Nearly two decades ago, I was a poor international seminary student trying to complete my studies and faithfully prepare for ministry. One of my required textbooks was Dear Timothy, edited by Dr. Tom Ascol. Not knowing where else to turn, I reached out to ask if there was any way I could obtain a free copy.

I did not expect what happened next.

Dr. Ascol personally sent me not just one copy, but two, along with a generous collection of other books and resources from Founders Ministries. For a struggling student, that gift was more than practical help. It was a tangible expression of Christian generosity and brotherly care that I have never forgotten.

My name is Andrei Sava, and today I have the privilege of serving in pastoral ministry. By God’s grace, what was once a small act of kindness toward a young seminarian has borne fruit over many years of ministry.

Recently, that story came full circle.

Last month, Dr. Tom Ascol came and preached at our men’s study, where over 400 men gathered to hear God’s Word from the book of Ezra. It was a powerful time of encouragement and exhortation. But for me personally, it was also deeply meaningful because I was able to thank him face-to-face for that act of kindness from so many years ago.

Moments like that remind me that the work of Founders Ministries is not abstract. It is personal. It is pastoral. And it has a long reach.

Through books, teaching, conferences, and quiet acts of generosity, Founders has been strengthening pastors, equipping churches, and investing in men like me long before many of us ever realized it. What began as a few books in the hands of a struggling student became part of a much larger story of ministry, encouragement, and faithfulness.

That is what Founders Ministries continues to do today.

It is training men for pastoral ministry.

It is producing resources that anchor churches in sound doctrine.

It is encouraging leaders to stand firm on the sufficiency and authority of Scripture in a time when compromise is often easier than conviction.

And often, like in my case, it is doing this through simple, quiet faithfulness that the Lord uses in ways we cannot immediately see.

If that resonates with you, I want to invite you to be part of that kind of work.

Your generosity to Founders Ministries helps extend that same kind of encouragement and equipping to pastors, students, and churches around the world—many of whom are serving in difficult or under-resourced contexts.

Your gift of any amount helps:

• Place sound, theological resources into the hands of pastors and students who may not otherwise have access to them.
• Support training and development through Founders Seminary, the Institute of Public Theology, and other teaching efforts.
• Encourage and strengthen churches through conferences, publications, and ongoing ministry initiatives.

Would you prayerfully consider giving today to help continue this kind of gospel impact, often unseen at first, but bearing fruit for years to come?

Thank you for considering how the Lord might use you in this work. I am personally grateful because I am one of the many who have been shaped by the faithfulness of this ministry.

With gratitude,

Pastor Andrei Sava

Trinity Community Church

Clovis, CA

P.S. Sometimes the Lord uses a simple gift (like a few books) to shape a lifetime of ministry. Your generosity today may be the very means He uses to equip and encourage someone you may never meet this side of heaven.

The post A Small Act of Kindness That Still Bears Fruit appeared first on Founders Ministries.

KDY then succinctly presented the traditional covenant baptism interpretation of Colossians 2:11-12, one he felt so confident in, he posted it on X.^[2] His fellow pedobaptists praised it as an exemplary articulation of covenant baptism. Let’s examine it.

First, KDY asserts, “Paul is comparing the spiritual import of circumcision with the spiritual import of baptism.” However, Colossians 2:11 does not mention physical circumcision. It states, “in him you were circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands . . . in the circumcision of Christ.”^[3] N. T. Wright, a pedobaptist, notes that this refers to “metaphorical” circumcision consistent with such OT passages as Leviticus 26:41, Deuteronomy 10:16, 30:6, etc.^[4] That Paul is referring to that metaphorical circumcision in Col. 2:11 is evident by describing it as “made without hands” and “of Christ.” It speaks of a new heart, thus of regeneration. Since Colossians 2:11 does not describe physical circumcision, it cannot be used to establish any relationship between it and baptism or to describe “the spiritual import of circumcision.” Contrary to the oft-repeated claim, Col. 2:11-12 does not draw a parallel between circumcision and baptism. 

Wright argues that Paul’s fore-fronting of “the circumcision of Christ” is targeted at Judaizers.^[5] That being the case, if Paul believed in covenant baptism, the easiest way to rebuke Judaizers would have been to insist that physical circumcision is unnecessary, as it has been replaced by baptism. But Paul does not do this. He, rather, points to regeneration as the fulfillment of circumcision.

It is true, as Wright notes, “‘Christian circumcision’” is “the point of entry into the community of Christ’s people” just “as physical circumcision was the point of entry into the community of Israel.”^[6] But what Wright calls “Christian circumcision” is not baptism; it is regeneration. The OT itself shows that circumcision is a type of regeneration, rather than a type of baptism. Regeneration is the antitype, not baptism. We enter “the community of Christ’s people” by being born again (John 3:3). 

Regeneration is, therefore, the sign of the new covenant. “Be baptized” is directed toward those who have received that sign, specifically to “disciples” in the Lord Jesus’ mandate to baptize (Mt 28:19). Baptism follows regeneration (the anti-type of circumcision). Baptism is, then, a sign of the sign of the covenant. That is, God makes a covenant with the elect; He regenerates them in due time, thereby granting them the sign of His covenant, which they then signify by being baptized. Thus, we Baptists, in addition to presenting alternative covenant theologies, should also simply insist that baptism is not comparable to circumcision. It is not a covenant sign.

Nevertheless, KDY proceeds to the second step. He claims, “Romans 4:11 says circumcision signified” everything that baptism signifies. Thus, by the principle of transfer, Romans 4:11 describes baptism (even though it doesn’t mention it). Hence, after (incorrectly) asserting that Colossians 2:11 describes the “spiritual import of circumcision,” he then says Romans 4:11 describes that “spiritual import” in a manner that is similar, if not identical, to the description of baptism. But this, too, is untrue. Circumcision is described as a “sign of the covenant” and a “seal of the righteousness that he had by faith” (Rom. 4:11). Despite the also oft-repeated claims otherwise, scripture never refers to baptism like that. A doctrine as fundamental as a sign of the covenant cannot be left up to being deduced by subjective “good and necessary consequences.”

Colossians 2:11-12 mentions baptism following a series of descriptions of believers. “In him” — actually in Greek “in whom” referring back to “Christ” in 2:8 — “you were circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands.” You were regenerated by God’s sovereign work (John 1:13) “in the stripping off of the body of the flesh.” This phrase is enigmatic. It may refer to the crucifying of the flesh in Christ (Galatians 2:24). Wright suggests that it could also pertain to removing “family solidarity,” how being identified with Christ transcends other identifiers like ethnicity or family ties.^[7] If so, it would be ironic that this verse is employed, along with what KDY calls “the family principle,” to argue for the baptism of infants because of their family identity. 

The “stripping” or removal of “the body of the flesh” occurs in “the circumcision of Christ,” i.e., in regeneration. This is not a second experience. It is one aspect of metaphorical circumcision. 

Then, in Colossians 2:12, Paul begins with an aorist, passive participle, a divine passive implying God as the subject acting upon the believer. “Having been buried.” A key question: does this describe the cause of the “circumcision of Christ”? That is, is Paul suggesting that baptism caused “Christian circumcision” (regeneration) or is he providing a series of descriptions with no causal relationship between them? The participle may indicate that Paul is returning to the “you are” (2:10), which began “you are made complete in him,” also a participle. This could be interpreted as saying (in rough English to reflect the Greek), “You are having been made complete . . . you also were circumcised with the circumcision made without hands . . . ; [you are] having been buried with him in baptism…”. Even if this is incorrect, and Paul is revealing that baptism causes the “circumcision of Christ” (i.e., the causal interpretation), it could, then, be interpreted to support baptismal regeneration (of believers), but not covenant baptism. The Reformed tradition does not believe in baptismal regeneration.^[8]

Further, Paul writes that we have been “buried” and “raised” with Christ in baptism, which suggests the mode of baptism: immersion (the literal definition of the Greek word “baptism”).

Finally, KDY’s additional points regarding “whether that sign can be applied before the known exercise of faith” and whether “the family principle is no longer operative” are moot. KDY has not demonstrated that baptism is a sign of the covenant. Circumcision could be applied before faith because it was a sign of the covenant, but baptism is “through faith,” as Piper observed. Regarding the “family principle,” the very first public teaching in the NT, John the Baptist’s, rejects it. “God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham” (Mt 3:9).

Speaking of “the family principle,” this issue is an intra-family debate. Pastor DeYoung has made many valuable contributions to nurturing and defending the faith, even if his handling of Col. 2:11 may not be one of them. He’s an able communicator. I even like to say, with a wry smile, that Dr. DeYoung is such a talented writer that he actually won second place in the 2000 Acton Essay Contest!^[9] (Look it up to get the joke.) We pray for God’s continued blessings on him.

^[1] Coram Deo Pastors Workshop, February 13, 2025.

^[2] Kevin DeYoung, X, April 9, 2025, https://x.com/RevKevDeYoung/status/1910003655207444901.

^[3] NT Wright, Colossians and Philippians: Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1986), 109.

^[4] Wright, 109.

^[5] Wright, 109.

^[6] Wright, 109.

^[7] Wright, 111.

^[8] John B. Carpenter, “The Catholicity of Regenerate Church Membership,” Themelios (50,2, 2025).

^[9] https://www.acton.org/press/release/2001/acton-institute-announces-essay-contest-winners.

The post Colossians 2:11-12 and Kevin DeYoung’s Case for Covenant Baptism appeared first on Founders Ministries.

How often we need to be reminded of the perfection, completeness of effectuality of God’s work. Paul was painfully aware of the attempts of false teachers to infiltrate the churches and win followers to themselves by their strange doctrine, so he does not mind sticking with this historically accomplished, revealed truth. He found it necessary to reiterate his teaching—the true gospel revealed to the apostles—in order to protect both the faith and the faithful. So, Paul found it no trouble to “write the same things” for it was a “safeguard” for the church (1). Peter had this same purpose in mind (2 Peter 1:12-15) when he reminded the churches within his sphere of influence of the truth he had taught them—“I will not be negligent to remind you always of these things.” 

Paul issued a strong warning against false teaching, because false teaching, purposefully erroneous content, produces false faith and deluded followers. He calls these heresy-mongers “dogs, . . . evil workers, . . . the false circumcision” (2 NASB). Their performance is a mere “mutilation of the flesh” (NKJV combined with ESV). Evidently some of the same group that challenged the Galatian churches had also made their way to Philippi (Gal. 5:1-11). Throughout the letter to the Galatians, Paul warned against embracing this false gospel. He warned against a yoke of slavery, that Christ would be of “no benefit” and that they would be “severed from Christ” and “fallen from grace” if they adopted the ceremony of circumcision as a qualification for the gospel. Instead, Paul urged that they continue in their obedience to the truth, to follow no other persuasion, and adopt no other view (Galatians 5:1-10). 

The gospel has a particular content, nothing superfluous, all vital. True faith includes a persuasion of both its truthfulness and its necessity. We confess, therefore, that not only was Jesus born of a virgin as a matter of fact, but we concede that such an event was necessary for the demands of salvation. So too do we confess the fact of Jesus’ sinless and positively righteous life, but we embrace its necessity for our right standing before God. Not only do we see the crucifixion of Christ as a historical reality, but we believe its substitutionary, propitiatory, expiatory character to be essential if sinners are to be saved. We point to the resurrection as a demonstrable and certain historical fact and also embrace its power over death as an inextricable component of the gift of eternal life.

Paul issued a theological statement about the true meaning of circumcision (3). This could have been dispensed with quickly and clearly had he written, “Don’t you know that Circumcision has now been replaced with the baptism of your children? The old covenant for membership in the covenantal people of Israel required circumcision of all male progeny. That rite is now replaced by the baptism of all children—male as well as female. Baptism of children is now the true circumcision.” Paul did not write that. Instead, he gave concise discussion of the work of the Spirit in his work of calling and transformation of heart.

Circumcision was a ceremony that prefigured the work of the Spirit in removing a sinner’s hardness of heart. The Spirit would create a free flow of trust and love from a sinner to Christ. The true circumcision of regeneration establishes three things, at least, in the spiritual response of a believer.

First, the one who has true circumcision worships by the Spirit of God, that is, according to the work of the Sprit in the new covenant. The law is written on his heart (Jeremiah 31:33), the heart of stone has been removed, the Spirit of God has been put within us to cause us to walk in God’s statutes (Ezekiel 36:26, 27). This circumcision is evidenced in true and observable moral change and spiritual perception. The “circumcised’ person worships “in the Spirit of God.” 

Second, the true believer, the person who has entered the followship of the covenant people, glories in Christ Jesus. The person has a conscious awareness of those objective gospel facts discussed above and has assented to them and consented to their eternal relevance in his standing before God. The participant in this covenant has forgiveness of sins, iniquities no longer remembered against them (Jeremiah 31:34) for the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses from all sin (1 John 1:5). In Christ alone he trusts, for Christ has accomplished all righteousness.

Third, the true believer puts no confidence in the flesh. “Flesh” refers to any status that we may claim from natural relations or from accomplishments from any talents or attempts at personal virtue. All that we are and do is so interpenetrated by the principle of the “flesh” that wars against the Spirit (Galatians 5:17) that it can avail nothing before God, can accomplish no reconciliation, no righteousness. Paul never misses an opportunity to seal this truth: “not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to  his own mercy” (Titus 3:5); “not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:9); “not because of our works, but because of his own purpose and grace” (2 Timothy 1:9); “To the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly” (Romans 4:5). Worshipping by the Spirit and taking part in the work of Christ through faith is the true circumcision. Are you circumcised?

The post The True Circumcision – Philippians 3:1-3 appeared first on Founders Ministries.

The Judaizers were Jews who confessed Christ with their mouth but trusted in their Jewishness with their hearts. Because they rested in their Jewish identity, they demanded pagan converts be circumcised. Because they thought God’s blessings resided within the walls of Israel, the Judaizers could not perceive how Gentiles could be members of God’s covenant community and co-heirs with them in the blessing of Abraham without at least identifying (via circumcision) with the Jewish people (Acts 15:1). Their demand for circumcision was really their demand for Gentiles to unite themselves with the children of Abraham. As the Old Covenant made provision for Gentiles to be integrated into Israel via circumcision (Ex. 12:48-49), the Judaizers argued that Gentiles had to be united to Abraham’s physical offspring through physical circumcision. Therefore, the Judaizers mistakenly believed that Gentiles had to be united to Abraham in some fleshy way. Sadly, they trusted in the flesh rather than the Spirit (Gal. 3:3). 

Yet, according to Paul, the Judaizers had failed to understand that national Israel had failed to inherit the blessing of Abraham. They were no more righteous than the pagan nations surrounding them. They were covenant breakers. They were not only in exile, but they were also born into slavery to their sin (Gal. 4:25). By desiring the Gentiles to be circumcised, they desired Gentiles to bear what they could not carry (Gal. 2:14; Acts 15:10). 

The Judaizers also failed to see that Jesus Christ alone (in the singular) is the sole heir to the blessing of Abraham (Gal. 3:16). Because Christ was the only Jew who kept the conditions of the covenant of circumcision (Gen. 17:10; Gen. 18:19), the blessing is His and resides exclusively in Him. Jesus is the true Israel of God. Christ succeeded where the Israelites failed. He came out of Egypt (Hosea 11:1; Matt. 2:5), passed through the waters (Matt. 3:16), was tested in the wilderness (Matt. 4:1), and was declared to be God’s Son (Heb. 5:5). Only in Christ can sinners be set free. 

Moreover, the Judaizers failed to understand the gospel foretold to Abraham that in his seed (Jesus Christ), all the nations of the earth would be blessed (Gen. 22:18; Gal. 3:16). Because they didn’t understand that all the blessings of Abraham dwell in Christ, the Judaizers failed to see that the only way anyone, both Jew and Gentile, could partake in the inheritance of Abraham was by being spiritually united to Christ Jesus by faith (Gal. 3:29). The Judaizers failed to see that the inheritance of Abraham is received not by natural birth or by circumcision but by faith alone in Christ alone. “Know then,” Paul said, “that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7). 

Thus, for all these reasons, the Judaizers failed to comprehend how Gentiles could become heirs with Abraham by faith without circumcision or identifying themselves with physical Israel (Gal. 3:14). To be joint heirs with Christ and heirs of Abraham, Gentiles don’t need to be united to Abraham by some fleshly means, such as circumcision. Instead, they must become spiritually united to Abraham’s promised seed, Jesus Christ, by faith. It is a spiritual union rather than a physical union with Abraham that matters. And this spiritual union takes place not by physical birth or circumcision but by the new birth of the Holy Spirit and faith in Christ Jesus.  

In gist, rather than Gentiles needing to join themselves to Abraham’s physical offspring via circumcision, Jews need to reject their circumcision and Jewishness and trust in Christ alone to become Abraham’s spiritual offspring.  

Paul’s resounding rebuttal against the Judaizers is also an argument against those who appeal to paedo-circumcision as a theological justification for paedo-baptism. Some say as circumcision was administered to believers and their physical children in the Old Covenant, baptism needs to be administered to believers and their physical children in the New Covenant. This reasoning is built on the notion that both the Old and New Covenants are administrations of the covenant of grace, and their membership is essentially the same—believers and their seed. With this reasoning, baptism is the new circumcision. In other words, for Presbyterians, baptism carries the fundamental significance of circumcision—an identity marker of God’s covenant people, which consists of a mixture of spiritual and physical seeds. 

If circumcision was a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, however, then Paul’s argument against the Judaizers is not what we would expect. If baptism has the same significance and meaning as circumcision, why didn’t Paul argue that the Judaizers were misrepresenting the meaning of circumcision? Why not say that just as believers in the Old Covenant were required to signify their faith and unity with God’s people by circumcision, now all believers (Jews and Gentiles) in the New Covenant are required to signify their faith and unity with God’s people by baptism? 

Of course, there are exceptions, such as the thief on the cross, but shouldn’t all believers be baptized? If circumcision represents Abraham’s spiritual people, and if baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign and seal of the covenant of grace, then wouldn’t this clarification have been the more natural argument for Paul to have made? Rather than requiring all covenant members to be circumcised, God now requires all covenant members to be baptized. If baptism replaces circumcision, then this would seem to be the likely argument Paul would have used. But this is not Paul’s argument at all. 

Instead of affirming that God’s covenant people in the Old and New Covenant are a mixture of physical and spiritual offspring, Paul separated Abraham’s physical seed from Abraham’s spiritual seed. The two seeds are not to be mixed or conflated (Deut. 22:9). By contrasting physical Israel with spiritual Israel, Paul contrasted circumcision with baptism. Rather than linking circumcision to the covenant of grace (freedom) and Abraham’s spiritual offspring, Paul linked circumcision to the covenant of works (bondage) and Abraham’s fleshly offspring (Gal. 4:21-25). Ultimately, Paul disagreed with the Judaizers and did not think believers needed to identify themselves with Abraham’s physical seed via circumcision in order to be united to Christ by faith and heirs to Abraham’s inheritance (Gal. 4:27-31). This is because God’s true children are birthed not by the flesh but by being baptized into Christ by the Spirit (Gal. 3:27). 

Thus, Paul juxtaposes the meaning of circumcision with the meaning of baptism. Circumcision unites a person to physical Israel, while baptism unites a person to Christ (Gal. 3:27). As we shall see, circumcision signifies the physical and fleshly realities of the Old Covenant, which are utterly foreign to the spiritual realities of the New Covenant. Rather than circumcision signifying the same realities of baptism: (1.) spiritual Israel, (2.) grace, (3.) faith, (4.) the Spirit, and (5.) the new birth, circumcision signifies (1.) ethnic Israel, (2.) works, (3.) law, (4.) the flesh, and (5.) natural birth. According to Paul, circumcision and baptism signify opposite truths. 

Circumcision Signified Ethnic Israel, Not Spiritual Israel 

First, Paul contrasts circumcision with Abraham’s spiritual children. According to Paul, circumcision identifies Abraham’s fleshly seed. When speaking of “the circumcised,” it is evident that Paul is referring to ethnic Israel. Likewise, when speaking of “the uncircumcised,” it is evident that Paul is referring to the Gentiles. For instance, Paul said: “I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised” (Gal. 2:7). This is made clear afterward when he said, “for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised also worked through me for mine to the Gentiles” (Gal. 2:8). 

God’s Old Covenant people consisted of the children of Abraham according to the flesh. A Jewish child became a member of ethnic Israel not by faith but by natural birth (Gal. 2:15). On the other hand, the spiritual children of Abraham are members of the New Covenant not by natural birth but by the new birth. New Covenant membership comes not by genetics but by faith. Because the New Covenant consists of a spiritual people, there is no Jew or Gentile distinction (Gal. 3:28). The wall of separation has been broken down. 

The New Covenant is not propagated by natural birth but by spiritual birth. Abraham’s physical offspring are children born according to the flesh, while his spiritual offspring are born according to the Spirit (Gal. 4:28-29). 

This is a profound difference that should not be overlooked. And when we keep this difference in mind, it does not make sense to baptize unbelieving children any more than to circumcise believers. If circumcision represents Abraham’s physical children and baptism represents Abraham’s spiritual children, then why would we knowingly baptize someone who has not been spiritually baptized into Christ? Though unbelieving Jews were commanded to be circumcised, they were not permitted to be baptized. The sign of the flesh (circumcision) does not belong to the spiritual children of Abraham any more than the sign of the Spirit (baptism) belongs to the fleshly children of Abraham. 

Circumcision Signified Works, Not Grace 

Second, Paul contrasted circumcision with grace. This contrast is seen when Paul linked the “ethnic identity” of Israel with the works of the law—as opposed to the “spirit identity” of those justified by faith. “We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified” (Gal. 2:15-16). 

In other words, if we think we must be united to physical Israel through some fleshly means, such as natural birth or circumcision, then we obligate ourselves to obtain the blessings of Abraham in the same way Christ Jesus obtained the inheritance—by perfect obedience. Christ Jesus is the sole heir of Abraham, for He is the only physical child of Abraham who kept all the conditions of the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 18:19). 

If we seek God’s blessings through the flesh, then circumcision is not sufficient. If we desire life in the flesh, then perfection of the flesh is required. If we go this route, then we must be justified, sanctified, and glorified on our own. “If you accept circumcision,” Paul said, “Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law” (Gal. 5:2-3). But since none, besides Christ, are righteous, none can be justified by the works of the law. 

By linking the condition of the Abrahamic Covenant (circumcision) to the works of the law, Paul contrasted circumcision with grace: “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace” (Gal. 5:4). If circumcision signified the covenant of grace, why did Paul link it to the covenant of works? According to Paul, Abraham’s physical children  are born into slavery while his spiritual children are born free (Gal. 4:22-27). Paul connected circumcision with the law because circumcision and Jewish identity cannot save in the same way our good works cannot save us (Gal. 3:11). No one can perfect the flesh in their flesh. But salvation is not by the works of the flesh but by grace alone in Christ alone. Consequently, circumcision reminds Israel of what they must do (Gen. 17:10; Gen. 18:19), while baptism reminds believers of what Christ has already done.

Circumcision Signified Law, Not Faith 

Third, Paul contrasted circumcision with faith. According to Paul, it is not circumcision that matters but faith: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love” (Gal. 5:6). 

In natural birth, our children don’t inherit our faith but our sin. They are not born saved and under grace but born lost and under the law. Only in the new birth do they inherit Christ’s faith and righteousness (Gal. 2:20). For Jesus said, ‘That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:6).

One might be tempted to argue that Paul claims circumcision was a sign and seal of the covenant of grace in Romans 4. But if we read Romans 4 in context, we see a crucial detail—Paul was not speaking of paedo-circumcision but the credo-circumcision of Abraham. Paul was pointing out that Abraham was circumcised after he believed. Abraham was justified not by his flesh but by his faith. Being circumcised after he was justified, according to Paul, was not a minor historical detail but an essential point to his argument. In Romans 4, Paul shows how Abraham, by faith alone, can be the father of his spiritual children (both Jew and Gentile) without them needing to be circumcised. Therefore, the significance of Abraham’s circumcision (credo-circumcision) is not the same as the fleshly circumcision of his physical children (paedo-circumcision). Abraham’s circumcision (post-faith) shows how Abraham can be the spiritual father of all who have faith (regardless of genetics or circumcision). 

Circumcision was administered to Abraham’s physical children regardless of faith. In contrast, baptism is administered to believers irrespective of their ethnicity. The point is baptism cannot be said to have replaced circumcision because fleshly circumcision signifies the law rather than faith. 

Circumcision Signified the Flesh, Not the Spirit 

Fourth, Paul linked circumcision to the flesh rather than the Spirit. Rather than connecting circumcision of the flesh to the spiritual realities of the covenant of grace, he connected it to the physical and fleshly realities of the covenant of works. Referring to the Judaizers, he said: “It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh who would force you to be circumcised, and only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. For even those who are circumcised do not themselves keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh” (Gal. 6:12-13). 

In contrast, baptism does not signify fleshly realities. Those who become members of the New Covenant, though they are baptized, cannot boast in their flesh, genetics, or their good works. Baptism signifies that we are saved by grace and faith alone in Christ alone through the Spirit alone. For this reason, Paul did not boast that he was Abraham’s physical child. “But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world” (Gal. 6:14). 

Circumcision Signified the Natural Birth, Not the New Birth 

Fifth, Paul linked circumcision to the natural birth by contrasting it with the new birth: “For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation” (Gal. 6:15). Seeing that circumcision was legally required for all Abraham’s natural offspring (Gen. 17:10), it was natural for circumcision to be administered at birth (without faith or the new birth). Baptism, on the other hand, represents the new birth. By faith, we enter the New Covenant not by natural birth but by the new birth. By faith, we are buried into Christ and raised in the newness of life. “For as many as you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ…and if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring” (Gal. 3:27). 

The new birth, which is represented by baptism, comes not by the power of the flesh but by the power of the Spirit. What matters is not being united to Abraham’s physical offspring via natural birth or circumcision but being united to Abraham’s spiritual offspring via the new birth. Only by the new birth do Jews or Gentiles become members of Abraham’s spiritual offspring and are given entrance into the kingdom of God (John 3:3). This is the only thing that matters. And this, according to Paul, is what makes up “the (true and spiritual) Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16). 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, if circumcision signifies the covenant of grace, as our Presbyterian friends claim, then Paul’s arguments against the Judaizers are not what we would expect. In fact, it is the exact opposite. Instead of comparing circumcision with baptism and explaining how the Judaizers had turned the sign of grace into a legalistic work, Paul argued that circumcision was indeed a part of the work of the law because it signified those who were seeking to be united to Abraham’s fleshly offspring (who are born into slavery under the law) by a fleshly and outward means. 

It is clear that Paul was not comparing circumcision to baptism. In Paul’s mind, because there is a vast difference between the fleshly and spiritual seed of Abraham, circumcision and baptism are vastly different. The application of circumcision does not transfer to the application of baptism. Circumcision signifies the fleshly realities of ethnic Israel and the works of the law, while baptism signifies the spiritual realities of grace, faith, and the new birth. Because of these essential differences, only those born again by grace and united to Abraham by faith should be baptized.

The post The Juxtaposition of Circumcision and Baptism in Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians  appeared first on Founders Ministries.

This is very much the point of Romans 4:9-12. Abraham believed many years before he received circumcision, and this is explicitly why he can be the father of uncircumcised believers. Paul argues based on the chronology of the important events of Abraham’s life recorded in Genesis: the call of the gentile Abraham from Ur of the Chaldees in Genesis 12; the covenant revealed and believed in Genesis 15; and the covenant of circumcision described in Genesis 17. A comparison of these texts reveals that at least thirteen years passed between the events of Genesis 15 and Genesis 17. Some rabbis apparently believed that twenty-nine years occurred between them. ^[2] Whether thirteen or twenty-nine does not matter for the passage of at least more than a decade of the patriarch’s life is central to Paul’s argument. What is important is that Abraham was justified by faith long before he was circumcised, so it must be said that faith preceded circumcision, and this circumcision could not have been the basis of his relationship with God.

The Abrahamic covenant must be understood on two levels: spiritual identity and national identity. National identity was forefront in the consciousness of the Scribes and Pharisees. This is recorded in texts such as John 8:31-41 and Acts 15:1. The religious leaders of Israel collapsed these two things together so that circumcision was considered the distinguishing sign of God’s people. They believed that Israel was in fact a peculiar nation before God and in the world.  They missed, however, the true nature of spiritual identity, which is what Paul describes in Romans 4. Justification has no relation to circumcision. 

This fact makes Abraham the father, not only of the Jews, but of everyone who believes. For many years, Abraham was an uncircumcised believer, which makes him the true father of all uncircumcised believers as well as the father of all circumcised believers. Physical descent brought earthly promises and blessings to Abraham’s earthly seed. But spiritual descent brings eternal blessings, received by faith. Abraham is the true spiritual father of all who believe – and this is a more lasting legacy than any of the Scribes and Pharisees could have imagined.

He is our father Abraham.

The issue is not the sign/seal of circumcision, but the prior presence of faith. In fact, Paul jumps right over the whole notion of circumcision in order to assert the relationship between Abraham and believing Gentiles. They are his “children” by faith, and the outward sign is utterly irrelevant to their status as his children. So long as they possess faith, they are his. To move from circumcision to baptism is to miss this point entirely. Faith, not circumcision, is what constitutes his children.  

^[1]David Kingdon, Children of Abraham (Sussex: Carey Publications, 1973) 32.

^[2]See John Stott, Romans: God’s Good News for the World (Downers Grove: IVP, 1994) 129. 

The post Circumcision in Romans 4:5-12 appeared first on Founders Ministries.

For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. 26 So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. 28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God. 

Physical circumcision is useless if the one circumcised breaks God’s law. The Spirit is the one who works true circumcision and his work is internal and changes the heart. Robert Haldane says that “Paul here pursues the Jew into his last retreat, in which he imagined himself most secure” (Commentary on 2:25). 

To be called a “Jew” and to have the sign of circumcision were points of pride and spiritual security for Jewish people. They had the name and bore the mark of belonging to God. But Paul shows them that this is not enough to be right with God. To be a real Jew they need to be born of God’s Spirit.

Circumcision is useless to the person who does not keep God’s commandments. It becomes “uncircumcision” (25). To understand Paul’s meaning we must remember that circumcision was given to the Jewish people as a sign of God’s covenant with Abraham & his offspring (as Genesis 17:9-14 makes clear). It marked the Jewish people as belonging to God

The act of physical circumcision, however, was never intended to be the sum and substance of the covenant between God and the Jewish people. The covenant that circumcision signified called the Jews to live righteously before God. When He instructed Abraham about using circumcision as the sign of the covenant God said, “I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless” (Genesis 17:1).

So, the sign is only significant if they faithfully live the way that God calls them to live. “But,” Paul says, “If you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision.” That would have been a shocking revelation to the typical Jew of Paul’s day. Such a person would be offended at the thought that he was not in God’s good favor. After all, he had the sign of the covenant! He was circumcised!

Paul’s point is that circumcision—or any outward religious activity or ritual—is useless to a person who does not keep God’s commandments. In addition to this, the apostle goes on to argue in vv. 26-27 that the uncircumcised person who keeps God’s commandments is welcomed by God.

An uncircumcised Gentile who “keeps the precepts of the law” will be right with God because he trusts the Lord, submits to His ways, follows His precepts, and orders his life according to God’s revealed will. He will “be regarded” (λογισθήσεται) as one of God’s people. That is, God will judge him as being properly circumcised—as being exactly what circumcision signifies, which is devoted wholly to the true God.

The person who is submissive to God, who trusts and obeys Him, will find acceptance from Him. This is exactly what Paul means in Philippians 3:3 when he writes, “For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh.”

In vv. 28-29 Paul wraps us his main point by showing that the person accepted by God obeys God from the heart because he has been born of God’s Spirit. In words that would have shocked first century practitioners of Judaism Paul explains what it means to be truly, properly circumcised, and what it means to be a true Jew. 

He writes, “For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter….” (28-29). Paul uses three antitheses to make his point.

First, he contrasts outward Jewishness to inward Jewishness. To be a Jew under the Old Covenant was to be outwardly part of God’s people. But not every member of that covenant was included among the genuine people of God. Rather, “only a remnant of them will be saved” (Romans 9:27). The reason for this is that “not all who descended from Israel belong to Israel” (Romans 9:6).

The Jew who “is one inwardly” has more than the mere name of God, he has an inward reality that makes him genuinely a child of God. Paul elaborates on this inner reality in the other two antitheses.

The true Jew has more than physical circumcision, he has circumcision as “a matter of the heart.” This inner work of heart circumcision was required even under the Old Covenant as the admonition of Deuteronomy 10:16 makes plain: “Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn” (see also Jeremiah 4:4). It is this inner work of God that makes a person a true child of God, a true Jew. It is this work that Moses promised God would do in Deuteronomy 30:6, “And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.”

Paul states exactly what this work is in the third antithesis—it is the inner circumcision of the heart “by the Spirit, not by the letter.” What Paul is talking about is the promise that God made through Ezekiel when He said, “And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.”

This is what makes a true child of God, a true Jew, and what constitutes true circumcision. The physical sign points to the inward reality without which, no one can be right with God. One of the main differences between the Old and New Covenants is that members of the latter all know the Lord, they all have circumcised hearts, they all have the internal work of the Spirit. 

Or we could say, only members of the New Covenant are Jews inwardly.

The post The Meaning of Circumcision in Romans 2:25-29 appeared first on Founders Ministries.

“Circumcision” rings disconcertingly in the modern Christian ear like a chord struck off key.  This is because circumcision carries no theological meaning for many contemporary Christians; it  is simply either a hospital procedure for male newborns or an arcane Jewish ritual that the Church  rejected in New Testament times. Yet the Old and New Testaments mention circumcision a great  deal. Even as a matter that itself is no longer a source of much controversy in the church,  circumcision looms large in theology. Therefore, gaining an understanding of circumcision in the  Bible—starting in the Old Testament—is vital, for all Christian doctrines must derive from and cohere with authoritative and sufficient Scripture. 

The Abrahamic Covenant and the Sign of Circumcision 

Ancient peoples other than the Hebrews practiced circumcision. Jeremiah lists these other  peoples circumcised “merely in the flesh” as Egyptians, Edomites, Ammonites, and Moabites (Jer  10:26). Yet for the Hebrews, circumcision was no mere cultural practice. Instead, circumcision  was a core component of the Abrahamic covenant, whose key establishing passages are Genesis 12:1-9, all of Genesis 15, and Genesis 17:1-14.  

Briefly, God initiates covenant relationship with Abram in Gen 12:1-3 with commands and  promises.¹ Abram immediately obeys God’s command to leave his home and to proceed to an as yet unrevealed land. Then in Genesis 15, Abram and God perform a covenant entry rite involving  animal sacrifice.² Finally, God grants circumcision as sign of the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 17:10-14.  

Studying these Abrahamic covenant passages together with the earlier Noahic covenant  passage in Genesis 9:8-17 leads to three observations that prove relevant for theological reflection on  covenants and their designated signs. First, biblical covenants may function without signs; God’s  command alone is sufficient to establish covenants. After all, Abram is 75 years old in Genesis 12:4  and 99 years old in Genesis 17:1. About 24 years passed with no covenant sign.  

Second, covenant signs need not be covenant entry rites. The rainbow is not any kind of ritual,  and while circumcision was a ritualistic act, it was a ceremony for a covenant whose entry rite was  already enacted years before, in Genesis 15:7-17.  

Third, once God grants the covenant sign, its presence is mandatory for the continuance of the  covenant. For example, the rainbow’s presence ensures that “all flesh” will never be “cut off” by floodwaters in Genesis 9:11. Then under the Abrahamic covenant, refusing the required covenant sign  of circumcision is a covenant breaking act and results in being “cut off” from the covenant people  (Genesis 17:14).  

Circumcision as Theological Metaphor  

Throughout Old Testament times, the bloody physical act of circumcision remains a mandatory  act of covenant faithfulness.³ Yet circumcision, the sign of the covenant, also attains a metaphorical  meaning involving the lips, ears, and heart. In Exod 5:1-5 Pharaoh rebuffs Moses and Aaron at  their first meeting, then in Exod 6:12 and 30 Moses laments that he is “of uncircumcised lips”— unequipped for his calling to speak to Pharaoh.⁴ 

As for ears, the LORD proclaims that the Hebrews’ “ears are uncircumcised, they cannot listen”  in Jer 6:10. Here there is no hint that Hebrews should cut their ears, but only imagery that attests  to non-listening ears that are unfit for the covenant people.  

As for the heart, Lev 26:41 decries the Hebrews’ “uncircumcised heart” (see Jer 9:26). God commands that the Hebrews circumcise their own hearts in Deut 10:16 (see Jer 4:4), but then Deut  30:6 promises a future when God himself will perform this needed act: “And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God  with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.” The verbal allusion back to the Greatest Commandment in Deut 6:5 is striking. Deuteronomy thus teaches that what God has commanded regarding the heart, he will himself do. God’s “heart surgery” enables his people to  obey him.  

Deuteronomy’s pattern of commanding heart change and then promising that God will one day  do it himself returns in Ezekiel. “Make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit!” is the Lord GOD’s  command to the house of Israel in Ezek 18:31. Then Ezek 36:26-27 reads: “And I will give you a  new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your  flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in  my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.” Here appears the unprecedented promise that the  Holy Spirit would dwell in all members of the covenant, and that his presence would enable obedience to God’s law.⁵ This covenant is the “new covenant” of Jer 31:31-34, in which the LORD places his law upon the hearts of his people (v. 33).  

According to the book of Hebrews, this “new covenant” of Jer 31:31-34 (cited in Heb 8:8-12)  is the covenant for which Jesus is the mediator (Heb 9:15, 12:24). Hence when Rom 2:29 reads  that “circumcision is a matter of the heart” and that it is “by the Spirit,” the New Testament unveils the Holy Spirit’s fulfillment of the promise in Deut 30:6 for God’s new covenant people. The New Testament counterpart to circumcision of the flesh is the circumcision of the heart, performed by  the Spirit, who is the seal of the new covenant (see 2 Cor 1:22; Eph 1:13-14, 4:30).⁶  

¹ God gives Abram the new name “Abraham” in Genesis 17:5.  

² This ritual appears again with other covenant parties in Jer 34:18-19. See the potential Ancient Near Eastern  parallel incised upon the Sefire Stele: מנעאל יגזר כן זנה עגלא יגזר] י [זאיך ו,]” Just as] this calf is cut in two, so  may Matî‘el be cut in two …” Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefîre, BibOr 19 (Rome: Pontifical  Biblical Institute, 1967), 14–15. 

³ Note, for example, that Lev 12:3 codifies in Mosaic Law the requirement from Gen 17:12 that the eighth day  after a male infant’s birth is the day of his circumcision.  

⁴ G. Mayer, “ל ַר ָ  ʿāral,” pages 11:359–361 in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, 17 vols., ed. G.  Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, trans. David E. Green (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,  1974–2018), esp. 11:360.  

⁵ Ezek 11:19-20 is similar, though this passage does not specify that the “new spirit” would be the “Spirit of the  LORD” as does Ezek 36:27. The covenant formula in Ezek 11:20 (“And they shall be my people, and I will be their  God”) entails that the impartation of the Spirit is specifically a covenant promise. See Rolf Rendtorff, The Covenant  Formula: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation, trans. Margaret Kohl (Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1998). 

⁶ Markus Barth, Ephesians 1–3: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 34 (Garden City, NY:  Doubleday, 1974), 135–143.

The post Circumcision in the Old Testament and Why It Matters to Christians appeared first on Founders Ministries.

In his treatise, Of Baptism, Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531) recounted a moment in his theological journey in which he considered rejecting infant baptism. “For some time, I myself was deceived by the error [of rejecting the sign in the absence of faith] and I thought it better not to baptize children until they came to years of discretion.” (LCC: 24, 139). He also conceded that baptism implies some kind of intention of purposeful dedication to Christ: “The man who does that undertakes to live a new life, and it is the whole nature and character of baptism that  in  it we dedicate ourselves to God, and indeed pledge ourselves to a new life” (LCC: 24, 169). Zwingli recounts his detailed engagement with the Anabaptists over many exegetical issues, all of it instructive concerning biblical interpretation, but finally rejects their arguments for baptizing only of those who demonstrate faith. 

Geoffrey Bromiley admitted that Zwingli’s arguments “failed to work out any fully developed or coherent theology of baptism.” (LCC: 24, 127). He did not develop a clear connection between circumcision of infants as analogous to baptism of infants in perpetuity of covenant relations. He did, however, suggest this as a fertile area for theological development for subsequent Reformed paedobaptists.  He wrote of a “sacrament” as a “covenant sign or pledge” and went on to assert that “Baptism is a sign which pledges us to the Lord Jesus” and continued, “You will find ample proof of this if you consider the pledge of circumcision.” (LCC: 24, 131) He illustrated that Christ’s blood-shedding rendered the lamb’s sacrifice and the rite of circumcision as unnecessary since “the blood of circumcision …  he has now changed to water.” (LCC:24, 132) 

Zwingli, discussing Abraham’s circumcision, proposed that it “did not confirm the faith of Abraham” but was a “covenant sign between God and the seed of Abraham.” Given his assertion that “baptism in the New Testament is a covenant sign,” not a confirmation of faith, he used infant baptism to prove this. “Against those who unthinkingly accept the idea that signs confirm faith, we may oppose the fact of infant baptism, for baptism cannot confirm faith in infants for infants are not able to believe”  (LCC: 24, 139). If infants are unable to believe, this would seem an obvious contradiction to A. A. Hodge’s statement of the relation of faith to baptism as recorded below.

One of Zwingli’s main arguments is that there is only one baptism. The baptism of John and of Jesus were the same and thus we should not take actions that create a fissure in the history of Christian baptism.

Now it is quite certain that Christ was baptized as an example to us.  And if there are any who say: Leave off baptizing infants, for they belong to God in any case, let them note in passing that Christ, the very Son of God, took to himself baptism in order that he might give us an example of unity, that we may all enter under the one sign. (LCC: 24, 167).

It seems that he argued at this point, since we have infant baptism, we must not challenge its validity since baptism in one (Ephesians 4:5). The baptism of John and the baptism of Jesus are the same (167); believers’ baptism, therefore, is the same as infant baptism. If Scripture records no example of the apostles baptizing infants, one cannot be justified in concluding that the apostles, therefore, did not baptize infants. Because of the apostles’ assumption that the covenant sign of circumcision belonged to infants, we conclude, that no none are recorded except under the nebulous report of “household,” so he argued, we must conclude that they regularly baptized infants. That is a strange argument indeed, for one who sought to give loyalty to the regulative principle.

Zwingli explained to Francis, king of France, “In baptism sight and hearing and touch are all claimed for the work of faith. For whether the faith be that of the Church or of the person baptized, it perceives what Christ endured for the sake of his Church and that he rose again victorious.” Baptism, therefore, does not point to the faith of the one baptized, but to the faith of the church. It does not confirm the credibility of the faith of the one baptized but is a covenant sign available to infants of covenant people like the infant males of Abraham and his descendants.

John Calvin (1506-1564) intensified and systematized the argument for infant baptism based on the covenantal status of circumcision. “We have, therefore, a spiritual promise given to the patriarchs in circumcision,” Calvin reasoned, “such as is given to us in baptism since it represented for them forgiveness of sin and mortification of flesh.” Christ is the “foundation of baptism” just as He is “the foundation of circumcision.” (Inst. IV. xvi. 3). Whatever belongs to circumcision also belongs to baptism. 

For the Jews, circumcision was “their first entry into the church,” an important assertion and use of vocabulary built on the assumption that the nation of the Israelites constituted the church as Jesus described it in Matthew 16:18—“I will build my church.” Calvin continued, “it [circumcision] was a token to them by which they were assured of adoption as the people and household of God, and they in turn professed to enlist in God’s service. In like manner,” Calvin continued his comparison, “we also are consecrated to God through baptism, to be reckoned as his people, and in turn we swear fealty to him. By this it appears incontrovertible that baptism has taken the place of circumcision to fulfill the same office among us.” (Inst IV. xvi. 4). Calvin asserted that “it is evident that baptism is properly administered to infants as something owed to them.” God did not require circumcision “without making them participants in all those things which were then signified by circumcision.” It was entirely fitting, therefore, that the “circumcision of a tiny infant will be in lieu of a seal to certify the promise of the covenant. … It applies no less today to the children of Christians than under that Old Testament.” 

In this context, Calvin queries that since the covenant with Abraham was sealed also in children by circumcision, “what excuse will Christians give for not testifying and sealing it in their children today?” [Inst. IV. xvi. 6]. Calvin’s fervency on infant baptism leads him to see satanic instigation in the attempts to argue against it—“It behooves us to note what Satan is attempting with this great subtlety of his.” Nothing, therefore, should dissuade Christians from bringing their infants to the baptismal font “unless we wish spitefully to obscure God’s goodness.” Christians “offer our infants to him, for he gives them a place among those of his family and household, that is, the members of the church.” [Inst. IV. xvi. 32]. All that is requisite for church membership either is bestowed or promised in infant baptism, or perhaps a combination of bestowment an promise.

This theology under the influence of Calvin and the Puritans who exiled in Geneva during the reign of Bloody Mary (1553-1558) was embedded within the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 28. The connections between covenant, circumcision, and the faith of the church were made more explicit and given a central place in the theology of infant baptism. The Westminster Confession asserts briefly, “Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized” The Scripture proofs include Genesis 17: 7, 9 compared with Galatians 3:9, 14 and Colossians 2:11, 12, Acts 2:38, 39, Romans 4:11 12, 1 Corinthians 7:14 and others.

The Westminster Larger Catechism in question 166 asserts, “Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized.” Proof texts for infant baptism focus on the covenant with Abraham, physical continuity (“thy seed”), circumcision mentioned in Colossian 2 and Romans 4:11, 12,  Acts 2:39 (“your children”), 1 Corinthians 7:14 (“unbelieving husband is sanctified, … your children are holy.”), Romans 11:16 (“the lump is also holy”).

In his commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith, A. A. Hodge (1869) argued that sprinkling, or washing, or purification adequately expressed the concept of baptism—no necessity to take seriously the meaning of “immerse” (Hodge, The Confession of Faith, 340-342).  He then described what was necessary knowledge of the gospel and expression of faith and repentance in one received into the church from the world by baptism: competent knowledge, personal experimental faith, and a lifestyle supportive of such profession. Earlier (332) Hodge, in remonstrating against Catholic views said that the efficacy of the Lord’s Supper and baptism depended on two things: “The sovereign will and power of the Holy Spirit” and second, ”the lively faith of the recipient.” This at least would seem to introduce the idea of two different types of baptism. One requires conscious knowledge, belief, and piety, that is a “lively faith;” the other requires none of that from the person baptized but is assumed as promised through the faith of the parent(s).

When he turns to justification of infant baptism, the covenant sign of circumcision plays an important role in showing the “abundant scriptural evidence” for Christian baptism of infants (345). Hodge prefaced his argument with the claim that “God has in all respects made the standing of the child while an infant to depend upon that of the parent” (Confession, 346). He then gives argument for the spiritual application of circumcision as “circumcision of the heart” similarly to what is argued in this Journal. He stated, “Circumcision, precisely in the same sense and to the same extent as Baptism, represented a spiritual grace and bound to a spiritual profession. … It was the seal of the righteousness of faith.” Again, showing the assumption of saving faith connected with both circumcision and baptism, Hodge noted, “True circumcision unites to Christ and secures all the benefits of his redemption” but then makes an application involving a subtle non-sequitur, “and Baptism has now taken the precise place of Circumcision” (346f, Confession). Though connected with the symbol of circumcision, this Journal argues that baptism, rather than forecasting covenant inclusion, assumes that the typological meaning of circumcision (circumcision of the heart) already is present in the person who receives baptism. Later, as he did earlier in a preliminary section, in arguing against the ex opere operato sacramentalism of Roman Catholicism, Hodge makes a very Baptist statement consistent with the content of the arguments made by the authors of this Journal, “Baptism cannot be the only or ordinary means of regeneration, because faith and repentance are the fruits of regeneration, but the pre-requisites of Baptism” (350, Confession). It seems that according to the theological synthesis of the New Testament on baptism, considering faith and repentance as pre-requisites, does not apply to certain members of the human race who are “children of wrath, like the rest of mankind” (Ephesians 2:3).

In his clearest passage concerning the perfect identity between circumcision and baptism, Hodge sets forth the very thesis with which our contributors interact.

Infants were members of the Church under the Old Testament from the beginning, being circumcised upon the faith of their parents. Now, as the Church is the same Church; as the conditions of membership were the same then as now; as Circumcision signified and bound to precisely what Baptism does; and since Baptism has taken precisely the place of Circumcision—it follows that the church membership of the children of professors should be recognized now as it was then, and that they should be baptized. (347, Confession).

To add one more “precisely,” it is precisely that assumption of absolute continuity between circumcision and baptism that our authors seek to challenge. Each is given a passage, sometimes more than one, that is relevant to this typological/theological question. We believe that the canonical and exegetical arguments provided will provided a scripturally defensible position for Baptist ecclesiology. We also ask sincerely, “Are You Circumcised?”

The post “Are You Circumcised?” appeared first on Founders Ministries.

On some level, many Baptists do, indeed, understand that they are Puritans. T. E. Watson matter-of-factly, while writing for D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, mentioned “Puritan Baptists.”^[1] Nathan Finn in a podcast interview, said, “The Baptist movement literally arose out of radical Puritanism. They were radical Puritans who embraced believer’s baptism.”^[2] This is accurate, although I am not sure what a “radical Puritan” is, as distinct from a mainstream Puritan. Yet, as we will see, Finn’s co-authored book on Baptist origins suggests that Baptists were distinct from Puritans. The narrative of Baptist history, as we will see, suppresses or, at best, obfuscates such claims.

There are seven major reasons creating the fog around the origins of the Baptist movement.

I. The Narrative

The fact that Baptists arose from Puritanism – in particular, Congregationalism, or “Independency,” or separatism or “semi-separatism” – has been obscured by the traditional narrative of Baptist origins.^[3] The story of Baptist beginnings often commences with John Smyth (1554-1612) baptizing himself and others, including Thomas Helwys (c. 1575-c. 1616) and John Murton (1585 – c. 1626). Bill Leonard says “Baptists beginnings are relatively easy to discern” and then launches into this narrative.^[4] They had earlier fled to Holland around 1608 for religious freedom. There, either by independent Bible study or with the persuasion of Mennonites, they embraced believer’s baptism.^[5] Thus, so the story goes, they were either essentially English Anabaptists or simple Biblicists, encouraged by Anabaptists to adopt the Biblical pattern of baptism. Having become Arminians also in Holland, they began a General Baptist church in London (1611/12). Thus, some Baptists claim, beginning the chain of events that led to the Baptist movement, including its flourishing in America. 

There are several problems with the Anabaptist origins narrative. Winthrop S. Hudson (1911-2001) notes, “The single most confusing element in the attempt to understand the Baptist heritage . . . has been the identification of the Baptists with the Continental Anabaptists.”^[6] First, Smyth, while being persuaded of believer’s baptism, converted to be a Mennonite and never returned to England before dying in 1612. Second, Helwys, Murton, and others, while following Smyth into believer’s baptism, remained unconvinced of other essential features of Anabaptism like foreswearing oaths, war, and political vocations.^[7] Indeed, church covenanting (a type of oath) became an essential feature of Baptist polity, just as it was in Congregationalism. Helwys, in particular, separated from Smyth on four points, two of which are typical of Reformed rejection of Anabaptism: about the Christian Sabbath and the appropriateness of Christians to serve the government.^[8] Helwys confession of 1611 specifically stated “magistracy is a Holy ordinance of God,” that magistrates “may be members of the church of Christ,” and that they “bear the sword of God,” thus implying endorsing of capital punishment, contrary to most Anabaptists.^[9] Helwys and his followers were so opposed to Anabaptism, when Smyth converted to it in Holland, Helwys declared that Smyth had “denied the Lord’s truth and is fallen from grace.” Helwys’ church excommunicated Smyth for embracing Anabaptism. This is not how one talks of moves to sisterly Christian churches.

Further, there are the unsubtle statements on the covers of prominent Baptist confessions denying any connection to Anabaptism. The First London Baptist Confession (1644) declared that the confessing church, we now call Baptists, were “commonly, but unjustly, called Anabaptists.”^[10] In 1660, the General Baptists likewise complained about being “falsely” called Anabaptists.^[11] In 1681, in Boston, Massachusetts, John Russell, Baptist pastor, said, “Don’t call us Anabaptists and we won’t call you murderers for the massacres committed by infant baptizers through Christian history.”^[12] Nikolausvon Zinzendorf (1700-1760), in about 1741-42, while seeking to form a union of churches, including the Mennonites, reported, “The Baptist Church . . . has sufficiently shown that they have nothing in common with the Anabaptists.”^[13] Hence, Hudson concludes, “If the early Baptists were clear on any one point, they were clear on their insistence that they were not to be confused with the Anabaptists.”^[14] One of the ironies of Baptist history is that early Baptists were intent to disavow being Anabaptists and some twentieth century Baptist historians were intent on claiming they were.

Second, even if Helwys had been influenced by Anabaptism, it is unclear whether the Helwys church really began the chain-of-events that touched off the Baptist movement. By about the turn of the twenty-first century, historians were beginning to have doubts about the Helwys church. Douglas Weaver reported that “revisionist” Baptist historians had argued “no direct linkage between the General Baptists of the 1640s back to Smyth and Helwys has been documented.”^[15] Mark Bell is one of these “revisionist” historians. In his important 2000 book, Apocalypse How?, he challenged the claim that there were multiple churches derived from Helwys which endured through the 1630s and lay at the root of the General Baptist churches.^[16] He states, “there is no evidence in the affirmative” of either churches deriving from the Helwys church persisting or their having an influence on the subsequent Baptist movement.^[17] Bell made his claim in 2000 and stands by it in 2024. Like Bell, B. R. White had noted “there is no certain evidence that the London church of General Baptists [i.e. the Helwys church] persisted through the difficult years of the 1630s.^[18] Stephen Wright, in 2006, likewise questioned the standard narrative of continuity between the Helwys church and Lambe’s Bell’s Alley church, probably General Baptist mother church.^[19] Hence, the traditional narrative, focused on Smyth and Helwys is tenuous. Historians have not been able to show an unbroken chain of believers or churches from the Helwys church to Baptist churches.

This is an historiographical problem because for a church or leader to be at the root of the current Baptist movement, we have to show how it led to the later spread of Baptist churches. There must be documented causation. The history of the Baptists is not simply the retelling of any group that practiced believer’s baptism but of tracing the lineage of Baptists from their origins to the present-day movement. That is, just as a history of a particular family tree only rightly consists of the family members who were part of that particular family, so too a legitimate history of Baptists should show a causal connection between one leader or group to another, down to our day. As it is, there’s no conclusive evidence that the Helwys church began the chain of events leading to Baptist churches today, especially in America. 

Third, is a testimony against interests. Even those most ardent in their support of the Anabaptist origins theory admit, at least implicitly, that they have no evidence. Frank H. Littell (1917-2009), who vigorously championed the cause of the Anabaptists as the source of the “free church” ideal “like a latter-day circuit rider,” admitted frankly that direct evidence of a relationship between “continental Anabaptism and radical sectaries of the English commonwealth” “broke down.”^[20] Baptists hold to the “free church” ideal and are among “the radical sectaries of the English commonwealth.” Thus, Littell, promoter of the Anabaptist source theory, confesses to a lack of evidence for its influence on Baptists and similar movements. Likewise, William Estep (1920-2000), perhaps the chief purveyor of the Anabaptist origins theory among Southern Baptists, claims that the Particular Baptists, arising out of the Jacob-Lathrop-Jessey Independent Church in 1641/42, reflects the impact of Puritanism “under Anabaptist influence.” He gives no evidence for this but, rather, claims “this influence may have been mediated more by books and tracts than by personal contact.”^[21] In other words, he has no examples of personal contacts of Particular Baptists with Anabaptists. Instead, he conjectures that some “Anabaptist influence” might have been conveyed by literature. His “may have” reveals he does not have concrete evidence of this either. His testimony to the absence of the evidence for the claim he is advocating is, itself, weighty evidence against his theory. 

Fourth, as Winthrop S. Hudson argues, there is not even need to credit Anabaptists as the source of believer’s baptism among the Reformed English. 

The insistence upon believers’ baptism was a logical corollary drawn from the Reformation emphasis upon the necessity for an explicit faith and from the Congregational concept of a gathered church, as well as from the common storehouse of Biblical precept and example, rather than being the result of any supposed Anabaptist influence.^[22]

That is, the narrative of Baptist origins is confused because it seeks unique men or a movement outside the larger Reformed movement to ascribe its genesis. This is unnecessary because Reformed theology and Congregational polity sufficiently account for Baptist origins. Bell believes it is more reasonable that “General Baptists theological beliefs were pretty easy to drive from first principles.” ^[23] That is, the common-sense theology (my term) of the General Baptists could easily have been ascertained by other earnest English believers without any needed connection to Helwys or the Anabaptists.

Fifth, the narrative does not account for the flourishing of the Particular Baptist movement and the existence of mixed Congregational-Baptist churches in England. “Some of their churches embraced both Baptist and Congregational members indiscriminately.”^[24] Seventh-century England saw the phenomena of mixed churches consisting of both Baptists and paedobaptist Congregationalists united in one membership, such as the Jessey church (London), Vavasor Powell’s Welsch Baptist church, New Road Church, Oxford, England, and John Bunyan’s in Bedford, England.^[25] The difficulty in ascertaining whether Bunyan was a Baptist or not further demonstrates that there was no red-line separating Baptists from other Congregationalists in England.^[26] This is at exactly the time when Baptist historians often fixate on persecution meted out to Baptists on the western shore of the Atlantic. 

If Baptists were either English Mennonites or a unique, de novo movement arising simply by Bible study – “solo Scriptura” – they would not share so much of the theology of other Puritans, especially Congregationalists, and sometimes even share church membership with them. Not only is this so for the Particular Baptists, who issued a “slightly altered Westminster Confession” in 1677, it was also true for the General Baptists who issued an “Orthodox Creed” in 1679 which affirmed original sin, contrary to the Anabaptists, and reflected the polity of Congregationalism, itself a Reformed movement.

Finally, the explosion of Baptist growth in America after the Great Awakening originally from the seed-bed of New England Congregationalism suggests it is an off-shoot of Congregationalism. The history of American Baptists is not simply that of English Baptists transplanted across the Atlantic. Even if it could be proved that English Baptists – either General or Particular – were significantly shaped by Anabaptism, which we have seen cannot be proven, that still would not prove that such an influence persisted in America. Indeed, that by the 1790s about 93% of Baptist churches in New England were Calvinist suggests that there was little, if any, Anabaptist influence.^[27] Hence Winthrop S. Hudson stated flatly that “the Baptists were not Anabaptist, but rather were Puritan.”^[28]

II. Confusion About the Definition of Puritanism

Part of the confusion about the Puritan roots of Baptists stems from confusion of what, exactly, Puritanism was. Chute, Finn, and Haykin, for example, claim “separatists” (largely Congregationalists) were people who “came out of the Puritan movement.”^[29] Douglas Weaver ironically claims that John Smyth, by seeking a “pure church,” left “Puritanism” (the movement committed to a Biblically pure church.)^[30] A blind reviewer for a Baptist journal commented, “Modern Baptists arose from Congregational Separatists (not Puritans). Puritans persecuted Baptists.”^[31] These historians assume that separatists were not Puritans. Each of them implies an overly narrow definition of “Puritan.” Thus (mis)understood, even if Baptists identify themselves with separatists, as they should, separatists have been detached, in this history, from Puritanism. 

In reality, “Puritan” is the umbrella term for “hot Protestants” in England and colonial America, after the Elizabethan settlement, who sought to reform the church according to a Reformed interpretation of scripture.^[32] They include those who were willing to stay in the Church of England, Presbyterians who settled on the Westminster Confession (1647), and Congregationalists, often also called “Independents.” Congregationalists were a type of Puritan. If Baptists are a type of Congregationalist, then, they too are a type of Puritan. Thomas Edwards (1599–1647) said Baptists were “the highest form of Independency.”^[33] Baptists began as “baptistic congregationalists,” a subset of Congregationalists, themselves a subset of Puritans.^[34]

Darrett Rutman describes Puritanism as “the intense and evangelical advocacy of the Christian obligation to know and serve God.”^[35] John Coffey and Paul Lim describe Puritanism as an “intense variety of early modern Reformed Protestantism” that began in the Church of England “but spilled out beyond it.”^[36] Patrick Collinson defined Puritans as “the hotter sort of Protestants.”^[37] That definition extends to separatists or “semi-separatists.”^[38] Likewise, Peter Lake’s description of Puritanism includes separatists.^[39] In 2021, Michael Winship, in Hot Protestants, elaborated on Lake’s definition and, by including John Bunyan as a model Puritan, extended it to Baptists (assuming he was Baptist).^[40] David Hall’s definition of Puritanism includes separatists, Congregationalists and Trans-Atlantic Particular Baptists.^[41] Bill Leonard is exceptional among Baptist historians for recognizing this, attaching both the origins of the General Baptists and Particular Baptists to “Puritan Separatists.”^[42]

III. Demise of Congregationalism

Baptists are not aware of their relationship to Congregationalism because Congregationalism, as an orthodox, evangelical movement, has almost vanished. This results in Congregationalism having few orthodox, evangelical representatives to speak up for them. They have no major seminary championing their tradition; they have no lively denomination faithfully preserving their theology and practices today; they have no major leaders reminding us Baptists that we came from them. The result is that we have few latter-day Congregational scholars reminding Baptists where they came from. Westminster Seminary, J. Gresham Machen, and R. C. Sproul reminded Presbyterians of their heritage. Few have done so for orthodox Congregationalists and made the connection to modern Baptists. When Baptists say they pioneered separation of the magistrate’s authority from the church, church autonomy, local church authority in selecting its elders and deacons, etc, there are few Congregationalists clearing their throat, politely raising their hands and saying, “Actually, we believed in all of that. You got it from us.” When Baptist boast of being willing to suffer for their convictions of the free church, regenerate church membership, local church autonomy, few Congregationalists remain to interject, with a wry smile, “Well, actually, our fathers ventured themselves and their little ones upon the rude waves of the vast ocean that so they might follow the Lord into his land.”^[43]

As Stanley Grenz wrote, “One crucial and lasting product of the Puritan movement of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries is the existence of a worldwide Baptist denomination …”.^[44] The question is why many Baptists, unlike Grenz, do not readily recognize that fact. Likely, a major factor is that most Baptists, unlike Grenz, are not knowledgeable of Congregationalism. Lacking that exposure to Congregationalism, Baptists are not aware that they inherited all the major – and many of the minor – features of their polity from Congregationalism, such as commitment to regenerate church membership with a testimony of regeneration required for admission, letters of dismission, church covenanting, priesthood of all believers, local church autonomy, associationalism (or “consociations”),^[45] and philosophies and practices of ordination.^[46] With few orthodox Congregationalists remaining to compare themselves with, Baptists cannot see their family resemblance. 

IV. The Persecution Obsession

Puritanism in Baptist history is often caricatured as an oppressive political-theological movement bent on persecuting all who deviated from it. Baptists encountering it are nearly always pictured as victims of its lash. For example, Bart Barber, recent president of the Southern Baptist Convention and a church historian, quoted Increase Mather’s support for persecution of Baptists as evidence that Baptists ought not heed the Mathers.^[47] About one-third of William McLaughlin’s important essay on Baptist origins in America consists ofaccounts of persecution meted out to Baptists by the “Standing Order.”^[48] Thomas Kidd’s and Barry Hankins’ Baptists in America offers virtually no definition of Puritanism while launching the story of Baptist origins, both in the preface and in chapter one, with tales of persecution from it.^[49]

The persecution narrative obscures the reality that Baptists often fellowshipped harmoniously with other Puritans. In England, Baptists were part of the Puritan mix. English Baptists were persecuted by the established church, the Church of England, along-side other Puritans. They were not persecuted, so far as we know, during the English commonwealth (1649-1660). We have already noted the important fact that the English Puritan scene saw mixed Congregational-Baptist churches at the same time in history when Baptists focus on the persecution they endured at the hands of Puritans in New England. This demonstrated that the larger Puritan theology and Congregational polity was the unifying principle and deemed large enough to include Baptists.^[50]

Even Congregational churches that were exclusively paedobaptist or Baptist recognized one another across the baptism divide as spiritual siblings. In England, there was an “extensive and harmonious cooperation between Baptists and Congregationalists.”^[51] William Kiffin (1616-1701), though exclusively Baptist after 1644, never mentions his Baptist identity in his autobiography. In his memoirs, Kiffin mentions the “Independents” (i.e. Congregationalists) he joined and the “dissenters” but never the Baptists. Remarkably, “Mr. Kiffin gives no account of his becoming Baptist.”^[52] This is because being a Baptist was a kind of Independent or “dissenter,” that is Puritan. Kiffin lived simultaneously with the persecution in New England Baptist historians now focus on. English Baptist hagiographer, Thomas Crosby (1683–1751), described Puritans as “the most sober and gracious Christians,” obviously not the embittered victim of persecution.^[53]

Even in the Puritan “City Upon a Hill,” Baptist individuals were tolerated. What Puritans found objectionable was Baptists separating and forming their own churches. After all, New England had been envisioned to be a Congregational training ground “to muster up the first of [God’s] forces in.”^[54] The Puritans had sought the charter, recruited the colonists, and had the vision for it. They can be excused for some possessiveness. If, hypothetically, conservative Baptists bought a remote island, free of any national sovereignty, moved there to be what they envisioned to be a perfect Baptist homeland and, then, Presbyterians or Methodists or even Jehovah’s Witnesses showed up, how would they respond?

Increase Mather, second generation New England leader, like his contemporary Solomon Stoddard (1643-1729), called for suppressing Baptists churches, when they had the power. After the Toleration Act of 1689 relations changed. When John Farnum sought to transfer membership from the local Baptist church to Mather’s North Church, Mather asked the Baptists if they had any objection. Thus, he acknowledged, in practice, the Baptists were Congregational brothers, not “heretics.”^[55] In 1718, Increase Mather and his son Cotton helped lead a Baptist pastor’s ordination service. The younger Mather preached the sermon. Cotton Mather, far from anathematizing Baptists as “heretical,” claimed in New England “the names Congregational, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, or Antipaedobaptist, are swallowed up in that of Christian.”^[56] He claimed that Baptists were “among the planters of New England from the beginning, and have been welcome to the communion of our churches, which they have enjoyed, reserving their particular opinion unto themselves.” He asked his church members who held to believer’s baptism to stay in his church. He described the Baptists he knew as “most worthy Christians, and as holy, watchful, fruitful, and heavenly people as perhaps any in the world.”^[57]

While persecution is an important chapter of Baptist origins, it is merely a chapter. An excessive focus on persecution obscures how Baptists were “baptistic congregationalists,” with close theological affinities and friendly relationships with other Puritans.^[58]

V. The Lack of a “Great Man”

Baptist origins, unlike Lutheran or Anabaptist or Presbyterian, lacks a single, dominating “great man” who founded the movement and who can be looked to as definitional. “Baptists have no recognizable founder like Martin Luther or John Calvin or John Wesley.”^[59] John Smyth (1554-1612) was not the founder. He was drawn to become Mennonite and earned a reputation for instability. Thomas Helwys (c. 1575-c. 1616) was not the founder. His church, as we noted, may not have survived the 1630s. In America, Roger Williams (1603-1683) was not the founder. He only attended a Baptist church for four months in 1639. Williams remained a “seeker,” never a committed Baptist. Thus, there is no single person Baptists esteem as the “father of the Baptists” to whom they could agree to look to as a model, whose life or theology created a norm. There is, instead, a team of great men, each doing their part to launch the Baptist movement. Every one of them was, first, a Congregationalist, thus a Puritan.

VI. Lack of Pre-History

Much of the confusion about Baptist origins stems from Baptist histories beginning with Baptists. Two recent Baptist overview histories take this approach: Baptists in America: A History (2015) and The Baptist Story: From English Sect to Global Movement (2015). It is akin to beginning an American history on July 4^th, 1776 and then picturing, even if just by implication, the British as foreign oppressors. The uneducated reader would assume that Americans were distinct from the British from their inception; that the British were foreign invaders. Just as no history of the United States is adequate without a pre-history of European colonization and the century and a half of colonial America, so no history of the Baptists is adequate without telling the story of the Reformation, especially the English Reformation, Puritanism, Congregationalism, “the City Upon a Hill,” and the Great Awakening.

Developing the pre-history of Baptists will show that “Baptists were children of the Reformation and stood clearly within the Calvinist tradition.”^[60] Failure to explore the history of Congregationalism is the immediate cause of Baptists’ seeing themselves as severed from church history. When Congregationalism is not sufficiently explored, we do not see what it means that “practically all” early Baptists – “whether John Smyth, Thomas Helwys, Samuel Richardson, [Hanserd Knollys,] William Kiffin, John Bunyan, Roger Williams, John Clarke, Obadiah Holmes, . . . Henry Dunster [and Isaac Backus] – had been Congregationalists before they became Baptists.”^[61]

Hence, Charles Deweese, while admitting that “Baptist churches often inherited the church covenant directly from their Congregational roots,” in his superb book on church covenants, is not able to discern what that fact means. He classifies Congregationalists as “another religious tradition,” as if Baptists were distinct from it at their outset.^[62] Likewise, the two recent general Baptist histories, noted above, fail to adequately explore Baptists’ pre-history leading to serious misclassification of Baptists vis-à-vis other movements. Thomas Kidd and Barry Hankins imply that the Puritans’ gospel was essentially different than “the gospel of the Baptists.”^[63] Chute, Finn, and Haykin claim, without any citation, that Puritans and Baptists were divided by a presuppositional difference that forced Puritans to regard Baptists as “heretical.”^[64] Their radical differentiation of Baptists from Congregationalists reflects the narrative rather than the actual history.

VII. Anti-Calvinism

Finally, some of the oversight of Baptists connections to Puritanism is likely due to resistance to Calvinism. For example, probably the pre-eminent purveyor of the narrative that Baptists are descended from Anabaptists, William Estep, was also anti-Calvinist. Estep predicted if “the Calvinizing of Southern Baptists continues unabated, we are in danger of becoming ‘a perfect dunghill,’ to borrow a phrase from Andrew Fuller,” ironically citing the early 19^th century Particular Baptist. He also claimed that “logically, Calvinism is anti-missionary,” despite the fact that as a church historian he would have to be aware that William Carey, “the father of modern missions,” was a Calvinist.^[65] He served as a professor of church history at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary for forty years, writing numerous works on Baptist and Anabaptist history. The question is whether his opinion of Calvinism caused him to him to gravitate toward the slight connection of Anabaptists with Baptists and repulse him from the abundance of documentation showing Baptists relationship with Congregationalism. Or is it just a coincidence? That he was both anti-Calvinist and championed the Anabaptist origins narrative is probably not just correlation but causation. Certainly, historians are free to personally reject or even despise Calvinism. However, they are not free to allow that animus to color their historiography, to move them to classify the Baptists as belonging to a tradition Baptists really do not belong to simply to avoid identifying them with a tradition they, personally, disdain.

Result

With Puritanism misunderstood, Baptist origins dominated by the Anabaptist or spontaneous Biblicist narrative, the persecution obsession and no Congregationalists or “Great Man” reminding us of our true origins, new Baptist theological students are unlikely to look to the Puritans for their spiritual birthright. Like Bart Barber, they’ll push them to the side.^[66] These distortions, perhaps even more than the anti-intellectualism in some strands of Baptist life, are responsible for the Baptist sense of rootlessness, of being ahistorical, of the myths either that Baptists transcended church history from the days of the Apostles or that they appeared on the scene detached, uncaused in history, “de novo.”^[67] These distortions leave some Baptists starved for historical roots. 

Because Baptists do not understand their identity as Puritans, we have the phenomena of Baptist academics calling for “theological retrieval” while celebrating the liturgical calendar, apparently unaware that their own tradition rejected that calendar. Original Baptists (or their Congregational progenitors) rejected the liturgical calendar not because they were intellectually benighted hicks who had never heard of it and suspicious of everything different but because they were Cambridge educated, exposed to high church liturgy, Latin and Greek reading scholars who came to the considered conclusion that it undermined the gospel.^[68] They may have been wrong but they were not ignorant.

The conclusion of finding that Baptists are Puritans is that when a Baptist wants to retrieve his or her theology or tradition, he or she needs to make a deep dive into Puritanism. What Increase Mather declared about his own Puritans, so also can we Baptists say about ourselves, “We are the children of the good old non-conformists.”^[69] It is in our Puritan heritage that we find that we are not anti-intellectual, other-worldly, disconnected; we find why we are congregational, promote a learned ministry but are not chained to it; why we are evangelistic and missions-minded. In Puritanism we find why we believe salvation is by grace but God works through means; why we celebrate the priesthood of all believers but are not anti-clerical; why we believe in autonomous churches but most of us still associate; why we hold to regenerate church membership and, even, why the immediate impetus for the founding of the Southern Baptist Convention (1845) to protect slave-holding was a tragic failure of Southern Baptists to nurture the seeds Puritans had planted and which bloomed in abolitionism;^[70] why “traditional Southern Baptist soteriology” is articulated by William Perkins, William Ames, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, and George Whitefield; and we find many more of the reasons we are as we are. We find, in many instances, what we have strayed from and we find, in the Puritans, spiritual fathers eager to guide us back home. 

^[1] T. E. Watson, “Andrew Fuller’s Conflict With Hypercalvinism,” Puritan Papers, Vol. 1 1956-1959 (Philipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2000.)

^[2] Nathan A. Finn, “History of The Baptist Church,” Remnant Radio, August 2, 2021, 13:09; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QPWGEAkXbE.

^[3] The term “semi-separatist” refers to those who were “independent but not against the Church of England,” who retained a “brotherly communion” with the established church. Mark R. Bell, Apocalypse How? Baptist Movements During the English Revolution (Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 2000), 55-56.

^[4] Bill J. Leonard, Baptists in America (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005), 7.

^[5] For example, Carol Crawford Holcomb, in “Doing Church Baptist Style: Congregationalism” (Baptist History and Heritage, 2001), tells the story of Baptist origins and polity without any reference to Congregationalism (the movement). http://www.centerforbaptiststudies.org/pamphlets/style/congregationalism.htm, accessed July 18, 2023.

^[6] Winthrop S. Hudson, “Baptists Were Not Anabaptists,” The Chronicle, XVI (October, 1953), 171.

^[7] The Schleitheim confession (1527) stated “Christ . . . prohibits all swearing, whether true or false. . . “. (Donald F. Durnbaugh, The Believers’ Church: The History and Character of Radical Protestantism [New York: The MacMillan Company, 1968], 74.)

^[8] Willaim Estep, “A Believing People: Historical Background,” The Concept of the Believers’ Church: Addresses from the 196 Louisville Conference, Edited by James Leo Garrett, Jr (Scottsdale, PN: Herald Press, 1969), 49.

^[9] Thomas Helwys, “Helwys’ Declaration of Faith–The First Baptist Confession,” Society of Evangelical Arminians, paragraph 24; http://evangelicalarminians.org/helwys-declaration-of-faith-the-first-baptist-confession/, accessed September 15, 2023.

^[10] London Baptist Confession of 1644, https://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/h.htm, accessed August 11, 2023.

^[11] “A Brief Confession or Declaration of Faith,” (London, 1660); https://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/tsc.htm.

^[12] C. Douglas Weaver, In Search of the New Testament Church: The Baptist Story (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2008), 47.

^[13] Hudson, “Baptists Were Not Anabaptists,” 172.

^[14] Hudson, “Baptists Were Not Anabaptists,” 171.

^[15] Weaver, In Search of the New Testament Church, 20.

^[16] Bell, Apocalypse How?, 42.

^[17] Bell, personal correspondence with Mark Bell, April 16, 2024.

^[18] White, The English Baptists of the 17^th Century, 29.

^[19] Wright, The Early English Baptists, 1603-49.

^[20] On Littell’s promoting the importance of Anabaptism for the “free church” movement, Donald F. Durnbaugh, The Believers’ Church: The History and Character of Radical Protestantism (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1968), x, 18. Franklin H. Littell, “The Concept of the Believer’s Church,” The Concept of the Believers’ Church, 21. 

^[21] Estep, “A Believing People: Historical Background,” The Concept of the Believers’ Church, 53.

^[22] Hudson, “Baptists Were Not Anabaptists,” 176.

^[23] Bell, personal correspondence with Mark Bell, February 13, 2024.

^[24] Hudon, “Baptists Were Not Anabaptists,” 176.

^[25] Dennis C. Bustin, Paradox and Perseverance: Hanserd Knollys, Particular Baptist Pioneer in Seventeenth-Century England (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2006), 164-165. The New Road Church (Oxford) reported, “Some of us do verily believe that the sprinkling of the infant children of believing parents is true Christian baptism. . .” (Charles W. Deweese, Baptist Church Covenants [Nashville: Broadman Press, 1990], 34.)

^[26] Joseph D. Barn, “Was John Bunyan a Baptist? A Case Study in Historiography,” Baptist Quarterly 30.8 (October 1984), 367-376; https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/bq/30-8_367.pdf, accessed October 19, 2023. Timothy Haupt, “Why John Was Not a Baptist: The 7 Irreconcilable Differences Between John Bunyan and the Baptists,” The Gospel Coalition, April 27, 2022; https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/evangelical-history/why-john-was-not-a-baptist-the-7-irreconcilable-differences-between-john-bunyan-and-the-baptists/ , accessed October 19, 2023.

^[27] Thomas Kidd and Barry Hankin, Baptists in America: A History (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), 78.

^[28] Donal F. Durbaugh, The Believers’ Church: The History and Character of Radical Protestantism (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1968), 16.

^[29] Contra Anthony L. Chute, Nathan A. Finn, Michael A. G. Haykin, The Baptist Story: From English Sect to Global Movement (Nashville, Tennessee: B&H Academic, 2015), 14.

^[30] C. Douglas Weaver, In Search of the New Testament Church: The Baptist Story (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2008), 9.

^[31] Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, August 20, 2023.

^[32] Michael P. Winship, Hot Protestants: A History of Puritanism in England and America (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2021.)

^[33] Michael Watts, The Dissenters (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1978), 97-98; according to James M. Renihan, Edification and Beauty, 13. 

^[34] Matthew C. Bingham, Orthodox Radicals: Baptist Identity in the English Revolution (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019), 4, 18, 23.

^[35] Darrett B. Rutman, American Puritanism: Faith and Practice (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1970) 13.

^[36] John Coffey and Paul C. H. Lim, The Cambridge Companion to Puritanism (Cambridge University Press, 2008), 1-2. 

^[37] Patrick Collinson, The Elizabethan Puritan Movement (London: Jonathan Cape, 1967), 467.

^[38] The term “semi-separatist” refers to those who were “independent but not against the Church of England,” who retained a “brotherly communion” with the established church. Mark R. Bell, Apocalypse How? Baptist Movements During the English Revolution (Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 2000), 55-56.

^[39] “A style of piety, an emotional and ideological style, producing distinctive structures of meaning whereby both the world and the self could be construed, interpreted, and acted upon.” Lake, “Defining Puritanism—again?,” Puritanism: Transatlantic Perspectives on the Seventeenth Century Anglo-American Faith (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1993), 4.

^[40] Michael P. Winship, Hot Protestants: A History of Puritanism in England and America (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2021.)

^[41] David D. Hall, The Puritans: A Transatlantic History (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2019), 1-2.

^[42] Leonard, Baptists in America, 8.

^[43] Paraphrased from Increase Mather for the 1679 Boston Synod, The Necessity of Reformation (Boston, MA: John Foster, 1679), i.

^[44] Stanley Grenz, Isaac Backus — Puritan and Baptist: His Place in History, His Thought, and Their Implications for Modern Baptist Theology(Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1983), 1.

^[45] Bingham, Orthodox Radicals, 59.

^[46] See John B. Carpenter, “Baptist Polity Inherited from Congregationalism,” Journal of Baptist Theology and Ministry 20.2 (Fall 2023), 153-172.

^[47] Bart Barber, Twitter, November 29, 2022. “Also Increase Mather: “The Council ordered the doors of the meeting house which the [Baptists] have built in Boston to be shut up…So perverse were they that they would not meet in a private house, but met this Sabbath out of doors.” Yeah. Let’s listen to the Mathers.” In context, this is meant sarcastically. 

^[48] McLaughlin, “The Rise of Antipedobaptists in New England, 1630-1655,” Baptists in the Balance: The Tension Between Freedom and Responsibility, edited by Everett C. Goodwin (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1997), 84-92.

^[49] Kidd and Hankin, Baptists in America, ix, 1. 

^[50] Matthew C. Bingham, Orthodox Radicals, 4, 18, 23.

^[51] Hudon, “Baptists Were Not Anabaptists,” 176.

^[52] William Orme, Remarkable Passages in the Life of William Kiffin (London: Burton and Smith, 1823), 110.

^[53] Thomas Crosby, The History of the English Baptists, Vol. 1 (London: The Editor, 1738), 334.

^[54] E. Johnson, Wonder-Working Providence of Sion’s Saviour in New England (1654) (Delmar, New York: Scholars’ Facsimiles & Reprints, 1974), 1.

^[55] Stephen Foster, The Long Argument: English Puritanism and the Shaping of New England Culture, 1570-1700 (Chapel Hill: The University of Carolina Press, 1991), 199.

^[56] Cotton Mather, The Wonders of the Invisible World (London: John Dunton, 1693), 5. By “Antipaedobaptist” he means Baptists.

^[57] Cotton Mather, The Great Works of Christ in America, 2 (Edinburg: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1979), 532-533.

^[58] Matthew C. Bingham, Orthodox Radicals, 4.

^[59] Weaver, In Search of the New Testament Church: The Baptist Story, 9.

^[60] Hudson, “Baptists Were Not Anabaptists,” 172.

^[61] Hudson, “Baptists Were Not Anabaptists,” 173.

^[62] Deweese, Baptist Church Covenants, 36.

^[63] Kidd and Hankin, Baptists in America, ix, 1.

^[64] Anthony L. Chute, Nathan A. Finn, Michael A. G. Haykin, The Baptist Story, 35. 

^[65] Keith Hinson, “Prof’s attack on Calvinism renews debate among Baptists,” Baptist Press, April 18, 1997. https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/profs-attack-on-calvinism-renews-debate-among-baptists/

^[66] Barber, Twitter, November 29, 2022. See fn 47 for full quote.

^[67] Kidd and Hankins, Baptists in America, 29. Kidd and Hankins described the rise of the “Separate Baptists” after the Great Awakening as “de novo,” despite the fact that the term referred to Congregational separatists from the standing order who adopted believer’s baptism.

^[68] Separate Baptists condemned “holy day observances.” (Christine Leigh Heyrman, Southern Cross: The Beginnings of the Bible Belt [Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1997], 11.) Also noted by Chute, Finn & Haykin, as “following in the train of the Puritans” (p. 67.) 

^[69] original emphasis, An Earnest Exhortation to the Inhabitants of New England (Boston: John Foster, 1676), 21.

^[70] John B. Carpenter, “A secular Jew makes a surprising discovery about Christians and American slavery,” Acton Commentary, April 17, 2019.

The post Why Baptists Don’t Know They’re Puritans appeared first on Founders Ministries.

Difficulties immediately arise in seeking to call John Smyth the first modern Baptist.  One is that he was not baptized by immersion nor did he give any defense of that mode.  Another difficulty is that Smyth repudiated his own baptism and dissolved the church he established. Then, he sought to be united with the Mennonites in Amsterdam.  A very good reason, however, may be stated for arguing that he is the fountainhead of the modern Baptist movement. 

From his influence and teaching arose the first church to which the continuous history of the Baptists may be traced.  This group of Baptists, the General Baptists, eventually merged into the Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland in 1891. Also, from their influence a number of Baptist churches freckled the southern colonies in North America and struggled toward a viable presence at the close of the twentieth century. Though the Particular Baptists had an independent origin and presented a more formidable presence in  both England and America, the distinctive beliefs of believers baptism, liberty of conscience, and separation of church and state first made their unwelcome intrusion into the intellectual history of England through these unpromising dissenters.

Early Life and Education

No certain information is known of Smyth prior to his matriculation at Christ’s College, Cambridge, in 1586. That he came from a poor and relatively uninfluential family is certain from his position as sizar, that is, a student who gains access to education through working as a servant to other students. His mean background did not hinder his zeal in learning, however, and Smyth soon achieved recognition for his tenacity in scholarship.

After graduating bachelor of arts in 1590, Smyth stayed and served as fellow.  During these years he would be aware of the ideas of Francis Johnson in his advocacy of Puritan Presbyterianism, his adoption of separatism, and his assignment to the Clink prison for joining a separatist congregation in London.  He would learn that the proto-separatist, Robert Browne, had given up his ideals and had received an appointment in the established church.

Just as prophetic for Smyth’s development was an internal challenge to the orthodox Calvinism of the university. William Perkins, a seminal thinker within the emerging Puritanism, lectured on the Apostles’ Creed, resulting in the publication in 1595 of his Exposition of the Creed.  A student named Barrett took exception to its content in a public exercise for the degree of B.D. and eventually was brought to make a public recantation of his remarks.  A Trinity professor, Baro, supported the student and eventually criticised the Lambeth articles written by Archbishop Whitigift. The Lambeth articles gave a strongly Calvinistic interpretation to the article on election in the Thirty-nine Articles.  These events apparently did not change Smyth’s Calvinistic theology at the time; they possibly served as a seed-bed for future changes.

Graduation and Early Ministry

By 1598 Smyth had finished his formal education, probably with M. A., had married (Mary was her name), and was seeking a livelihood.  According to W. T. Whitley, “we may imagine Smyth supporting himself and bride, either by tutoring at Cambridge, or as chaplain, or curate, or more probably as master of a school.”^[1]

In 1600, Smyth was elected to a coveted and relatively lucrative position of lecturer in the city of Lincoln.  He functioned there as a Puritan, strongly Reformed in theology, and not opposed to some magisterial role in the protection and establishment of pure religion.

His discussions on the nature and completeness of Christ’s sufferings in his exposition of Christ’s prayer, “Let this cup pass from me,” expresses a fullness of theological and exegetical understanding favorably comparable to the best of Puritan preaching.  As Smyth explains, Christ already was tasting the cup of God’s wrath and prayed under the cloud of the mystery of its continuance and severity. He prayed that he might not so remain under that cup as to render him unable to be a mediator and thus incapable of saving his people. This constituted a “reverent fear” and submission to the Father’s wisdom and was fully answered in the resurrection and ascension.  This same note would be emphasized in the sermon A Paterne of True Prayer.  His explanation of why we must pray only in the name of the Son points out that only the Son has taken our nature, suffered in our stead, and merited for us an audience with the Father.  “Seeing then of all the three persons in Trinitie the Sonne onely is our intercessor, therefore in the name of Christ alone wee must pray.”^[2]  The person that is to be our intercessor, Smyth continues “must also be our sacrifice of propitiation:  and contrarily our propitiator is our intercessor.”  Our assurance of the effectuality of his intercession, and, therefore, of the certainty of forgiveness depends completely on Christ’s person and work as having perfectly fulfilled the law, sustaining such punishment as to make satisfaction for our sins.

Smyth also unveiled a rather salty spirit and vocabulary toward Roman Catholicism.  Some of their views he called “blasphemous” and others, “foolish.”  Their distinctions in the vocabulary of worship that allowed them to pray to the Saints and the Virgin he called “threadbare and motheaten.”^[3]  His forceful language showed his sincere opposition to the dangers inherent in that system. 

He preached an exposition of Psalm 22 in four sermons in Lincoln that was printed in 1603 as The Bright Morning Starre. His closing words express a doctrinal urgency deceivingly unprophetic of the theological changes he eventually sustained. Smyth made the issue of imputed righteousness central to the stewardship of the church. The church of the Gentiles had “one principall office” according to Smyth.  Since they had “come home into the bosome of Christ, by effectual vocation and true faith” they were to declare “the righteousnes of Christ God-man;” that is, the “righteousnesse which he hath wrought for us, in suffering and obeying the lawe.”  Turks and papists deny “imputative righteousnesse, and mocke at a crucified Christ.”  It is highly important, therefore, “that we faile not in defence of Gods righteousnesse.”  It is a special duty “to teach our children and posterity especially the article of justification by faith onely.”  Should we fail in this, the “subtill and crafty Jesuites” who labor “to perswade the meritt of good workes and so to shoulder the Lord Jesus Christ his righteousnes out of dores” might “wrest it from us.”^[4]

Smyth’s use of the doctrine of election and limited atonement as missionary imperative also contrast starkly with his final doctrinal stance.  He was sure by virtue of the covenant we [Gentiles] “shall be a meanes to bring them [Jews] unto the fellowship of the gospell.”   He urged that Christians labor by all possible means to bring home those not yet born by spiritual regeneration and as yet unbaptized.  Turks and Jews and all nations “where we traffique” must be brought to the knowledge and love of the truth.  It is certain that they may “partake in this righteousnesse which Christ hath wrought for as many of them as appertaine to his election.”^[5]

Smyth also assumed an establishmentarian position in advocating magisterial responsibility “by law [to] establish the worship of God according to the word”^[6]  This concept also would be rejected as erroneous when Smyth reframed his doctrine of the church.

Smyth’s position as lecturer proved to be the pawn of political rivalries in the city, and Smyth found himself without a position at the end of 1602.  He was accused of having been too personal in his preaching–a charge he denied.

The Logic of Separatism

Smyth’s activities, except for the publishing of the two sermons quoted above, are undocumented until 1606.  In those eventful years, however, James I from Scotland became king and the Puritans failed to make any substantial progress in reform as they presented to him the “Millenary Petition” and met with him at Hampton Court. The Puritans asked for changes in the church service, the organization of the ministry, church livings and maintenance, and church discipline.  Slight explanations were allowed for tender consciences, but few concessions were made and conformity was urged in clear terms.

This lack of progress in purifying the church prompted Smyth into a series of discussions with friends on the nature of the church. By 1607 he had reached a clearly separatist position and confirmed it in a book, Principles and Inferences concerning the Visible Church.    Separatists concluded that the Church of England was irreformable.  It had a false worship, a false ministry, and a false constitution. True believers had no alternative but to separate from it.

Among several interesting ideas in Principles is Smyth’s assertion that the true matter of a visible church are “Saints,” that is, those who are “separated from all knowne syn, practising the whol will of God knowne unto them, growing in grace and knowledg continuing to the end.”  Appropriate Scripture proofs accompanied each part of the definition.  In addition, the manner of forming the church Smyth held to be by covenant.  This covenant consisted of two parts: that between God and the saints and that between the saints mutually.  He had led a group in forming a church through covenant just recently, an event recorded by William Bradford.

They shooke of this yoake of antichristian bondage, and as ye Lords free people, joyned them selves (by covenant of the Lord) into a church estate, in ye fellowship of ye gospell, to walke in all his wayes, made known, or to be made known unto them, according to their best endeavors, whatsoever it should cost them, the Lord assisting them.

On to Amsterdam

It soon cost them their country.  The time of winking at non-conformists was over, and action against separatism increased.  Smyth, therefore led his congregation to Amsterdam where his former Cambridge tutor, Francis Johnson, had led an older separatist congregation some years before (1592).

Instead of joining them as he planned, Smyth found too many differences in perspective and appended a supplement to his recent publication on the church.  This one was entitled The Differences of the Churches of the Seperation [sic] (1608).  Smyth noted that differences in concept of worship, “Concerning the Leitourgie of the Church,” and of officers, “Concerning the Ministerie of the Church,” created differences severe enough to keep the two bodies separate.

An intriguing element of this argument concerns Smyth’s view of the use of books in worship.  Changing from his former defense of using books and even set forms of prayer, Smyth now argued that books should not be used for singing or for preaching.  This included the use of Scripture, not because he denigrated Scripture. The originals that are inspired and without error cannot be read in worship for it would be an unknown tongue to the congregation. A translation cannot fully express all that is in the original in nuance and thus must be rejected for pure spiritual worship as a work of human composure. While we should read and study Scripture both in the original languages and in translation for personal edification and may read Scripture publicly for corporate edification, it cannot be proved, according to Smyth, that a book was ever made use of for prophesying in true Spiritual Worship.

A Change in Baptism

Smyth was not through changing. By 1609 he concluded that the church should dissolve and reconstitute on the basis of believers baptism.  His arguments for this he put in a book entitled The Character of the Beast.  His argument proceeded from two leading ideas.  The first, “That infants are not to be baptized,” he defended with three arguments. One, there is neither precept nor example in the New Testament of any infants that were baptized; baptism was placed only on those who confessed their sins.  Two, Christ commands to make disciples by teaching, then to baptize them; but infants cannot by doctrine become Christ’s disciples.  Three, “If infants be baptized, the carnal seed is baptized; and so the seal of the covenant is administered to them unto whom the covenant aperteyneth not.”^[7]  He called infant baptism “the most unreasonable heresy of al Antichristianisme” and said that “it is folly & nothing.”^[8]

Smyth shows in this third point that his view of believers baptism did not draw him entirely away from covenant theology.  His understanding of the relationship between the old covenant and new covenant changed and may be summarized in this statement:  

As in the Old Testament carnal infants were carnally begotten & borne by the mortal seed of generation by their carnal parents, & then were carnally circumcised, & receaved into the carnal covenant.  So in the new Testament Spiritual infants new borne babes in Christ, must be Spiritually begotten & borne by the immortal seed of regeneration, by the Spiritual parents, & then being Spiritually circumcised they shal by baptisme with water be receaved into the New Testament.”^[9]

His second thesis reflects the vocabulary emerging from the ecclesiological tensions of the day: “That Antichristians converted are to bee admitted into the true Church by Baptisme.”  That is, a person baptized in infancy (an antichristian), when converted should be truly baptized before admission into the church. “That baptisme of theirs,” says Smyth, “was never apointed by God: but it is the devise of Antichrist.”^[10] Again he offers three discreet discussions in defense of the point.  One, churches are to be constituted as they had been constituted by the apostles. We have no record of the apostles creating churches by any other way than baptism of believers. Two, if believers baptism is true baptism, then infant baptism is not. True Baptism is but one and all members of Christ must have true baptism. It is clear from Scripture that the baptism of those who have become disciples by believing the doctrine of Christ is true baptism. The other, therefore, is not.  Three, because as the false church is rejected and the true erected and false ministry is rejected and true ministry erected, so false baptism must be renounced and true assumed.

When Smyth constituted this church, he still considered the Mennonites doctrinally suspect and thus incapable of administering true baptism. A former friend but antagonist in this change, Richard Bernard, revealed, “He could find no whither to goe for Baptisme; in some Churches it was false, as he imagined; in some true, but not lawfully to be received because of some heresies.”^[11] A footnote indicates that he meant Anabaptists by this latter characterization. Even in the preface to Character of the Beast, Smyth had pointed out specific doctrinal cautions concerning Mennonite theology.  Though he had come to their view of baptism, other errors interrupted the possibility of a proper confession of faith. Severe pressure from accusations evoked a disclaimer:  “For we disclayme the errors commonly, but most slaunderously imputed unto us: we are indeed traduced by the world as Atheists by denying the old Testament & the Lords day: as Trayters to Magistrates in denying Magistracy: & as Heretiques in denying the humanity of Christ.” These unflattering rumors guided Smyth in clarifying his position regarding the Old Testament in which he showed greater affinity for the Mennonite understanding of discontinuity between the covenants but wanted to remove himself from the caricatures of that position. He affirmed both the Sabbath and the necessity of magistrates.

He was particularly insistent in distancing himself from the Mennonite history of arguing for celestial flesh, a concept of Christ’s incarnation which appeared to be docetic.  Christ is the “seed of Abrah. Isaac, & Jacob, & of David” and also is the “Sonne of Mary his Mother, Made of her substance.” Because other children have “ther bodyly substance from their parents” so must Christ. Smyth identified his position clearly with historic orthodoxy in confessing that “Chr. is one person in two distinct natures, the Godhead & manhood, & we detest the contrary errors.”^[12]

Unable to find a true church to administer true baptism, Smyth baptized himself, then his good friend and follower Thomas Helwys. He defended this action in the face of Separatist criticism. The Separatists made themselves a church, when they were no church, by covenanting together. Smyth and Helwys made themselves a church, when they were no church, by taking the ordinance of baptism on themselves.^[13]

When Smyth was accused of inconstancy because of so many and such rapid changes, he answered that though inconstancy in general is not admirable and is worthy of reproof, a change from the false to the true is good. For a man to change from a Turk to a Jew, from a Jew to a Papist, from Papist to Protestant are all commendable changes though it be done in the space of a month. Also the change from Puritanism to Brownism, and from Brownism to “true Christian baptisme, is not simply evil or reprovable in it self, except it be proved that we have fallen from true Religion.”^[14]

As the controversy continued, however, one antagonist offered an objection that Smyth could not overcome. John Hetherington, in conference with some of Smyth’s followers, suggested that they had violated their own principles in accepting a self-baptism as legitimate. If infant baptism is rejected because there is neither example nor command for it, where does command or example exist for a person’s baptizing himself? He also accused Smyth of spiritual pride, posturing himself as “holyer then all.”^[15]

More Changes

Though he had rejected the legitimacy of Mennonite Baptism previously, Hetherington’s observation that Smyth had neither precept nor example for a self-baptism plus his accusation of disorder and spiritual pride made him reconsider.  This renewed visit to Mennonite theology led to a theological shift in Smyth and resulted in his desire to seek admission to their church. He presented a twenty article Latin confession for the examination of the Mennonites. Not only is it antipaedobaptist, the doctrine now clearly takes the anti-Augustinian viewpoint of the Mennonites on predestination, original sin, and the will, as well as the anti-Lutheran view of justification by faith. Its wording on Christology is careful neither to offend the Mennonite history nor clearly to affirm celestial flesh.

This confession was followed by a full theological interchange between the Mennonites and the church of Smyth.  His final theological position was stated in Propositions and Conclusions concerning True Christian Religion. The extent and intensity of Smyth’s theological shift, given the clarity of previous Calvinistic Puritanism, is quite startling. Original sin is an idle term and infants are conceived and born in innocency. Election, instead of being personal and unconditional, is God’s having chosen to establish the way of salvation through faith in Christ. Christ’s atonement is for all without exception and removes our enmity against God–not God’s against us–for he never hated nor was ever our enemy. The whole system of imputation so central to Smyth’s earlier preaching was now defunct. Justification consists of regeneration and renewal. A Christian cannot possibly perform the duties of a magistrate. Smyth still maintained his high view of Scripture but argues a strange assertion that “the new creature although he be above the law and scriptures, yet he can doe nothing against the law or scriptures.” He also continued to maintain that “outward baptisme of water, is to be administred onely uppon” penitent and faithful persons and not infants or wicked persons.

Smyth changed not only his theology but began to express lament over past attitudes. He had been too harsh, too judgmental, too censorious, too punctilious on external matters, and too quick to rule people out of Christ and into antichrist. He chose to retract much of his writing not because it was wholly false “but for that it is wholy censorious and criticall.”

Though his writings indicated strong confidence in his positions, he had always been willing to change when convinced by superior arguments. Now he refused to enter into controversy with his critics. Some said he was unable to answer their arguments. He had become convinced in conscience, however, that he should not strive about external matters and breed controversy among brethren. “I had rather be accounted unable to answere” Smyth wrote, “then to be found in synne against my conscience.”^[16] Though some might find glory in being “peremptorie and immutable” in their doctrine, they may enjoy that  glory without the envy of Smyth though not without the grief of his heart for them.  Smyth based his salvation on a faith that did not include any articles concerning the external nature of the church. In this confession he claimed to “differ from no Good Christian.”

That Jesus Christ the Sonne of God, and the Sonne of Marie, is the Anointed king, Priest, and Prophett of the church, the onlie mediator of the new Testament, and that through true repentance and faith in him who alone is our saviour, wee receive remission of sinnes, and the holie ghost in this lyfe, and there-with all the redemption of our bodies:  and whosoever walketh accordinge to this rule, I must needs acknowledge him my brother: yea, although he differ from me in divers other particulars.^[17]

His friend Thomas Helwys, who broke with him when he began overtures to join the Mennonites, had issued several censures of Smyth concerning succession in the institution of baptism and Smyth’s views on the flesh of Christ. Smyth responded with carefully worded explanations. In accusing Smyth of sinning against the Holy Spirit by rejecting the truth, specifically the legitimacy of his self-baptism, Helwys, in Smyth’s words, “erreth not a little, and breaketh the bonde of charitie above all men that I ever read or heard in uttering so sharp a Censure uppon so weake a ground.”

On the flesh of Christ, Smyth personally believed that Christ obtained his flesh from his mother Mary. Yet the issue was not so important as an article of faith “that if anie man will not consent unto it I should therfore refuse brotherhood with him.” Even better, according to Smyth, than a correctly worded knowledge of Christ’s natural flesh is a conformity to his spiritual flesh. The purpose of the incarnation after all was that sinners might be remade in the likeness of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection in mortification of sin and the new birth. They are to be made “flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, spiritually in the fellowship of one holy anointing.”

One who moved so rapidly from one doctrinal rubric to another necessarily carries baggage with him and runs the strong possibility of picking up contradictions along the way. So it was with Smyth. As mentioned above, he introduced ambivalence between the final authority of Scripture in all things and the present working of the Spirit in the life of the “new Creature.” The doctrine of original sin became muddled also. He attempted to reject it entirely in strong forthright language of his Short Confession:  “That there is no original sin, but all sin is actual and voluntary, viz., a word, a deed. or a design against the law of God; and therefore infants are without sin.”^[18] In Propositions and Conclusions, however, the reader will find that original sin has not been so neatly excised from Smyth’s thinking and feeling. “When we have done all that we can” Smyth admits, we find that we only can “suppress and lop off the branches of sin, but the root of sin we cannot pluck up out of our hearts.” Original sin has hung around the theological premises and appears as “root of sin.”  

His shift on justification involved the same imprecision and residual uneasiness.  The Short Confession makes justification consist partly of Christ’s righteousness imputed and “partly of inherent righteousness, in the holy themselves.”  This assertion makes all the more sobering the idea retained in the Propositions and Conclusions that “when we have done all we can we are unprofitable servants, and all our righteousness is as a stained cloth.”^[19] By combining these two confessions we must conclude that God accepts our unrighteousness, our stained cloths, as constituting sufficient righteousness to complement Christ’s righteousness.

Before he could be received into membership of the Mennonite church, Smyth died in late August 1612 and was buried in the Niewe Kerke on September 1.   His followers continued their overtures for union with the Dutch, and eventually were received in January, 1615.  When the church listed its teachers, John Smyth headed the list of those that were “English.”

Conclusion

The complexity of Smyth defies any neat arrangement of his contributions to a single denomination. He must be evaluated on his own terms and in light of the provocation he provided for the creative energies of others. He was a hurricane that spawned tornadoes over the land though his own energy was spent over the ocean before landfall. Smyth’s defense of believers baptism found many sympathizers and established a credible defense for a practice that many considered a divisive innovation. His view of the church led naturally into an affirmation of liberty of conscience and separation of church and state. This idea also found many advocates and gradually cut its way through the forest of persecution into the future of western civilization.  

Finally, precisely at the points in which he departed from historic Calvinism, Smyth opened the door to the descending stairway of theological decline. The tendency of Arminianism to liberalism does not in each instance become incarnate, but the frequency of such decline in Baptist history is enough to serve as a warning. Under the influence of the Mennonites, Smyth embraced an anti-Augustinianism in his view of sin, depravity, election, and justification that many future evangelicals would find more compatible with their view of a kinder, gentler God.

^[1] W. T. Whitley.  The Works of John Smyth, 2 vols.(Cambridge:  University Press, 1915), 1: xxxviii.

^[2] Smyth, Works, 1:116

^[3] Smyth, Works, 1:120.

^[4] Smyth, “The Bright Morning Starre,” Works, 1:65, 66.

^[5] Smyth, Works 1:65.

^[6] Smyth, Works, 1: 159.

^[7] Smyth, Works, 2: 574.

^[8] Smyth, Works, 2:567.

^[9] Smyth, Works,2:582-583.

^[10] Smyth, Works,2:468.

^[11] Richard Bernard, Plaine Evidences:  The Church of England is Apostolicall, the Seperation Schismaticall (London: T. Snodham), p. 17.

^[12] Smyth, Works, 2:572.

^[13] Smyth, Works, 2:660.

^[14] Smyth, Works, 2:564.

^[15] John Hetherington,   A Description of the Church of Christ (London:  Nathaniel Fosbrooke, 1610), 23.

^[16] Smyth, Works, 2:756.

^[17] Smyth, Works, 2:753.

^[18] William L. Lumpkin,  Baptist Confessions of Faith (Valley Forge:  Judson Press, 1959), 100.

^[19] Lumpkin, 136.

The post John Smyth appeared first on Founders Ministries.