, IMHO...NONE!!! [Grin]

Did you read what I wrote above?

Romans 13:1-8

Genesis 9:6 (for first degree murder)

and yes, Augustine's writings on Just War.

C. S. Lewis is good too; but I don't think the GV19 read his whole essay; at least it doesn't seem like it. "Why I am not a pacifist" in "The Weight of Glory and other addresses"

Lewis explains the just war theory well, in my opinion.

Ken said...

regarding the book, the Failure of American Baptist Culture

I read some of it; it certainly makes a lot of valid points about fundamentalism and Jimmy Carter, and American history and politics, etc.

Overall, it is based on the author's convictions of infant baptism/covenant community and Post-millennialism - that the kingdom of God spreads over the whole earth to win the world for Christ and change societies and political structures into just and good societies and eventually brings the kingdom of God to earth, literally.

I cannot see that in the Scriptures, although I think a non-theonomist Post-millennialism is possible.

I do think Pre-Millennialism is weak exegetically.

Partial preterism seems the best exegesis of Matthew 24 and Revelation, but even with that, it is still possible for one to hold to a Pre-Mill. view, but it fits better with A-Mill. and Post-mill.

I just cannot see "infant baptism" as biblical at all - I understand the arguments from Genesis 17 /covenant community and parallel with circumcision, etc. and Colossians 2:11-12 and Acts 2:39; still, it just doesn't jive with the rest of the clear Scripture, nor even with those verses; it seems forced.

I do not like the format of the on-line book - difficult to go back and forth and jump around fast unless it is a full paper book in the hand.

Therefore, I am much more interested in reading Keith Matthison's response to Brian Cross right now.
(On Sola Scriptura)

Hope you have seen that, it just came out.

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4470

http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2011/02/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and.html

My other responses to this issue are under the Lesley Hazelton post about Islam and Theonomy are there. Too much repeat of the same principles to go on here. (for now)

Ken said...

Even though "Baptist culture is a failure", according to the Theonomist authors of the book you site, it is still better than Islamic Sharia and conquest.

Grandverbalizer19/Jonathan Dupree (whether that is his real name I don't know) wrote at his site under "about me":
http://www.acommonword.net/2010/03/about-me.html

The religion of Islam cannot be forced upon anyone but our polity (laws concerning governance can and will be).

Not true; everywhere Islam goes there is force and brutality and subjugation. Even that confession that the polity will be is enough to know that the west must stop this kind of Islam. You are still forcing submission, which is evil.

It is the same thing – your polity is your religion. Pagans must die or convert to Islam; Jews and Christians have to submit and be dhimmis, and that means for Christians, they cannot really practice their religion because evangelism, missions, church-planting, debate is not allowed. Islam does not care much about the internal heart; the emphasis is on externals. That is why thousands of nominal Muslims can function – they just submit externally and don’t do “Fitneh” (tumult, revolt, rebellion, confusion), but on the inside they don’t really believe everything.


Every ideology or faith on this earth (communism, capitalism, socialism, secularism, Christianity, atheism etc...) is like a living organism. Moss will try and grow even on the side of concrete with the right conditions. All organisms compete for space and spread.

Sounds like what is happening in France today. The "moss" ( your word) of the Muslims is forcing and eating away at the other plants that were there first.

Sounds like this:
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2011/02/cbn-civil-war-in-france.html

Those Muslims should be ashamed of themselves! Yuk!

Sounds like an agenda to immigrate to the west and slowly take over. Immigration and having large families, start protesting, demanding rights, throwing acid, intimidation; having more than one wife; and at the same time other Muslims in other parts of the world are still doing the violent other forms of Jihad, warfare, etc.

Sound like a full scale agenda to take over the world. Aggressive Moss that eats up other plants and kudzu is Islam.


Of course someone will say that we have symbiotic relationships or mutalism which is correct. However even these relationships exist for the benefit of one another and are not hostile to each other.

Many Muslims in Europe are becoming very hostile as Islamic laws and practice come into conflict with secular laws and freedoms and principles. Full fledged "Muhammad as example" (Sunna and Qur'an) and Rushidoon Khalifs are kudzu poisonous plants that kill all others in their way, it honestly seems. Surah 8:39; 9:1-5; 9:29; Many Hadiths.

In Islam for example people can practice other faith traditions within the Islamic polity

[ this is not true; one cannot be a practicing Christian in a Muslim state under Sharia law, because evangelism is not allowed; and Muslims are not free to convert to Christ – the Hadith says, “If anyone abandons Islam, kill him”. Christians cannot build new churches and cannot expand.] So this is a lie.

but other ideologies(communism, socialism, capitalism etc...) cannot exist with it or within it.

Please explain how capitalism cannot exist with Islam- this means by nature you are against a free market economy, which goes with western forms of Democratic rule. Capitalism or free market societies informed by Judeo-Christian morality (OT and NT) is a good thing; the best way.

Ken said...

and more from the GV19-
"I believe that Islam as a complete way of life must be established over this whole Earth and it will! "

Sounds like Anjem Choudary here.
How will it be established? The only way is through force, intimidation, like what is happening in France, England, etc. which is what Islam seems to be all about. Using the freedom laws of the west against us; be nice at first, but sneaky (Makr مکر و حیله and heeleh); use the court system, call everyone who questions Islam an “Islamophobe”, etc. intimidate; demand rights; have more children,several wives (hidden and sneaky, disobeying anti-polygamy laws); grow in population and demand Sharia laws. When the demands are not met, then Islam seems to start the violence, because they didn’t get their way. Islam seems like a system of force and manipulation and intimidation.

GV19 wrote:
However, I do believe that as Muslims we have to abide by and live peacefully in the society that we live in. Muslims have no right to disturb the peace and cohesiveness of societies that we live in. However, I do believe that we have to work to establish an Islamic polity -Islamic Caliph. We establish an Islamic polity with in Muslim majority states.

Then why don't they actually be peaceful in these places in Europe?

wow. The Mullahs and Imams and Ulema and sheikhs and fiq need to tell the Muslims in Europe to not disturb the peace.

However, you want to work to establish an Islamic Caliph. Wow.

Sounds like you agree with Choudary and CAIR and Hassan Al Banna and Sayyid Qutb . . .

How will you do that, exactly (re-establish the Khalifate)?

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord...

David thank you for your response I thought it was measured and balanced.

The thing that I like about you David is that you ask people to be consistent with in their world views...

don't pick and choose Genesis in one place and ignore Deuteronomy and others in the rest.

I think that you are asking people to be consistent with in their particular world view.

The thing that I find condescending as well as arrogant is when a person ask me to read an article and I simply say that I am not convinced of that article and than they turn around and say 'well must not have read it than'.

What does that tell you about dialog with such a person? Yet that same person can say well in my 'opinion' it made allot of sense.

So they are allowed to have an opinion -and it sticks.

I am not allowed to have an opinion unless it matches completely with what they say?

As I mentioned before something has to be said seriously about the psychological profile of such people truly.

I have recently given some of your articles and entries to several Muslims who are in the apologetic field (people who have much much more aptitude than myself) and they have found this site and your articles a treasure! Al hamdulilah!

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

David,

I also wondered if you ever encountered these sites before...?

http://theonomyresources.blogspot.com/2010/05/ian-hodges-dangerous-website.html

http://theonomyresources.blogspot.com/2010/06/westminster-standards-are-theonomic_28.html

http://biblicalsoteriology.blogspot.com/2010/06/rj-rushdoony-gods-sovereignty-and.html

http://godshammer.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/pca-presbytery-endorses-federal-vision/

Absolutely delicious stuff for sure! Looks like the Federal Vision vs Theonomy is on!

Little wonder James White and his Aomin team like to avoid talking about estachological views...maybe just maybe...there is something to hide.

If the Holy Spirit were to 'guide me into all truth' I would certainly not be wanting the reformed baptist church chief spokesperson to be sitting on the side lines while soo many are playing ball.

David Waltz said...

Hi GV19,

Thanks for the kudos, you are much too kind.

And thank you for the links; I have added the Theomony Resources blog to my REFORMED LINKS.

You wrote:

>>I have recently given some of your articles and entries to several Muslims who are in the apologetic field (people who have much much more aptitude than myself) and they have found this site and your articles a treasure! Al hamdulilah!>>

Wow, I am pleasantly surprised. It is my sincere hope that this insignificant beachbum’s reflections act as a stimulus for others to explore their faith and/or worldview in greater depth.


God bless,

David

Ken said...

It is very interesting that the Grandverbalizer19 gave no response to anything above; it is also interesting that this debate came at this time; as it relates to this issue to which political view is better:

a. A traditional western / USA/ European roots of Magna Charta type - and US Declaration of Independence/US Constitution original intent view of separation of church and state, but informed by 2000 years of Christian culture and moral values.

or

b. Theonomy - using the Mosaic law that was only for political Israel and only for the time until Jesus took the political kingdom of God away from Israel in Matthew 21:33-46; going back to punishments (death penalty for some odd 15 sins) to control society for today.

or

c. A Liberal/ Left-wing/what most Democrats vote for in their leaders / papan/secular/atheist/ACLU / no morality type of total separation of God and talk of God and Jesus out of government and schools. (including promotion of pornography, Darwinian Evolution/abortion/homosexuality.)

or

d. Sharia Islamic law - the moss that GV19 wants to grow and eat up the west; like Anjem Choudary wants and what Osama Ben Laden and Al Zawahiri wants.

e. Socialism/Communism

a is the best.

Most Americans and Europeans would agree if they could get all the facts and be educated again and not have the demagoguery of the liberal media and government and John Lennon type of pop culture advocacy of "no God, no religion, "Imagine there is no heaven" type of philosophy.



"Is Sharia Law good for the west?"
Debate - Anjem Choudary vs. David Wood

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2011/02/anjem-choudary-vs-david-wood-would.html

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of Allah, peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord...

"It is very interesting that the Grandverbalizer19 gave no response to anything above;".... (shrugs shoulders)...

I guess the reason Ken is that I actually try my best to respect David Waltz, his very informative blog and also THE TITLE of his post.

That means that when he post about Jehovah's Witness, Theonomy, Monarchism, The Nice Creed etc... I don't some how try and turn it into an unhealthy obsession about Islam.

I don't try and give a convoluted five comment post about everything I picked up at every Islamaphobic web site I have come across....

I dunno but that's just me kiddo.

I have also learned that you basically already know what you know isn't Ken?

Your so well equipped to extrapolate the meaning of the Qur'an (a language in classical Arabic) based upon your cursory knowledge of Farsi....

I mean when your that far gone there is not much one can do for you mate.

Than again James White now puts on his facebook that he 'knows Arabic' ....

so I guess this is just an AOMIN thing huh?

Ken said...

GV19 wrote:
"I guess the reason Ken is that I actually try my best to respect David Waltz, his very informative blog and also THE TITLE of his post."

Actually, Grandverbalizer19 - it was you who started the comment box with this, remember?

GV19 wrote:
The thing that gets me is this so called 'just war' doctrine. How do the Protestants rail on Catholics and Orthodox time and again and yet support the 'just war'. What Biblical basis do they have for it?

I was given a link once to C.S Lewis but I honestly found it lacking any substance. Though C.S Lewis can write one great fantasy novel that's for sure.

I actually answered those issues.

Also, the topic of the failure of American Baptist Culture, as critiqued by a Theonomist, does relate to the different views on politics and law; after all Islam and the Sharia is a "total way of life"; an "oasis to find water"; a mercy from Allah, etc. and it is aggressive "moss" trying to destroy western civilization (your "about me" section at your own web-site, which sounds like Anjem Choudary to me); and the five different political views I listed seems pertinent to the discussion to me. Why is the discussion of Islam and politics not relevant, given the current news and issues we face, and David's knowledge of both Theonomy, Roman Catholicism, church history, and Islam ?

His link to the critique of "American Baptist Culture" naturally will touch on all these issues.

So it was your comments that justified my answers and attempts to reason rationally with you.

Ken said...

It is very interesting that the Grandverbalizer19 (Jonathan Dupree/ or whatever his real name is) has now taken down all his statements in his "About Me" post, statements that seem to promote the takeover of the west by Islam - he seems to believe that the political forces and military forces are to subjugate the west first (Islamic polity/political state with a Khalif as head, and Sharia as law of the land), then people can convert to Islam in their hearts. Pagans are to be given the choice to convert or die; Christians and Jews can be dhimmis (submit and pay the Jiziye) and be quiet and not allowed to debate, disagree with Muslims or witness or preach the gospel or build new churches. (Surah 9:29; Pact of Umar)

His statements are to the effect of: "I no longer believe in secularism" (separation of church and state/ libertarianism) = he agrees that Islamic law and Sharia and a Khalif should be established over the whole earth.

and "Islam will one day dominate the world" and it is like moss that grows and takes over and conquers the other plants (systems of political and ideological thought).

Some of his statements, that now are no longer there:

"The religion of Islam cannot be forced upon anyone but our polity (laws concerning governance can and will be)."

"Every ideology or faith on this earth (communism, capitalism, socialism, secularism, Christianity, atheism etc...) is like a living organism. Moss will try and grow even on the side of concrete with the right conditions. All organisms compete for space and spread. "

"I believe that Islam as a complete way of life must be established over this whole Earth and it will! "


GV19 wrote:
"However, I do believe that as Muslims we have to abide by and live peacefully in the society that we live in. Muslims have no right to disturb the peace and cohesiveness of societies that we live in. However, I do believe that we have to work to establish an Islamic polity -Islamic Caliph. We establish an Islamic polity with in Muslim majority states."

http://www.acommonword.net/2010/03/about-me.html

Why did you take those statements down?

Can you answer the question honestly?

Ken said...

Grandverbalizer19 wrote:
"The religion of Islam cannot be forced upon anyone but our polity (laws concerning governance can and will be)."

"The religion of Islam cannot be forced upon anyone

(ie, you cannot force true belief in the heart by external methods of force - that, I suppose is how you are acknowledging and applying Surah 2:256 - "there is no compulsion in religion." )

but our polity (laws concerning governance can and will be)."

can be forced? will be forced? - what gives you the right to force Sharia external law on a population?

This confession exposes the true nature and goals and desires of all consistent, doctrinal Muslims, whether they be sneaky (makr, Taqqiyye) like Abdul Ra'uf and the NY mosque, or the GV19 or Anjem Choudary, or Abudullah Kunde (who admitted that no new churches will be allowed to be built) or CAIR or ISNA or the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic Jihad, or Hamas or Al Qaedah or the Muslim Student Association.

Ken said...

you can hear the pin drop . . .

Ken said...

David,
I am wondering why you are not making any comments lately . . .

I am only wondering why you are implying that either Christian Theonomy or Islamic Sharia (Salafi / Muhammad and the Rushidoon Khalifs) are the best political systems?

That seems to be the implication of your posts and your defense of early Islam.

Do you see any validity to the fact that there are basically 5 different political systems? (I left out totalitarian/dictator, so my guess would be that there are basically 6 kinds of political philosophy. ( I am sure there are more, but those 6 seem to be the dominant ones)

What do you think of Anjem Choudary vs. David Wood's debate?

"Would Sharia be good for the west?"

At www.answeringmuslims.com
and
ABNSAT

there are also other debates he has done on news programs with a similar title on You Tube.

Ken said...

Debate - Would Sharia Law be good for the West? Choudary vs. Wood

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2011/02/anjem-choudary-vs-david-wood-would.html

Choudary says several times, that people in the west are "following their own desires". (and he said it in other You Tube clips of debates with others on other programs.

This shows that the root of sin is in the heart and thoughts and desires - exactly as the Bible says.

Genesis 6:5
Jeremiah 17:9

Mark 7:20-23

Matthew 12:33-35

The only solution is the gospel and the grace of God in changing the heart first. Ezekiel 36:26, Acts 16:14; John 6:44; John 3:1-8

External law does not change the heart.

Rituals, Salat, vodzu (washings before prayer); food, fasting during Ramadan, Hajj, paying Zakat, cannot cleanse the heart. Mark 7:14-23

Also, Choudary says that in Islam, under Sharia, everyone is promised food, shelter, clothing, water, electricity, gas - how? and he says in an Islamic state under a Khalif, all the money belongs to the state.

Wow. So that is very similar to socialism/communism in the economic realm.

The Ayatollah Khomeini promised the same thing in Iran, justice, food, water, clothing, shelter, electricity, gas, etc. yet looked what happened and the people have been disillusioned with Islam since a few years after the Revolution of 1979. Around 1983 lots of Iranians started questioning this.

Ken said...

Choudary says several times, that people in the west are "following their own desires". (and he said it in other You Tube clips of debates with others on other programs.

This shows that the root of sin is in the heart and thoughts and desires - exactly as the Bible says.

more . . .

James 4:1-3

Ephesians 2:1-3

Is a Muslim confessing the doctrine of original, inherited sin in the heart?

David Waltz said...

Hi Ken,

You posted:

>>David,
I am wondering why you are not making any comments lately . . .>>

Me: I am pretty much waiting for you to read the three works I recommended in the opening post of this thread; here is a repost:

== It is my hope that every Baptist and/or Evangelical in America, who takes the Bible seriously, will read The Failure of the American Baptist Culture, and follow this book up with Dr. Bahnsen's, By This Standard, and then Dr. North's, Political Polytheism—this trio of books provides a devastating critique of the Anabaptist/Baptist tradition that began back in the 16th century, and has come to dominant the mindset of American evangelicalism.==

Dr. Bahnsen and Dr. North articulate their position primarily from the Bible; I find their reflections cogent and solid. I am not saying that I endorse their view, but rather, that it seems much more consistent than yours.


Grace and peace,

David

Ken said...

That's too much to read in a limited amount of time I have; but I will try some more later and come back. I pretty much know the arguments, without having to read them all over again; I have read others on these issues. I think Gary DeMar is better than Dr. North.

I did read some of the "Failure of American Baptist Culture"

and

Bahnsen's chapter contribution to "The Law and Gospel: Five Views" (Zondervan), is probably a condensed version of "By this standard".

Dr. North, in my opinion, lost a lot of credibility by his goofiness during the Y-2K craze thing.

Aside from that, What do you think of the 5-6 choices of government / politics that I laid out ?

John MacArthur has a good message from 1970 on John 7:53-8:11.

http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/1519_Jesus-Confronts-Hypocrisy

If you think Theonomy is more consistent, and you are open to the possibility that Islam / Sharia/Rushidoon period/early Khalifate/12 Imams is true, it seems you are leaning toward that view - it SEEMS. It seems like you think both of those are "close to each other".

What do you think of GV19 admitting that he thinks that the Muslims have the right to enforce Sharia law over the world?

And that the Muslims are like "moss" that aggressively grows and takes over space - an implication of the agenda of Muslims in the west.

Ken said...

In the first few pages to the book, The Failure of American Baptist Culture, writes:

Even at this date in history, the vast majority of Christendom holds to and practices infant baptism . . .


That does not really matter to me; I find the arguments for infant baptism to be very, very weak. (Genesis 17; Colossians 2:11-12; Acts 2:39) Most of the people he is referring to are either the RC and EO (which are heresies doctrinally because they deny Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura) [ this produces a lot of nominalism] and liberal Protestant groups(most Methodists, most Lutherans, most of the PCUSA, most Anglicans and Episcopals)[so actually, those numbers don't even count in my book, as they do not preach the Scriptures]

[I do understand that there good conservative Bible believing Methodists, Wesleyans, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Lutherans, but they are seemingly largely outnumbered by their liberal members and leaders]- as you mentioned the only really vibrant of the infant baptizers are the PCA Presbyterians.

Besides, that, infant baptism is just not biblical and was not in the early period of the church - Justin Martyr's statements are proof of this, in my opinion; and Tertullian.



In America, however, the Baptistic mind set has prevailed to a very great extent. In fact, we might say that Americans are instinc- tive Baptists. . . .

An individualistic, voluntaristic decisionism is endemic and pandemic to American culture.

A return to the Reformed doctrines of Grace in God's Sovereignty and good and consistent local church discipline, elder rule(with congregational confirmation and interaction); and Biblical counseling would seem to solve those problems.

As a Reformed Baptist (not the official denomination (s) ?) , but as a Southern Baptist convinced of elder rule local church with congregational confirmation church government, and the doctrines of Grace emphasis; this gets rid of easy believism and altar calls and "decisionism".

Believer's baptism does not necessarily produce individualism and decision- ism; rather it is the un-biblical "altar-call" ism and decision-ism of Charles Finney, Billy Sunday, and Bill Graham/Oral Roberts, TV evangelism (no accountability in the local church) etc. that contributed to that more.

So, there is a lot that I agree with as problems, but that is not a 1 to 1 correspondence to the issue of believers/professors/disciples baptism.