Reformed Baptist Blog

FICM Response to Reformed Baptist Critics

2009-11-12T14:12:00.004-06:00

Back on October 16 I posted an entry entitled Reformed Baptists Address the Family-Integrated Church Movement. In it I gathered responses by Andy Dunkerton (one of the elders at Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Mebane, North Carolina), Sam Waldron (one of the elders at Heritage Baptist Church in Owensboro, Kentucky, and Professor of Systematic Theology at the Midwest Center for Theological Studies), and Jason Webb (a graduate of the Reformed Theological Seminary and a member of Grace Fellowship Church in Bremen, Indiana).

Since these articles were written there have been a number of reactions to them posted by Scott Brown on the blog of the National Center for Family Integrated Churches. So far Brown has written three parts of a planned four part series:

The Church is a "Family of Families" -- A History, Part 1

The Church is a "Family of Families" -- Part 2

In this post, Brown claims that his position is actually consistent with the Baptist Confession of 1689. For example:

It is a falsehood to say that the National Center for Family Integrated Churches advocates a “family of families” ecclesiology. In fact, our understanding of the nature of the church is consistent with the historic doctrinal statements of the faith including the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689, the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Heidelberg Catechism, and many other orthodox statements on the church. It is the same understanding I received as a young man when I was in seminary. We do not advocate a “family of families” ecclesiology. Rather, our ecclesiology is as rich and clear as the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689 and the Westminster confession.

The Church is a "Family of Families" -- Part 3

In a post entitled "Family of Families" in the News, Brown indicates the fourth part of the series will offer "some insight on what we have learned from this experience."

Brown also responds to one of Jason Webb's assertions regarding the the Puritan approach in a post entitled Did the Puritans have a "Family of Families" Ecclesiology.

Somehow I do not think that this debate will be over any time soon, and it is clear to me that some of the key FICM advocates think that they are being badly misunderstood and misrepresented. But, while I think this may be happening to some extent, it also appears to me that they are responsible for much of the confusion themselves, most particularly due to their use of problematic language and an imbalance in emphasis on the importance of one's biological family versus the spiritual family that is the Church.

At any rate, I thought it only fair that I inform the blog's readers about what those on the other side of the issue have to say. I hope that FICM advocates continue to refine their position and the language used to describe their position, and I hope the writings of my Reformed Baptist brethren may be of assistance to them in this regard.

Update 13 November 2009

Scott Brown has posted The Church Family is a "Family of Families" -- Part 4, in which he gets into more depth about the relationship of the Church family to the biological family.

I still can't shake the feeling that what is in part a proper reaction to the destruction of family life in our culture has become an overreaction.

Jim Domm on the Regulative Principle of Worship

2009-11-10T17:12:00.003-06:00

Earlier today an excellent article on the regulative principle of worship was posted on the RBS Tabletalk blog. The article was written by Jim Domm, who is Pastor of Englewood Baptist Church in Englewood, New Jersey, and an M.Div. Student at the Reformed Baptist Seminary.

The article is entitled The Regulative Principle of Worship in Historical Perspective, and it is well worth reading. In it Jim does a terrific job of giving a brief historical and theological overview of the doctrine, as well as a description of the many issues of debate that surround it. For those who may not be familiar with the regulative principle and would like to learn more about it, this article is a good introduction, with footnotes that will lead you into the primary books and articles if you want to go deeper. Nice job, Jim!

Reminder: The Journey Book Giveaway is Coming!

2009-11-04T17:02:00.004-06:00

Current email subscribers are already in the running. I will send the two books to the first email subscriber drawn or that I can contact, so make sure that your email address is valid.

I suspect that once you have read a couple of the books, you will want to read more of them and will recommend them to others as well. As a pastor, I have found that folks have really been helped by them and have found them enjoyable reading as well.

Free Audio Download of John Piper's Desiring God

2009-11-01T14:05:00.001-06:00

This month's free audio book from ChristianAudio.com is Desiring God by John Piper. Here is the description from the ChristianAudio.com product page:

"Mind-hammering and heart-warming, Desiring God ignites a passion for God that would set the world ablaze if it were the norm and not the exception today." -Os Guiness

"The healthy biblical realism of this study in Christian motivation comes as a breath of fresh air. Jonathan Edwards, whose ghost walks through most of Piper's pages, would be delighted with his disciple." -J.I. Packer

Scripture reveals that the great business of life is to glorify God by enjoying Him forever. In this paradigm-shattering classic, newly revised and expanded, John Piper reveals that the debate between duty and delight doesn't truly exist: Delight is our duty. Join him as he unveils stunning, life impacting truths you saw in the Bible but never dared to believe.

John Piper, pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis since 1980, is the author of The Dangerous Duty of Delight, Desiring God, Future Grace, A Godward Life, and The Pleasures of God. He received his doctorate in theology from the University of Munich and taught biblical studies for six years at Bethel College, St. Paul, before becoming a pastor. He and his wife, Noel, have four sons and one daughter.

This would be a good book to listen to while traveling in the car or perhaps just for some added edification on a Sunday afternoon.

e-Sword: The Best Free Bible Study Software Better Than Ever

2009-10-30T15:40:00.007-05:00

I have been a long time user of e-Sword (alongside BibleWorks) and cannot recommend it highly enough. It is a free Bible study software program that rivals many that you would have to pay for and is better that most. And the latest version (9.5.1) is even better, with a fully dockable user interface that enables you to completely customize the layout and "display what you want, where you want it by dragging the views into position with their titlebar." This program also makes basic word studies a breeze and has been of great use to those in my congregation to whom I have recommended it. In fact, they often tell me that they love the layout and how user-friendly the program is. There is not a very steep learning curve with this program, so most anyone can catch on to it quickly.

For those interested, here is the rest of the list of updates in the latest version:

The Bible Search feature now allows the ability to perform case-sensitive searches.

The multi-row tabs are now locked in place, so no more moving targets!

A new Bible book browser has been implemented and is no longer docked to the side of the program. Press the F2 key to display the Lookup Scripture Reference dialog next to the mouse pointer wherever it is located, or access it from the main toolbar with the button next to the "Lookup" combobox.

Study Notes can be made on any verse in the Bible, now including the Orthodox Apocrypha and the Catholic Deuterocanon.

You can now Export the Study Notes and Topic Notes in HTML, Word DOC and Adobe PDF file formats, in addition to the previous plain text and Rich Text formats.

You can now Import both HTML and Word DOC files directly into the Study Notes and Topic Notes.
The Print Preview feature has been updated, and now all printing is performed through it.

Highlighting custom colors are now saved for use between sessions.

Localization of the e-Sword user interface continues with the implementation of fully Unicode compliant controls.

And here is a more complete list of basic features:

All available Bibles, commentaries and dictionaries are readily viewed without having to "tile windows".

Create your own "parallel Bible" with up to any four translations. Studying the Word of God and comparing passages have never been easier!

Integrated editor for creating your own commentaries or study notes, complete with Spell Checking and a Thesaurus! Notes are "linked" to the Bible for easy viewing and can also be exported for portability.

Comprehensive print capabilities, including print preview, allow you to create impressive Bible study handouts from the Study Notes Editor.

Strong's definitions are displayed as ToolTips! Just place the mouse pointer over a Strong's number and the definition will then be displayed.

Scripture references in the Commentary and Dictionary views are displayed as ToolTips! Just place the mouse pointer over the reference and the passage will then be displayed. To go to the passage, just click it!

Easily compare the various translations to see how they rendered the Greek or Hebrew manuscripts.

Powerful search capabilities, yet simple to use. Enter as many words you want to search for and select the search style and range. You can even search on Strong numbers and exclude words from the search!

Use the Verse List to create your own topical lists of Scripture, or cataloging your discoveries!

Copy and print Scripture in a variety of formatting styles. This is also available for search results and verse lists.

Graphics Viewer for studying maps, charts, and other images.

STEP Reader for viewing the various resources you may have invested in from QuickVerse, Bible Companion, and WORDsearch.

Although a number of modules have been developed for purchase by eStudySource, the list of free modules grows daily. There are quite a few free modules already offered at the e-Sword downloads page, such as John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible, Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible, the Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament, or A.T. Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament. This list has grown steadily over the years.

But one of the great things about e-Sword is the ability that users have to create and share their own modules. This means that there are many free user-created resources available at sites like the e-Sword Users site. One user at this site has even created several lists of resources of special interest to Baptists. For example:

1) "The Baptist Theologue": Help Locating Good Doctrinal e-Sword Tools for the Teacher, Preacher, and Student of The Word

2) "The Baptist Expositor": Help Locating Good Expository e-Sword Tools for the Teacher, Preacher, and Student of The Word

3) "The Baptist Disciple" - Recommended Modules List for Teachers, Students, and other Christian Disciples Who Happen to be Baptist

For those who are interested, I have also made a number of resources of special interest to Reformed Baptists available at my own website here (all the resources with a .top extension are e-Sword Topic Notes files).

If you are looking for a free, user-friendly Bible study program that you can recommend to others in your church, e-Sword is hard to beat!

An Historical Examination of the Doctrine of the Church Among Baptists With Special Reference to Southern Baptists and Church Purity - Chapter 7.3

2009-10-28T15:40:00.004-05:00

Part III

The Relation of the Covenantal Concept of the Church to Local Church Purity

Introduction

We have now advanced in our arguments and understanding to the point where we are ready to show a definite relationship between the covenantal concept of the church and the matter of local church purity. Though we stated the principle of purity which flows from this viewpoint of the doctrine of the church, we state it again and seek to discuss its application to the local church. The principle is this. The local church is to be composed, as nearly as possible, of the elect of God, that is to say, those who are included in the covenant of grace or redemption. That is, only those who are already members of the universal church with its basis on and in the covenant of redemption, and who have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit and have given evidence of such, are fit candidates for membership in the local and visible manifestation of the church.

The writer realizes that to some, who have never been introduced into such a realm of thought concerning the covenant of redemption, this principle may sound revolutionary and even impossible to implement in any sensible or practical way at the local level of the church. This writer contends that if applied properly, it can bring abundant benefits to a local church, but on the other hand it must be admitted, that if it were to be applied by novices in an improper manner, it could have excruciating results. But so does an improper view of the church in any manner bring ruin to a local church, as we have seen.

We now seek to discuss the application of this principle to the local church, noting the benefits and blessings it will bring in the purification of the local body.322

1. The Covenantal Concept of the Church Will Affect Our Evangelism---

Our Theology of Evangelism in Practice and Methods

The effect of such a viewpoint as the covenantal concept of the church on evangelism might very well be the fear that some would have of it. Some might even think that such a view would eliminate evangelism altogether. The writer would argue strongly that this fear is totally inaccurate. It is certainly not sensible nor Scriptural to do evangelistic work in any method or manner, just for the sake of being able to say we are practicing evangelism. On the contrary, our evangelistic practices must be consistent with the Scripture and its theology. It must be done in God's way by God's power, or otherwise we might very well create a monstrosity of methods and means, which get decisions but not true Holy Spirit fruit. Thus we have also created a monstrosity in our churches.

As one is fully committed to the Scriptural basis of the covenantal concept of the church, he will also realize it is not his responsibility, nor does he even have the power within himself, to convert men to Christ. God has a people! He has given them to Christ! We do not know who they are! We do not have the power to call them out nor to redeem them! But it is ours to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, and by that means the Holy Spirit will call out God's people and apply the work of Christ to them.

2. The Covenantal Concept of the Church Will Make Us Better Preachers of the Word of God

as We Shall Be More Reliant on the Word and God's Power

and Less Reliant upon Any Power or Ability within Ourselves

Knowing that it is not within us nor even our responsibility to convert men, and knowing that God does His work through the preaching of the Word of God, we will be moved more and more away from the methods of the flesh to the solid preaching of the Word. The result of this preaching of the Word will be truer and more stable converts.

It is the writer's sad conviction that many pastors of our denomination preach very little of the Word of God, even though they may pride themselves on their conservative outlook. The do not take a text, a passage, or a theme, and study exegetically the verses involved, and then build a solid Biblical sermon from these labors. Instead they preach their experiences, others' experiences, and the main portion of the sermon becomes, not the meat of the Word, but stories and illustrations with possibly a verse or two thrown in along the way. One should not think he has preached the Word just because he has excited someone, or given out some information, or read a text, or even gotten some decisions of some kind, or talked about God, Christ or the Bible, or occupied a pulpit for a certain length of time, or emotionalized while in that place. One can do all of these and never preach the word of God.

To preach the Word is to study the Bible in depth, including its grammar, word meanings, the context, the parallel passages, and then to build a sermon from that labor and study. Obviously, to preach the Word one must spend time delving into the Word, and the man who rests in the covenantal concept of the church will joyously and confidently make this his task. He knows then as he goes into the pulpit or into the local field to witness that he has saturated himself in the Word of God and that God will use the Word to convict (Jeremiah 23:29, Hebrews 4:12, Ephesians 1:17), to regenerate and sanctify sinners (I Peter 1:23, James 1:18, Psalms 119:50, John 3:3, Ephesians 5:25-26, I Peter 2:2), according to His will and purpose.

On the other hand, if we feel it is our duty and responsibility to move upon men's wills in order to cause them to make a decision, we will become exciters and exhorters open to the possibility of attracting every foul and offensive method (foul and offensive to God, while possibly pleasing and alluring to men) of evangelism, worship and preaching. Such techniques may get the desired decisions, but not the stable spiritual fruit. Could this be why, as we pointed out in our introduction, so many of our converts go back to their old ways so soon? Could they be Ishmaels, the fruit of the flesh, instead of Isaacs? (see Galatians 4:27-31) Such is the writer's conviction.

3. The Covenantal Concept of the Church Will Bear a Strong Influence

on Our Methods of Receiving New Members into the Local Church

Realizing that only the elect and regenerate are fit candidates for membership in the local church, we will then receive new members joyously, but not with an overzealous blindness, simply because someone has made a profession of faith. Knowing that Satan is always busy seeking to counterfeit or falsify the work of God (see the parable of the sower in Matthew 13, as well as the parable of the wheat and tares in the same passage), we will be careful to warn those desiring baptism and membership of the possibility of a false profession. We will challenge them of the necessity to count the cost of becoming a Christian and following Christ. We will face them with the responsibility which will be theirs as members of the church. We will inform them of the urgency of the church to watch over their souls with a tender and loving care, after they have been received, even to the necessity of admonition and discipline of their lives, should they become unfaithful or lax in the Christian life or interest in the house of God. We will tell them they are uniting with a fellowship of God's people, and that such a union requires a withdrawal from extreme individualistic tendencies, in order to enter into the sacrificial commitment of their person to that local church fellowship, as part of their commitment to Christ. We will demand of them before receiving them some evidence of a true conversion experience and regeneration. We will share with them the standards, doctrines, duties, and obligations of church membership, expressing also what blessings they can expect of the church towards their life, family, and spiritual growth.

The statement that we will lovingly demand evidence of true regeneration may raise the objection that it is impossible to judge such a subjective matter as a man's personal salvation. The writer acknowledges that there is no absolute and infallible process to determine a man's true standing before God, but to say this is not to say we cannot come close or that we should not attempt such a determination. If the new birth is present, there will be a changed life and some evidence, and this changed life surely can be and must be our starting point.

Someone might further object that this is putting someone between a man and God, which is a violation of the priesthood of the believer. Not so! What we are speaking of presently has nothing to do with a man's standing before God, unless our judicial standing is determined by or aided by church membership. No, here we are speaking of determining a man's proper candidacy for membership in the local church, not salvation. The salvation, regardless of what the church says or does in receiving members, is either present or absent, depending on the truth or falsity of the profession. The church not receiving a person who is truly regenerated into the local church cannot make one unregenerate. On the other hand, the church receiving one who is unregenerate does not make such a one regenerate.

4. The Covenantal Concept of the Church Will Strengthen the Concern and Power

of the Local Church to Practice Reformative Discipline

With the concern to receive into the church only the elect of God, there will be also the burden for membership to evidence the truth of that election in their every day lives. It must be acknowledged that even though we might do the best possible task of seeking to determine the truth or falsity of salvation, we shall err at certain points. Therefore, some shall get into the membership of the local church who are not saved. In many of these lives it will become quite evident very soon. It must be admitted, however, that if and as the church applies the covenantal concept of the church, many will never enter the church's fold of membership, who are now received quickly and blindly. Far better to lose a potential member before he is in the church, than to lose him to the inactive or non-resident roll. But even with discipline, the unsaved will slip into the membership of the church at times. Others, who are true Christians, may fall away for awhile. It is here again that the covenantal concept of the church, which demands that the local church be composed of only the elect, comes into the situation to determine our action. In light of this view of the church, the church must go to these in love to deal with them (which may require much time and patience), yet the final outcome must be the purifying of the church, as they either repent and mend their ways or the church in time must discipline them by exclusion. Whatever the case, the church maintains her purity and God is glorified.

As the church is careful in it reception of members to warn, teach, and to challenge the candidates as they are united with the church, the power of discipline will be substantially greater. In other words, if one goes into the local church as a member with his eyes wide open as to his responsibilities and the church's responsibility towards him, these will be aids to discipline, if one were to go astray. For instance, there will be a deeper understanding of the necessity of discipline, when the church does act. There will be a stronger power and agreement in the church itself, when it acts. When, on the other hand, one unites with a church encased in its own individualism, not understanding the need of commitment to God and fellow believers (which may be altogether absent), the church is robbed of its power to discipline, because we have been negligent in our duty to practice formative discipline. We have sanctioned one's uniting with the church, while still couched in individualism with no evident commitment to Christ or the church that the person is joining. The job of discipline then becomes difficult, if not impossible, which seems to be the situation of our day.

It is admitted by the writer, and even warned by him, that the preceding measures, including the theology and practice of the evangelism, which we have advocated (the true preaching of the Word, the proper methods of receiving members, and formative and reformative discipline) will not be easy to instill nor install into the average Southern Baptist local church, especially one of many year's history and habit of its present weak theology and improper practices. The task would be far more simple when beginning a new work. But in the older church, it may take several and possibly many years of faithful preaching and teaching of the Word, especially the theological principles which are the foundation of the methods we have advocated, namely, the doctrine of the covenantal concept of the church and its related themes.

Further, not only must there be patience in the matter, as one seeks to establish a sound theology upon which one can install the Biblical practices, but it will also call for the sacrifice of some ministerial pride, as we may not have as many baptisms to report, nor such a rapid growth in membership. As conditions are now, this reduction in the addition of new members might bring some denominational or associational loss of face, as all the published statistics could not possibly tell the story of our effort to be faithful to the Word of God in building Christ's church. Furthermore, it could put a pastor under great pressure from his own people, because most churches have been trained and entrenched in a statistic consciousness, which causes them to judge the work of the pastor on the shallow basis of statistics, rather than spiritual growth.

Certainly, the one who holds to the covenantal concept of the church knows the Lord has a deeper means of measurement than numbers, and he has not been called to be a statistic counter, but a faithful preacher and witness of the Word of God, trusting the Holy Spirit to use that Word to accomplish the will of God. Such a preacher smiles, as others look at him sympathetically, thinking his lack of statistics and failure to receive large numbers of new members, as they do, proves him to be an inferior servant, who lacks God's power and blessing. He grieves and prays for these brethren, having been in their place and thus knowing the frustrations of a man-centered theology and ministry and evangelism. He prays for them and rejoices in the true Isaacs, which the Lord gives him, knowing he has more true children of God than the preacher working in the flesh (Galatians 4:27). He knows that anyone can produce Ishmaels by human fleshly means, and he even sorrows over the hours when he did the very same thing, which his brethren are doing now. Still, there is a special joy, as he works and labors in the Spirit, trusting God to produce the Isaacs by His supernatural power. Resting in the covenantal concept of the church, he preaches the word in season and out of season. He reproves, rebukes, exhorts using the Word with all long-suffering and doctrine, assured by faith that God will call out the Isaacs---His elect.

The result of it all may be a slower growth, but his church will be a purer church with a deeper fellowship among God's people, as they realize their duties to God and to one another, as well as the true meaning of salvation and regeneration. There will be a deeper worship and truer service rendered to God. In time there will be a stronger testimony to the community concerning the reality of Christ and the genuineness of the church.

Plus, the ministry itself will take on a new joy, which will without doubt benefit God's people, for it will not be a preacher coming to pastor a church to skim superficially the top of the gospel, so that he might wield it to produce a sudden rash of decisions, which have no meaning, and usually concludes with the preacher vaulting to another place of service, after he has shaken loose the easy and unstable souls of men to join his church in a false manner or for a false reason. But the servant of God preaching the Word of God in its depths will take his people ever and always deeper in the truths of the Word, and as a result, into a deeper experience with Christ, not experience for experience sake alone, but as the product of the true ministry of the Word.

In simple words the covenantal concept of the church with its basis in election will so change our thinking and practices in ministry and in the life of the church that the purity of the church will be guarded at every point---in evangelism, in the reception of members, in the teaching and training of prospective members and the membership also, and in reformative discipline. It was the covenantal concept of the church, which bred the doctrine of purity and regenerate membership into the life of the early English Baptists and the early American Baptists. It has been the loss of that concept, which has allowed the loss of purity in Baptist churches in America, even those of the Southern Baptist Convention.

It is the hope of this writer, that at some time in the near future, Baptist pastors and theologians, might once again open the discussion of the doctrine of the church with consideration being given, not only to our Bible, the supreme authority, but also that we might have the wisdom to search our historical backgrounds, noting once again the Scriptural reality of the covenantal concept of the church, as well as it accompanying blessings.

Hill and Torbet seem to feel that a new discussion of the church among Southern Baptists is almost impossible, as they say:

Because Southern Baptists measure success in numbers, any challenge to reappraise their concept of the Church is likely to be only half heard. So long as statistical progress continues, they hear only the challenge to preserve and improve the present conditions.323

To a large degree this writer must agree with this judgment of Southern Baptists. Yet, he has also sensed a searching and unrest among the pastors, at least some of them. Questions are being asked about the converts and their failure to persevere. Why don't they continue? Whose fault is it---mine or theirs? The agreement is that something is wrong, but no one seems to have given a sufficient or proper answer. Some pastors are leaving the ministry in despair and frustration. Is not the reason obvious? With a false concept of the doctrine of the church, which breeds a false concept of the ministry and a man-centered view of evangelism, many Southern Baptist pastors feel great pressure to produce quantity, not quality, in order to satisfy their churches and also that they themselves might advance in the ministry. Then, when pastors do produce quantity instead of quality, frustration often follows for two reasons. First, in using fleshly methods to gain the desired results, there cannot be the peace and joy in the ministry which only the Holy Spirit can bring to the pastor who works Scripturally. Second, additional frustration comes when these results melt and fade away, failing to give any solid evidence of being truly the regenerate people of God.

The covenantal concept of the church is the light and truth of God's Word, which will revolutionize a man's ministry and the local church he pastors. It is a Scriptural concept. It has proven itself in Baptist history. We have seen how and why Baptists left that covenantal concept and we have seen the results of such error. We have also shown what would be the results of returning to this conviction. Though an entire denomination may never return to such a doctrinal commitment, individual pastors and churches may do so, as God's Spirit enlightens and teaches. This paper is dedicated to that end.

(This paper was written in 1973, and it has been a great joy to see the burden of the writer's heart come to fruition in many Baptist churches of our day! The great doctrines of grace held by the early English Baptists have been revived among many Baptists, and with that the ideas of the necessity of the purity of the church have also been put in place in many churches as well. To God be the glory! May this only be the beginning of the purifying of Baptist churches!)

Notes:

322 In case one questions the legitimacy of the contention we shall make for purity in light of the Old Testament Israel, we must remember that though we have one universal church, there are two eras of its administration locally. Therefore, though it is the same church, made up of the elect of God only, in the Old and New Testament eras, not all matters are similar in the Old and New Testament manifestations of the local people of God. The great difference is that the Old Testament church was within a theocracy and a nation (not all Jews of the Old Testament were saved people---as Abraham and others were saved by grace though faith as we are). This does not change the overall clear reality of the two (the elect of all ages) being members of the universal or invisible church, but it does affect the local manifestation.
323 Samuel S. Hill and Robert G. Torbet, Baptists North and South (Valley Forge: The Judson Press, 1964), p. 70.

An Historical Examination of the Doctrine of the Church Among Baptists With Special Reference to Southern Baptists and Church Purity - Chapter 7.2

2009-10-26T12:12:00.001-05:00

Part II

The Covenantal Concept of the Church Shown to Be Scriptural

Having given evidence and argument that the doctrine of the church among Southern Baptists is a rather static issue, we now ask if the covenantal concept of the church, which we have been discussing is in fact Scriptural. We cannot expect in these few pages to deal with the matter fully, for that is not the basic subject of our dissertation. Nor will we have answered all questions and satisfied all mental probings, when we are finished. It is the writer's intention, however, to present a brief but succinct statement of the Scriptural reality of that viewpoint of thinking. We shall approach the subject with a method we have found helpful in teaching and preaching on the subject.

1. The Bible Speaks of a People Known as the Elect

It cannot be denied that the Scriptures speak time and again of a group of people known as the elect. The Greek word used most often in this regard is the word eklektos. We read concerning these elect:

that for their sake---the elect---the days of the tribulation shall be shortened
       Matthew 24:22 and Mark 13:20

that the forces of Satan would deceive this group, the elect, during these days, if it were possible
       Matthew 24:24 and Mark 13:22

that at the coming of Christ the elect will be gathered from the four winds of the earth by angels
       Matthew 24:31 and Mark 13:27

that God shall avenge wrong-doing to this group---the elect
       Luke 18:7

that no one is able to lay anything to the charge of the elect
       Romans 8:33

that this group---the elect---charged to live a certain type of life as the elect of God
       Colossians 3:12

that Paul tells Timothy that he endures all things for the elect's sake
       II Timothy 2:10

that Peter tells us we are the elect according to the foreordination of God
       I Peter 1:2

In other places the elect are referred to as the chosen ones of God, or as having been chosen of God. The Greek words translated in this sense are eklego, or ekloge and eklektos. For instance:

Matthew 22:14 speaks of many being called, but few chosen (eklektos).

Mark 13:20 says the Lord has shortened the days of tribulation for the elect's sake whom He hath chosen (eklektos).315

Acts 9:15 states that the Lord told Ananias that Paul was a chosen vessel (ekloge).

In case one were to claim this election can be said of Paul but not of all believers, Paul in Romans 16:13 refers to Rufus as chosen (eklektos) in the Lord, whoever Rufus was. In I Peter 2:9 Peter refers to the believers he addresses as a chosen generation (eklektos).

Our point in presenting all these passages is to establish the fact that God has a group of people known as His elect, that is, His chosen ones. We still face some deep questions concerning these elect ones, such as, who chose them, and when were they chosen, and upon what basis were they chosen, and for what purpose were they chosen?

2. God Himself Chose the Elect

The Scriptures verify without doubt that the power of the choice of the elect rests or rested ultimately in the hands of God. Ephesians 1:4 leaves no question about the matter, as it states plainly that God has chosen us. In John 15:16 Christ tells His disciples that they have not chosen Him, but rather He has chosen them out of the world.

3. God Chose the Elect before the Foundation of the World

Having shown that God has a group of people known as the elect or as the ones chosen by Him, the next question concerns the time of this choice. Looking at Ephesians 1:4 we see that God's choice of the elect was before the foundation of the world. That is to say, before men ever lived, breathed, moved, walked or existed, God chose for Himself a people to be His own. Paul states in another verse that the grace of salvation was given to us in Christ before the world began (II Timothy 1:9).

That something very unique and paramount took place before or from the foundation of the world is evident from other passages of Scripture as well. We are told there were some truths of deep mystery, which were kept secret from the foundation of the world, yet Christ spoke in parables to reveal them (Matthew 13;35). In Matthew 25:34 we read of some people inheriting the kingdom, which was prepared for them from the foundation of the world. In Luke 11:50 we are told that the blood of the prophets was shed also from the foundation of the world. Peter tells us that Christ was foreordained Lamb of God, that is, He was foreordained to shed His blood before the foundation of the world (I Peter 1:19-20). In Revelation 13:8 we read that Christ was slain from the foundation of the world, that is, His death was a certainty by the decree of God from eternity. And in Revelation 17:8 we read of those whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, which is certainly an inference that the names of the elect were written in the book of life from that noted hour---from the foundation of the world.

To summarize these Biblical statements concerning God's activity from or before the foundation of the world, we would note several points.

a. It is clear that God had a plan from eternity past.

b. His plan included the choosing of a people, the planning of their redemption through Christ, the placing of their names in the Lamb's book of life, and the preparing for these people a kingdom.

c. The sending of prophets, who would even die for the opening of the way for the coming Savior.

d. The sending of His own Son to be the Saviour of His chosen people.

All of these events, we say again, were planned and ordained from the foundation of the world. God is a sovereign God, who is working here on earth His plan to accomplish His will and purpose. He is not depending on chance or the accidental or hopeful doing of sinful men, but He will accomplish His purpose from eternity past.

4. God Gave the Elect to His Son Jesus Christ

We add another element of Scriptural truth, as we note, that not only did God choose a people before the foundation of the world and plan their redemption, but He also gave these elect ones to the Son. In John 17 Christ speaks of the work the Father gave him to do.316 In fact, in this chapter of John, we read in several places of those given to Christ by the Father:

Verse 2 " . . . as many as thou hast given Him."

Verse 6 " . . . men who thou gavest me out of the world."

Verse 6 " . . . thou gavest them to me."

Verse 9 " . . . them who thou has given me . . ."

Verse 11 " . . . those whom thou has given me . . . "

Verse 12 " . . .those thou gavest me I have kept . . . "317

5. All of These Elements Together Speak of the Covenant of Redemption

It is from the combined Scriptural data above that we have been noting step by step that we come to speak of the covenant of redemption, or as Gill called it, the covenant of grace. In covenant agreement from the foundation of the world, the Holy Trinity planned redemption. God chose a people to be His own (Ephesians 1:4), and He gave them to His Son (John 17), Who agreed to pay the price of their sin with His own blood (I Peter 1:9). God wrote their names in the Lamb's book of life (Revelation 17:8), and designated the Holy Spirit to apply the work of the Son to this group, His elect people.

6. Spurgeon Speaks of This Covenant of Redemption

Charles H. Spurgeon, the great Baptist preacher of the nineteenth century in England, speaks in eloquent words of his picture of the Covenant of Redemption.

Of the Father's part, Spurgeon wrote:

I, the Most High Jehovah, do hereby give unto my only begotten and well-beloved Son, a people countless beyond the number of the stars, who shall be kept by Him washed from sin, by Him preserved, and kept, and led, and by Him, at last, presented before my throne, without spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing. I covenant by oath and swear by myself, because I can swear by no greater, that those whom I now give to Christ shall be forever the object of my eternal love. Them will I forgive through the merit of the blood, to these will I give a perfect righteousness; these will I adopt and make my sons and daughters, and these shall reign with me through Christ eternally.318

Concerning the Son's part, Spurgeon wrote:

My Father, on my part I covenant that in the fullness of time I will become man. I will take upon myself the form and nature of the fallen race. I will live in their wretched world, and for my people I will keep the law perfectly. I will work out a spotless righteousness, which shall be acceptable to the demands of Thy just and holy law. In due time I will bear the sins of all my people. Thou shalt exact their debts on me; the chastisement of their peace will I endure, and by my stripes they shall be healed. My Father, I covenant and promise that I will be obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross. I will magnify Thy law, and make it honorable. I will suffer all they ought to have suffered. I will endure the curse of Thy law, and all the vials of Thy wrath shall be emptied and spent upon my head. I will then rise again; I will ascend into heaven; I will intercede for them at Thy right hand; I will make myself responsible for every one of them, that no one of those who Thou hast given me shall ever be lost, and I will bring all my sheep of whom, by Thy blood, Thou has constituted me the Shepherd---I will bring every one safe to Thee at last.319

Concerning the Holy Spirit's part Spurgeon wrote:

I hereby covenant that all whom the Father giveth to the Son, I will in due time quicken. I will show them their need of redemption; I will cut off from them all groundless hope, and destroy their refuges of lies. I will bring them to the blood of sprinkling; I will give them faith whereby this blood can be applied to them; I will work in them every grace; I will keep their faith alive; I will cleanse them and drive out all depravity from them, and they shall be presented at last spotless and faultless.320

Understand that this was Spurgeon's view of the covenant of grace. We do not claim any absolute authority for his words, but we do see his thoughts clearly and we recognize that we do have here a compilation of Biblical and spiritual phrases and ideas, which pictures a covenant of redemption between the persons of the Godhead from eternity past.

7. The Basis of God's Choice of the Elect Is Grace Alone

We cannot sidestep the key idea in this whole subject, namely the determination of the basis of God's choice of the elect. The standard explanation given by many is that God took a long look down through the corridors of history, and He saw who would choose Him, and He elected them on the basis of their power of choice. This view not only makes man the electing power rather than God, but it also totally ignores the depravity and inability of man in his natural state. In Ephesians 1:6 we read definitely that the basis and foundation of election and predestination is the pleasure of God's will, not man's. This fact certainly removes man as the ultimate power of choice in the matter. The same passage in verse 9 says God has made known to us in these matters the mystery of His will, and that His will is according to His good pleasure, which He has purposed in Himself. Again, verse 11 speaks of predestination as anchored "according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will."

Though this point opens many questions that our minds cannot probe and that we do not have time to even try, we must nonetheless acknowledge the Scriptural nature of this point. It might be helpful, however, to realize that what God did He did in light of man's sin and depravity, even though man had not yet sinned. Further, we must realize that man's depravity is and was total. Man would have received his just and proper reward had God saved no one. God was not obligated to send His Son to save anyone. When the angels sinned, he rescued none of them (II Peter 2:4). So the purpose of God's action cannot be shown to be anything within us or anything we have done or could do. God's action was based on grace alone to those of His choosing, in order that He might magnify the glory of His grace (see Ephesians 1:6 and 12). God is not unfair in saving some while bypassing others. It is a marvel of grace that He saves anyone. In saving the elect He in no wise damages His justice, for those He allows to go to eternal punishment bear the full print of their own sin and depravity, which His justice demands. Again, this doctrine does not relieve us of the duty of preaching and evangelizing, for that is God's way of calling forth and nurturing His elect.

8. The Elect Compose the Church in Its Universal Form

We have arrived at the point where we can speak of the two aspects of the church, the invisible or universal church and the local church, and their relation to one another. It is our contention that the visible form of the church manifests itself in two eras---the Old Testament people of God and the New Testament people of God. And that it is the same covenant of grace and universal church being manifested in both ages. Furthermore, men are saved by the grace of God in Christ in both eras, and all are members of the one body of Christ---the universal church, as it is based on the covenant of redemption.

This is not to minimize the local visible church or to lose it in the glory of the invisible church. There must always be maintained a precious balance between the two, lest we would completely universalize the church, on one hand, or completely localize it on the other hand. So though there are differences of administrations in the two eras of the church (Old Testament and New Testament), it is still the same over all covenant of grace and the same body of Christ.

Perhaps some would desire Scriptural proof of our contention that a remnant of Israel was part of the universal church. This is not to say that all Jews of the Old Testament were the elect or saved. It is to say that God had a people in the Old Testament, who were truly His people. Not all Israel was the true Israel. In fact very few Jews seem to have given evidence of true salvation, but there was still the remnant of grace. There may not have been an organized local church, as in the New Testament, but there was surely the same plan of salvation---by grace through faith and not by the works of the law (Romans 4:3 and Galatians 3:8). There may not have been a visible church, as we see in the New Testament era, but the true people of God were there. The blessings of God, we are told, were preached to Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3, Galatians 3:8). Paul says the blessing promised to Abraham has come upon us (Galatians 3:14). We are told that if we be in Christ, we are Abraham's seed (Galatians 3:29).

As one writer says:

The conclusion is that God has ever had but one Church in the world. The Jehovah of the Old Testament is our Lord; the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is our covenant God and Father; our Saviour was the saviour of the saints who lived before His advent in the flesh. The divine person who delivered the Israelites out of Egypt; who led them through the wilderness; who appeared in His glory to Isaiah in the temple; towards whose coming the eyes of the people of God turned in faith and hope from the beginning, is He whom we recognize as God manifest in the flesh, our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ . . . The blood which He shed for us, was shed from the foundation of the world, as much "for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament" (Hebrews 9:15), as for us and our salvation. The promise unto which the twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hoped to come (Acts 26:7), is the promise on which we rely. The faith which saved Abraham, was, both as to its nature and as to its object, that which is the condition of salvation under the Gospel. "The city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God" (Hebrews 11:10), is "Jerusalem the golden," the heaven to which we aspire.321

We conclude this area of our study by summarizing what we have seen concerning the covenant of redemption before the foundations of the world:

God has a group of people known as the elect, chosen by Him from the foundation of the world, the choice being based upon His will alone, for the express purpose of glorifying His grace.

God gave the elect to the Son that the Son might redeem and preserve them by His life and death.

The Holy Spirit was designated by agreement to apply the work of the Son to these chosen ones.

The universal church is based on this covenant between the persons of the Holy Trinity, that is, these elect compose the universal church of all ages.

There must be maintained a delicate but definite balance between these two aspects of the church, that is the visible and invisible, the local and the universal church.

In our next section we will see how this covenantal concept of the invisible church, or what the Bible also calls the body of Christ, can and will bring purity to the local church.

Notes:

315 The verb here is in the middle voice of the aorist tense, and thus the emphasis is, He has chosen for Himself.
316 See verse 4. The Greek word is dedokas, a prefect tense of didomi, indicating again that the Father from eternity past clearly had a plan, and that he gave the Son a definite work to do which was essential to the completion of His plan.
317 There are two forms of the word didomi in the Greek used in these verses. In verse six the form is in the aorist tense, while the other four references are in the perfect. It is to be note that all of them are tenses of past action.
318 Eric W. Hayden, Spurgeon on Revival (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962), p. 89.
319 Ibid., pp. 90-91.
320 Ibid.
321 Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1965), Volume III, pp. 551-552.

What is Evangelism?

2009-10-23T16:05:00.001-05:00

In the above recorded class, John White talks about what evangelism is as is not. I hope the blog's readers find it as edifying as I did. No doubt my fellow Reformed Baptists will agree with Dr. White's perspective.

An Historical Examination of the Doctrine of the Church Among Baptists With Special Reference to Southern Baptists and Church Purity - Chapter 7.1

2009-10-21T14:20:00.002-05:00

Conclusion
Part I

Introduction

We have now traced the doctrine of the church from the English Baptists of the seventeenth century down through the nineteenth century with special emphasis on Southern Baptists. We have shown how the covenantal concept of the church, as held by the early English Baptists, was also firmly established among the Baptists in early America. We have noted the slow departure from this covenantal view of the church and then the loss of this view as well, as we also noted the influences which contributed to that loss. We must now, in order to guide our thinking to a strong conclusion, pull together our discussion by doing several things.

First, it is necessary to discuss briefly the doctrine of the church among Southern Baptists since the turn of the century [from the nineteenth century into the twentieth century].

Second, the writer feels compelled to establish further the Scriptural nature of the early English Baptist view of the church. Our argument is not that we need to reestablish the covenantal concept because the English Baptists, or anyone else for that matter, held such a doctrine historically. If we cannot prove that the covenantal concept is Scriptural, then our whole case comes to naught, and perhaps the Landmarkers did move from error to truth.

Third, it will be our attempt in this section to show a definite relation between the covenantal concept of the church and the subject of church purity, and we will argue for the covenantal concept of the church as the foundation and cornerstone of any attempt to establish a disciplined local church life and membership.

The Doctrine of the Church Among Southern Baptists Today

Perhaps the reader has been asking why we have not devoted an entire chapter to the doctrine of the church among Southern Baptists in the twentieth century. Duke McCall answers this question when he states:

Within the Southern Baptist Convention more than half a century has passed since the last serious discussion of the church. Unfortunately that discussion became so involved in personalities that sight of the real issues was lost.305

Obviously, McCall is referring to the Landmark debate with Graves as the strong, dominant, and unbending personality. The point is that Southern Baptists have not had any serious general discussion or restatement of the doctrine of the church in any depth since Graves. This is not to say that all Southern Baptists are now or ever were Landmarkers in their ecclesiology. On the contrary, in the statement of faith adopted at the 1963 Convention in Kansas City, allowance was made for the Old Testament saints to be seen as and included in the church, which was also a clear refusal to make the church a New Testament entity alone. The statement regarding the church, Section VII, reads as follows:

A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is a local body of baptized believers who are associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel, observing two ordinances of Christ, committed to His teachings, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth.

This church is an autonomous body, operating through democratic processes under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. In such a congregation, members are equally responsible. Its Scriptural officers are pastors and deacons.

The New Testament speaks also of the church as the body of Christ, which includes all of the redeemed of all ages.306

Several points can be noted in the reading of this statement. First, notice the space and wording afforded to the defining of the local aspect of the church, as compared to the invisible church. It seems that the way it is worded, the statement concerning the universal church was added as sort of a footnote. It also leaves the impression that this aspect of the universal aspect of the church is secondary in importance. Joe T. Odle, editor of the Mississippi Baptist state paper, The Baptist Record, in his writings discussed this statement of the confession on the subject of the church. He makes no apology and leaves no doubt, when he says the local aspect, as defined in the confession, is the primary meaning and definition of the church, while the universal aspect is only secondary.307 He states further that because the local aspect is primary, it is the body to which Baptists give their attention.308

Our second observation in reading the above statement about the doctrine of the church is that there is no mention of election or the covenant of grace in defining the church. Further note that the universal and local aspects are in no way related to one another. The conclusion, which must be drawn from this stated observation, is that the concept of the universal church in the 1963 confession is not based on the doctrine of election or the covenant of grace. It is true that Section V, titled "God's Purpose of Grace," speaks of election, but it is not a strong statement on the subject, when compared to past Baptist confessions. Furthermore, at no point is the doctrine of election even tied in with the doctrine of the church.309 It appears evident then that though Southern Baptists have placed a statement concerning the invisible church in the 1963 confession, the invisible aspect is seen by many Southern Baptists as a secondary meaning with no relation to the covenant of grace, while the local concept is the primary meaning and concern. One might even get the impression that Southern Baptists are fearful of discussing the universal aspect or even might feel apologetic for believing in a universal concept of the church.

If one were to ask what it could be that we fear about this universal aspect of the church, or what keeps us from a new and open discussion of the doctrine of the church, several answers could be given. For one thing, many Southern Baptists are so individualistic in their thinking (a possible testimony of the lingering influence of Landmark ecclesiology) that there is a tendency to fear any concept of the universal church. Could it be that this fear is that such a concept might eventually lead to some hierarchical structure, which would in turn open the door to the overlording of someone or some group over the individual local church? Hill maintains in his writings that the central theme of all southern religious life is the individual.310 As mentioned above, we have already seen such individualistic thinking concerning Baptists in our previous chapters, climaxing especially in Landmarkism.

Again, part of the psychology which causes many Southern Baptists to fear a universal concept of the church may well be the fear of the modern ecumenical movement. This is not to say that this writer endorses the liberal ecumenical effort, which denies the authority of the Word of God or the Biblical view of salvation or the other major doctrines of the Bible. But this is to say that a person is in error, if he believes that anyone holding to a universal concept of the church is not Baptistic nor capable of holding the major doctrines of Biblical truth, and therefore must be part of the liberal ecumenical effort.

This ecumenical assumption is evidenced in Rone's writing, as he speaks of W. O. Carver's view of the church. Carver, a former professor at Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, and now deceased, says the demand for unity of spirit and aim, and the need of institutional and organizational union of Protestantism calls for an understanding of the true nature of the church.311 That the true nature of the church for Carver is both universal and local is clear, not only from the reference cited, but also in his other writings. In the reference already cited, Carver commends clearly the universal and local aspect of the church, noting the Baptist forefathers defined the church in both aspects, and he challenges the reader to examine the London Confession of 1689 and the Philadelphia Confession.312 But in this reference Carver says nothing of the universal aspect as having its ground and foundation in the everlasting covenant of grace, as those Baptist forefathers that he mentioned definitely asserted.

The point is that Rone refers to Carver, his universal view of the church, and his ecumenical attitude, and then Rone places all who hold a universal concept of the church in the ecumenical camp.313 He fails to allow the possibility of any difference between Carver's position and the historical Baptist view, which we saw in earlier Baptist history. His attitude is typical of many Southern Baptists, as the fear persists that an acknowledgement of a universal concept of the church is the first step toward ecumenicism, with the second step sure to follow.

Another reason Southern Baptists are lagging in any new discussion of the doctrine of the church is because few seem to realize its importance to Baptists theologically or historically. Returning to a previously cited reference, in the book titled Why I Am a Baptist by Joe Odle we find ample proof of this charge. The book is a compilation of articles and various testimonies of Baptist leaders, most of them being Southern Baptists, and it discusses why they are Baptists, or what they feel are the Baptist distinctives. In reading the book the writer made a rapid tabulation and found, according to these Baptist leaders, that the leading and most important Baptist distinctives were in the area of freedom and soul competency.314 The doctrine of the Bible, the Baptistic view of baptism and local church government also rank very high. On the other hand, the doctrine of the church was mentioned by very few and then only in its local aspect. Several men mentioned regenerate membership, but none saw it as related to a covenantal concept of the church, as early Baptists in England and America did. Thus we feel that we can correctly conclude that most Southern Baptists today do not know the importance historically of the covenantal concept of the church, and probably are not even aware of the concept itself. Ignorant of this concept, they do not see its relation to purity and regenerate membership, and therefore they cannot grasp its overall importance, or at least the importance it could have and should have for Baptists today.

To summarize our thinking before beginning another area, we would note the following points stressed in this section:

1. The last serious discussion of the doctrine of the church among Southern Baptists was the Landmark controversy of the last century.

2. The new statement of faith adopted by Southern Baptists in 1963 still overbalanced the local aspect of the church against the universal, though we must admit that it does mention the universal aspect, but seemingly gives it a place of secondary importance.

3. The universal aspect of the church in the 1963 confession does not find its ground in the covenant of grace, nor are the universal and local aspects of the church verbally related in the confession.

4. The individualistic overbalance of the local church over the universal church, for one reason, seems to be the fear of the development of a hierarchical structure, which would allow someone or some group to overlord or violate the freedom of the local body or individual member.

5. The overbalance of the local church over the universal, for another reason, is because many fear it is the first of two steps toward ecumenicism with the second sure to follow.

6. Thus many Southern Baptists fail to see the importance of the doctrine of the church because they are also unfamiliar with Baptist thinking concerning the subject historically, and therefore they are unable to relate it to regenerate membership and church purity.

Notes:

305 Duke K. McCall, Editor, What Is the Church? (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1958), p. VI.
306 William L. Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith (Valley Forge: The Judson Press, 1969), p. 386308
307 Joe T. Odle, Why I Am a Baptist (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1972), pp. 100-104.
308 Ibid., p. 104.
309 Lumpkin, Confessions, pp. 395-396.
310 Samuel. S. Hill, Jr.. Southern Churches in Crises (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1966), p. 73.
311 McCall, What Is the Church?, p. 2.
312 Ibid., pp. 6 and 12.
313 Wendell H. Rone, Sr., Southern Baptists and the Concept of a Catholic (Universal) Church (Paducah, KY: Paducah Printing Company, 1959,), p. 49
314 In the Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1958), Volume II, p. 1214, it is clear the term "soul competency" is used interchangeably with the phrase "priesthood of the believer," as the former phrase has no discussion under it, but rather refers one to the latter for discussion and definition.

An Historical Examination of the Doctrine of the Church Among Baptists With Special Reference to Southern Baptists and Church Purity - Chapter 6

2009-10-19T08:51:00.005-05:00

Landmarkism

(May the reader remember that this was written back in 1973, which means it was at a time when Landmarkism was stronger in the Southern Baptist Convention than it is today. But this is given as part of Baptist history, which cannot be denied.)

The logical outcome, extension, and further development of the doctrine of the church among Baptists, as we have been discussing it, was a movement which came to bear the name of Landmarkism. This viewpoint, as represented in its founder, James R. Graves, sought to deny completely the universal aspect of the church, while at the same time holding to the Calvinistic doctrines of soteriology, which stemmed from the covenant of grace, but without the covenant of grace itself. This is not to say that all Landmarkers were Calvinists, but nevertheless, the movement had a great impact on Baptist thought in many areas for years to come.

Actually the movement developed and spread within the Southern Baptist Convention in the second half of the nineteenth century, as Graves served as editor of the Tennessee Baptist, the state paper of Southern Baptists in Tennessee. As editor of that paper from 1864 to 1893, Graves wielded much influence as a gifted writer and speaker, and even more as an extremely dangerous opponent in debate. Just to read or even browse through his writings convinces one of his keen, organized, systematic, and convincing mind.256

Concerning Graves' captivating power as a speaker, T. T. Eaton said of him:

We have seen him hold a congregation packed uncomfortably for three hours and a half without any sign of weariness on their part. This was not done once or twice, but scores of times.257

It cannot be denied that it was Graves' hope to make his landmark view the doctrinal commitment of the Southern Baptist Convention, even though he failed in this attempt.258 Still his influence during and following the days of his life is widely acknowledged. For one thing, the Tennessee paper he edited served not only as the paper for that state, but it also was at the same time the official organ of Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi Baptists.259 Besides this wide reading through the state paper, he debated, spoke, and carried the battle for his view of the church to the top echelon of the Convention organization.260 The Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists concludes that Graves influenced Southern Baptist life of the nineteenth century in more ways and probably to a larger degree than any other person.261

The same publication states further:

Although many Baptists refused to accept his position, a great number did, making the new Southwest a stronghold of Landmarkism. By 1880 Graves could boast that a majority of denominational papers had endorsed Landmarkism.262

Torbet says the influence of Landmarkism is still felt in the Southern Baptist Convention.263 Steely speaks of the influence of Landmarkism even today when he says, " . . . it is a flourishing force in the convention in the mid-twentieth century, evidenced in currents of thought, patterns of preaching, and organizational principles."264 Hill and Torbet tell us the Landmark doctrine of the church has been extremely influential among Southern Baptists, including many persons who would knowingly reject the view on the whole.265

Before entering into a discussion of the main tenets of Landmarkism, we shall clarify the origin of the name. It stems from two passages of Scripture, namely, Proverbs 22:28 and Job 24:2. The first passage contains a command not to remove the landmarks, while the second passage announces that some have already done so. Graves used these passages to emphasize his burden to reestablish what he felt were the old Biblical landmarks of a true New Testament church. It shall now be our aim to summarize these landmarks, drawing from the writings of Graves and those who followed him.

The Complete Earthly Localization of the Church

We noted in our last chapter the tendency among many Baptists early in the nineteenth century to be so individualistic as to overbalance the local church against the universal church in definite contradiction to their earlier forefathers. The Landmarkers completed the overbalance by denying any universal concept of the church, while completely localizing the church on this earth. The heart of their argument was that the word ecclesia always refers to a local assembly. Graves stated his case as follows:

. . . the only church that is revealed to us is a visible church, and the only church with which we have anything to do, or in connection with which we have any duties to perform, is a visible body. It has specified organization, officers, faith, laws and ordinances, and a living membership, and therefore it must be visible. Christ never set up but one kingdom, was never constituted king of but one kingdom, and His Word recognizes but one kingdom; and if this is visible, He has no invisible kingdom or church, and such a thing has no real existence in heaven or earth. It is an invention employed to bolster up erroneous theories of ecclesiology.266

He says further, " . . . the locality of Christ's church, and therefore kingdom, is this earth; all subjects of His kingdom are here; all the work of His church are here.267 Concerning the Greek word ecclesia, he contends that it had only one possible literal meaning, that of a local congregation or organization.268 He says this word is used one hundred and ten times in the New Testament in a Christian reference, and in one hundred of these references it undoubtedly refers to a local organization.269 If one would wonder about the other ten instances, he says the word in those cases is used figuratively by synecdoche, that is, a part for the whole, the singular for the plural, or one for all. In each of these instances, what is true of all churches is true of any one.270 Others since Graves, who stand in the Landmark tradition, sometimes give a slightly different explanation of these passages, but all of them in some manner bring them to refer to a local assembly.271

The Perpetuity of the Church

From the preceding discussion it is a clear assumption that for Graves, Matthew 16:18 has to refer to a local visible church. That is, when Christ spoke of building His church, promising the gates of hell would not prevail against it, He was speaking of building the local church in Jerusalem, which He founded and organized, and local churches in other places. The next inference drawn by the Landmarkers is what is known as the perpetuity of the church. In other words, because of Christ's promise in Matthew 16:18, local New Testament churches would continue down through history, be preserved and perpetuated in every age, and bearing the same essential characteristics of the first local New Testament church founded by Christ.

Graves states the doctrine as follows:

Landmark Baptists very generally believe that for the Word of the Living God to stand, and for the veracity of Jesus Christ to vindicate itself, the Kingdom which He set up "in the days of John the Baptist," has had an unbroken continuity until now.272

In stating his goal for the book Graves says he wishes to accomplish the following:

To establish the fact in the minds of all, who will give me an impartial hearing, that Baptist Churches are the churches of Christ, and that they alone hold, and have alone held, and preserved the doctrine of the gospel in all ages since the ascension of Christ.273 (Italics added; underlined in the original.)

He further states:

I have not space to devote to the historical argument to prove the continuity of the kingdom of Christ, but assure the reader that, in our opinion, it is irrefragable. All that any candid man could desire---and it is from Catholic and Protestant sources---frankly admitting that churches, substantially like the Baptists of this age have existed, . . . from the earliest age until now; and, indeed, they have been the only religious organizations that have stood since the days of the apostles, . . . 274

If one were to ask what these early Baptists were called, Graves quotes in agreement an author who names the ancient Waldenses, the Cathari, the Paterins and the Donatists as Baptist ancestors.275 Further, let one accuse Graves of holding to apostolic succession, and he clearly denies this accusation.276 Also, his view does not refer to the succession of any particular church or churches.277 Rather, his conviction is that the church had one beginning and from that beginning it spread, flourishing for awhile in one place, than another, and another, while decaying in earlier locations. The point is that the church has always been present on this earth somewhere in local form at all times, and these true local manifestations were Baptist churches, whether related organizationally or not.278 To question these convictions, for Graves, was to doubt the word of Christ and to impeach His veracity.279. Also, these convictions were to him as important as the deity of Christ.280 Furthermore, he claimed the burden of proof about the matter rested not on himself, but on those who denied the doctrine. He was convinced that his understanding was without doubt Scriptural, and that history would verify his claims. But it was not his duty to prove the claim from history, for Scripture took precedence over history. For anyone to deny his claim, they had to prove, " . . by incontestable historical facts, that Christ's kingdom has been broken and removed one year, one day, or one hour from the earth . . . 281 Graves said if anyone could do that he would surrender his position and his Bible.282

Thus we have set forth Graves' claims of the perpetuity of the church---the local church---local Baptist churches, in fact. He claims it to be so on the basis of history, but more so, on the basis of the Bible, especially Matthew 16:18, even if he could not prove it by history. Christ said He would build His church, that is, a local visible organization. He began it, while on earth, promising its continuance, and protection. If local Baptist churches have not continued from the day of Christ, then the Scriptures have been broken. For Graves the breaking of the Scriptures was an impossibility, and therefore, true New Testament churches, or Baptist churches, have been in existence and protected by Christ in every age, though not always known by the name Baptist.

Baptist Churches Then are the Only True Churches

This point has already come out quite clearly in our discussion of perpetuity, but the writer feels the need to stress it separately and more fully, in light of its great importance to Landmark thinking. The contention and conviction is that only Baptist churches are true churches, while all other organizations bearing the name church are human societies with human founders. Baptist churches, on the other hand, are divine organizations, founded by Christ.

We have already quoted Graves concerning this matter.283 A more recent Landmark writer presents the argument by dating the various churches and their founders as follows:284

1. The Roman Catholic Church from Gregory the Great, 590-604

2. The Lutheran Church from Martin Luther abut 1520

3. The Episcopal Church from Henry the VIII on November 23, 1534

4. The Congregationalists from Robert Brown in England in 1580

5. The Methodists from John Wesley in 1740

6. The Christian Church (Church of Christ) from Alexander Campbell in 1827 (Italics added; underlined in the original.)

Mason then summarizes his argument as follows:

We have shown that every sect, denomination, and so-called church, Baptists alone excepted, can be traced to a human founder, and originated long after Christ started His church. Plainly all of these being of post-apostolic origin are eliminated.285

Concerning Baptist churches, he continues:

Baptist churches are unique and clearly distinguished from all others in that no one can truly point to anyone as human founder. Neither can the date be fixed for their beginning this side of Christ.286

Then quoting a Dr. Tull, Mason strongly contends that not only was Christ the founder of Baptist churches and Baptist churches alone, but the Holy Spirit is the administrator of Baptist churches' activities, and with the New Testament as their guide for faith and practice, pure Baptist teaching has survived the tides of time and history from Christ to our present day.287

If one queries what the essential characteristics of a Baptist church are, that is, the standards of judgment one might apply to groups in history to determine if they were Baptist churches or not, not all Landmarkers are agreed. For Graves, the model church includes at least the following:

1. It must be a local, visible, divine organization.288

2. It must demand regeneration before membership.289

3. It must practice baptism by immersion, and that baptism must follow regeneration as a profession of faith.290

4. It must practice the Lord's Supper in a closed manner, and as a memorial of the sacrificial death of Christ for His people.291

Mason gives two essential doctrines that would qualify a church as a Baptist church, namely, regenerate membership and believer's baptism. He acknowledges there are other important doctrines to Baptists, but a church may depart from some of these other points of doctrine and still be a New Testament church, if it holds to his two essentials.292

The writer's assessment of both Graves' and Mason's essentials would be that they are saturated with theological naivety, and they are impossible to apply to some of the groups they claim as Baptists. The naivety consists of a failure to see the depths of the doctrine of regeneration and its dependence on other doctrines, namely the person and work of Christ. Their essentials do not state clearly the way of regeneration or the foundation of regeneration, the person and work of Christ. The writer is positive that without doubt both Graves and Mason would be quite orthodox concerning both regeneration and the person and work of Christ. However, when one begins to look into the groups they circle as Baptist ancestors, their case for perpetuity breaks down completely, as some of these groups prove to be quite heretical in the area of Landmark essentials and the foundational doctrines upon which the essentials rest.

We do not have time nor space at this point to go into the subject in any depth, but for example, the Novations of the third century viewed baptism as a saving ordinance.293 This view surely would disqualify them from Baptist ancestry. The same was true of the Montanists of the second century, excluding them from the Baptist camp.294 The Paulicians of the seventh and eighth centuries, according to Latourette, were dualists, holding that Christ was born of the good God, but derived nothing from Mary's flesh, thus making his birth and death unreal, and his work to be that of a teacher.295 The reader can draw his own conclusions as to what such a view does to the orthodox viewpoint of the person and work of Christ. The writer finds it sad that the anti-historical attitude of some Baptists, which developed in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, baptized some also in an historical ignorance, which opened the way for many to fall prey to the Landmark's twisted view of history and Scriptures. As for Graves himself, he gives evidence of having read some history,296 but he seems to choose ideas which aid his cause, while ignoring facts which would destroy his view.

Other Tenets of Landmarkism

Briefly, before concluding this chapter, we present several other tenets of the Landmark position. First, since Baptist churches are the only true churches, then only they have the divine right and authority to administer the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper.297 Again, only Baptist churches have the authority of ordination, making Baptist preachers the only divinely authorized and ordained ministers of the gospel.298 All others supposed minister are unordained, and thus they are to be excluded from preaching in Baptist churches and pulpits.

The most shocking tenet, probably, is the conviction that only those who have been or are now members of Baptist churches are members of the true New Testament church, the Body of Christ! As Mason plainly states it, "Only baptized believers or Baptists are members of the churches of Christ."299 However, the implications of this statement are not as shocking as they first appear. Landmarkers do not say that all others besides Baptists are lost for eternity, which could be a conclusion from Mason's statement. The explanation is that Landmarkers make a distinction between the family of God, the kingdom of God, and the church of God.300 The family of God consists of the saved of all ages, Baptists and all others. The kingdom of God is composed of the saved from all supposed churches, true or false, including all who are not alive and excluding those who have already died though in the Lord. The church of God, on the other hand, is made up of those who are members of the true New Testament Baptist churches. We hasten to point out that these distinctions between the family of God, the kingdom of God, and the church of God are Mason's, and there might be a strong definite question as to whether Graves would be in agreement, especially in light of his very strong statement we have already noted concerning the church being equal to the kingdom.301 However, it is certain that Graves did not deny true salvation and regeneration to those who were not Baptists, but only their part and presence in Christ's church.

Summary and Conclusions

In summary we state the following as basic tenets of the Landmark doctrine:

1. They insisted that the word ecclesia always refers to a local New Testament assembly, when used in the Christian sense in the Scriptures, and never to any concept of an invisible church, which would be made up of the redeemed of all ages. The word especially does not refer to the saints of the Old Testament era.

2. They held to a concept known as perpetuity, which claims that Baptist churches have existed in every age of history from the New Testament times to our day.

3. They claimed only Baptist churches are the true New Testament churches, and because of this belief they were convinced that only Baptist churches have the right and authority to administer the ordinances and to ordain ministers.

4. They insisted only those who are members of Baptist churches are members of the body of Christ.

In conclusion we stress several points. First, we have presented the Landmark position as a testimony of the truthfulness and accuracy of the arguments that we have presented previously. In earlier chapters we have shown an anti-theological, anti-historical, and anti-confessional attitude developing among Baptists of the late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century. Our point is that Landmarkism could never have arisen had Baptists been strong in these areas of weakness, If these weaknesses didn't breed and produce Landmarkism, it certainly laid them open to its assault, doing nothing to protect them from it.

Second, the Landmark position is further proof of the departure of Baptists from the covenantal concept of the church. The fact that many were entrapped in the Landmark ecclesiology, which completely localized the church, while others further denied any universal or invisible aspect, shows clearly a weakness in Baptist ecclesiology prior to the Landmark invasion. This is not to say the Landmarkers were Arminian, for they were not. Our assessment is that though Baptists in general were anti-theological, anti-historical, and anti-confessional, still a man like Graves, who was sharp and well read, could glean from these areas and disciplines what he wished in a superficial manner, and then convincingly argue and speak, as if he were a scholar who knew the whole. Couple with this his natural abilities to organize thought and to debate, then one can see why his views were co captivating to the uneducated and untrained masses of preachers and laymen.

In one of his books he speaks clearly of the covenant of grace saying, " . . . there never was and is not but one Covenant of grace, and that it was made before the foundations of the earth was laid."302 He acknowledges that the persons of the Trinity were covenanting parties.303 He boldly states again that the Son will save all whom the Father game Him in Covenant, and it is obvious that not all men were given to the Son by the Father.304

Just exactly how Graves put together these statements concerning the covenant of grace and his view of ecclesiology, as we have outlined, is uncertain to the writer and beyond the scope of this paper. It seems highly inconsistent and even impossible to speak of the covenant of grace and then to reject any concept of the universal church, to completely localize the church, to confine it only to the New Testament to the exclusion of the Old Testament saints, or try to blend with it the total ecclesiological structure and pattern developed by Graves. Further research would be required to understand his complete theological system. One thing is certain---Graves was not in agreement with the early English Baptists, the Baptists of the Philadelphia Association and tradition, and most Baptists before him or even after him.

Notes:

256 See especially James R. Graves, Old Landmarkism: What Is It? (Ashland, Kentucky: Calvary Baptist Church Book Store.
257 Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1958), Volume I, p. 576.
258 Ibid., p. 576.
259 Ibid.
260 William Wright Barnes, The Southern Baptist Convention 1845-1953 (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1954), pp. 103-113.
261 Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists, p. 576.
262 Ibid., p. 757.
263 Robert G. Torbet, "Landmarkism," Baptist Concepts of the Church, Edited by Winthrop S. Hudson (Chicago: The Judson Press, 1959), p. 194.
264 John E. Steely, "The Landmark Movement in the Southern Baptist Convention," What Is the Church? Edited by Duke K. McCall (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1958), p. 134.
265 Samuel S. Hill, Jr. and Robert G. Torbet, Baptists North and South (Valley Forge: The Judson Press, 1964), p. 64.
266 Graves, Old Landmarkism, p. 28.
267 Ibid.
268 Ibid., p. 32.
269 Ibid.
270 Ibid.
271 See Roy Mason, The Church That Jesus Built (Tampa: Buffalo Avenue Baptist Church, no date), pp. 26-34, and O. W. Rone, Southern Baptists and the Concept of a Catholic (Universal) Church (Paducah, Kentucky: The Paducah Printing Company, 1959), pp. 1-19, and B. H. Carrol, Ecclesia---The Church (Ashland, Kentucky: The Baptist Examiner, no date), 3-22.
272 Graves, Old Landmarkism, p. 84.
273 Ibid. p. 24.
274 Ibid., p. 81.
275 Ibid., p. 81. Other Landmark writers, such as, J. M. Carroll, The Trail of Blood (Lexington, Kentucky: Ashland Avenue Baptist Church, Copyright 1931) lists as Baptists such groups as: the Montanists, the Novations, the Paterins, the Cathari, the Paulicians, the Arnoldists, the Albigenses, the Henricians, and the Waldenses. (See the chart in the back of the book).
276 Ibid., p. 84.
277 Ibid., p. 79
278 Ibid.
279 Ibid.
280 Ibid.
281 Ibid.
282 Ibid.
283 Supra, p. 115.
284 Mason, Church, pp. 51-56.
285 Ibid, p. 57.
286 Ibid.
287 Ibid. Though Mason quotes Dr. Tull, he does not identify him nor give the reference from which he quotes. This is his practice throughout the book. At the end he does give a list of books he has read or quoted, but never a footnote or any documentation. Such methods do not convince nor indicate careful or reliable scholarship, and certainly raise questions concerning the author's position.
288 Graves, Old Landmarkism, pp. 26-30.
289 Ibid., pp 41-47.
290 Ibid., pp. 48-57.
291 Ibid., pp. 58-72.
292 Mason, Church, pp. 60-85.
293 Robert A. Baker, A Summary of Christian History (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1959), p. 38.
294 Ibid., p. 39.
295 Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christianity (New York, Evanston and London: Harper and Row Publishers, 1953), p. 299.
296 Graves, Old Landmarkism, see chapters 14 thru 17, where he seeks to use history to prove previous Baptists refused to recognize other groups as true churches.
297 Ibid., p. 35.
298 Ibid., p. 164.
299 Mason, Church, p. 41.
300 Ibid., pp. 37-45.
301 Supra.
302 James R. Graves. The Work of Christ in the Covenant of Redemption Developed in Seven Dispensations (Texarkana, Arkansas: Baptist Sunday School Committee, 1883, p. 67.
303 Ibid., p. 80.
304 Ibid., 96.

Reformed Baptists Address the Family-Integrated Church Movement

2009-10-16T13:22:00.014-05:00

Recently there have been some good blog articles written by Reformed Baptists in response to the growing Family-Integrated Church Movement (FICM), and I would like to inform this blog's readers of some of them.

First, I would suggest beginning with the wise counsel of Andy Dunkerton, one of the elders at Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Mebane, North Carolina. He has written an excellent article entitled What Should We Think of the Family-Integrated Church Movement? In it he offers sound advice about the proper attitude and care we should take in evaluating the FICM, along with a solid frame work within which to evaluate such movements. Well done, brother!

Second, I would recommend reading Sam Waldron's article entitled The Relation of Church and Family, in which Dr. Waldron focuses on a primary issue I have often seen in the FICM, the issue of the relationship of the authority of the Church to that of the family. For example, after listing some "praiseworthy features" of the movement, Dr. Waldron warns:

All this being said, there are significant philosophical and practical issues raised by this movement that contradict a biblical ecclesiology and infringe on the rights and authority of the church ....

The church is not a collection of families, but a collection of believers. It is not an extension of the family, but a completely different and sovereign institution. The family was instituted at creation and is a creation institution, while the church in its present and final form was instituted after the work of redemption accomplished by Christ and is a redemptive institution. This means that the head of the household in virtue of his being the head of the household has no authority in the church. His rights and liberties as to church membership and as a church member are no different than those of his 20 year old son who lives at home but is also a member of the church. The family-based church idea makes some sense from a paedobaptist and Presbyterian standpoint. They often have held that only heads of households should vote in the church. They have always held that the membership in the church is family-based and composed of families. But family-based churches are a specific contradiction of a Baptist view of the church and make no sense within a Baptist viewpoint ....

When the church is seen as a distinct and sovereign institution under God, then its right and duty to fulfill the Great Commission in many ways beside the meeting of the church becomes clear. The elders of the church and their appointed delegates have the right to instruct the men, the children, and the women of the church in age-segregated situations. The Great Commission gives the church the right to evangelize and instruct the entire world and so certainly the children and wives of believers. It does not limit this instruction to church services. Only a specific, scriptural prohibition would warrant a man in refusing as a matter of principle to cooperate with the church in such attempts to evangelize and edify all those to whom the church is sent by the Great Commission. No such prohibition exists. In principle the choice to join a church is a choice to subject one’s wife and one’s children to its instruction. This is what church membership means—subjection to the authority of a specific, local church to fulfill its commission with regard to one’s children and one’s wife. In principle refusal to allow this in one’s absence represents a misconception of the nature of the church and her authority.

To sum up the church does not exercise authority over its members through the mediation of heads of household or as families, but as individual believers. Its authority over the women of the church is not exercised, for instance, through the head of the family. Its authority is direct. While children are under the care and authority of the family, parents of children who are members ought to be grateful for and recognize the right of the church to evangelize their children with their consent.

Again, I think Dr. Waldron has identified what I have found to be a primary issue in discussions I have had with FICM advocates in my own ministry, and he has offered a sound, Scriptural response.

Third, I would recommend reading a series of articles at the Reformed Baptist Fellowship Blog written by Jason Webb, who is a graduate of the Reformed Theological Seminary and member of Grace Fellowship Church in Bremen, Indiana. Here are the links:

My Introduction to the Family-Integrated Church Movement

What is the Family-Integrated Church Movement? – Part 1

The Family-Integrated Church Movement – Part 2

In these articles Webb focuses on the nature of the Church and aims his critique at the common and misguided "family of families" understanding of the Church among FICM advocates. He deals primarily with the nature of the Church as a New Covenant community over against an inappropriate application of Old Covenant concepts to the Church by many FICM advocates.

To be fair, one prominent FICM advocate, Voddie Baucham, has sought to distance himself from some of the errors associated with the "family of families" concept, here and here. But he admits that this terminology – terminology which he and his church have helped to promote – is "enigmatic," and I think he fails to see how much the terminology has been taken by many common FICM advocates as descriptive of the nature of the Church. This is why I think Webb's critique is necessary and appropriate, Baucham's protestations notwithstanding.

The Family-Integrated Church Movement – Part 3

Here Webb discusses the use of Biblical metaphors describing the Church (e.g. that of a family) and the need for care in understanding these metaphors. He also offers a good, brief description of the distinctive roles of the Church and the family.

Update 19 October 2009

I have added the fourth article in the series by Jason Webb ("The Family-Integrated Church Movement – Part 3" linked above) and corrected the personal information concerning him. Thanks to Steve Clevenger, pastor at Covenant Reformed Baptist Church, for the correction. (I hope I got his information right!)

Update 21 October 2009

Here is the fifth article in the series by Jason Webb:

The Family-Integrated Church Movement – Part 4

Here Webb offers an historical critique from the standpoint of Puritan theology. He especially highlights the theology of Richard Baxter, John Owen, and the early Particular Baptists.Update 21 October 2009

Update 29 October 2009

Here is the sixth article in the series by Jason Webb:

The Family-Integrated Church Movement – Part 5

Here Webb offers a number of practical considerations, highlighting where those in the FICM have been right but primarily where they have been wrong. He also rights a conclusion to the series, ending with the following sobering words:

The only conclusion that can be drawn from the research is that the Family-Integrated Church Movement needs to rework their ecclesiology. They need to clarify their positions and their priorities in light of Scripture. Their ecclesiology does not bear up to the scrutiny of the Word of God; neither does their elevation of the family as a guiding structure for the Church. Christ is building His Church. The FICM needs to make sure they are not building with wood, hay, and straw.

After having read the entire series by Webb, I highly recommend it as a well-reasoned and Biblical approach. I cannot help but agree with his conclusions.

An Historical Examination of the Doctrine of the Church Among Baptists With Special Reference to Southern Baptists and Church Purity - Chapter 5.2

2009-10-14T10:52:00.004-05:00

Influences and Changes in the the Nineteenth Century
Part Two

Other Influences During the Nineteenth Century

Various Influences

There were other influences, which in the passing of time contributed to the modification of Baptist theology during the nineteenth century. These influences would have to include the Methodist and Free will Baptist movement. It was the Methodist revival movement that in many places rivaled the Baptists and their thrust to evangelize the lost. In some places they even took the reins of revival leadership in the community away from the Baptists. Lumpkin speaks of the decline of the Separate Baptist revival movement in the south in the eighteenth century, listing the causes as the Revolutionary War, the westward migration, enlarged commercialism, and the aggressive revival movement of the Methodists.219 Among other enlightening comments made by Lumpkin is the observation that Methodism had its greatest success during the Revolutionary War in Virginia, where it even wrested the religious leadership from the Baptists in some places, and checked the Baptist growth in other places.220 He adds that a few Baptist leaders were strongly attracted to the Methodist Arminian theology.221

McLoughlin notes a definite defection from the Baptist ranks throughout the last half of the eighteenth century, as dozens of the best preachers and thousands of the members in New England left to follow, not only the Arminianism of Wesley, but also the Shakerism of Ann Lee, the Universalism of Elhanan Winchester, and the Free Will doctrines of Benjamin Randall.222 Hill and Torbet also note this influence, as they point out that the Baptist Calvinism was modified by both the Free Will Baptists and the Methodists, whose theology left more room for human initiative.223

Thus the picture seems to be clear. The Calvinism of the Baptists was under constant and fierce attack in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, first by the revivalism of the Separates, then by the Methodist Arminianism, and then by the Free Will Baptist movement, and finally from Charles G. Finney. Having embraced revivalism and its tendencies after the Great Awakening, and having been suddenly vaulted to great prominence and influence among the people, which was the religious scene in America, Baptists were very interested in keeping their newly acquired religious leadership and their movement growing. As time wore on, the remnants of their Calvinism was strong in some places, though modified. But even that amount of Calvinism was not understandable to some, nor capable of defense before the simple, the uneducated, the common sense man, nor before the rationally educated man. Seeing the revival leadership slipping from them at various places, as others modified their theology to accommodate these molds of thought, Baptists were faced with a decision. They had already opened the door in revivalism to a pragmatic judgment of the ministry. They were startled, as many left Baptist Churches to go elsewhere to more reasonable Arminian thinking. Baptists had to decide whether to hold their Calvinistic convictions or strain their theological framework to accommodate the new mood of the day. Over time, they chose the latter.

In simple language the Baptist stance of Calvinism was steadily and regularly pressured by various forces in the eighteenth century. Some sought to defend the position, while others began to wonder if it was worthy or capable of defense. Some decided, "No," and in doing so, they pressured the faltering and reeling theological framework all the more. With the coming of Finney in the nineteenth century, the final pressure was applied and the remaining framework collapsed. Nearly all Baptists at this point accommodated their position towards Arminianism in theology or in practice and man in both, while still holding to one Calvinistic point, the perseverance of the saints, which in time there remained only half of that point---eternal security (one cannot lose their salvation). But the idea of eternal security without the other half of the doctrine of perseverance, could only produce in time multitudes of false professions and church members who thought they were saved just because they had made a profession of faith. Even today many Baptists valiantly defend the doctrine of eternal security against all opponents, not realizing they are only holding the shell of the true doctrine of perseverance. They emphasize the blessedness of security without the discipline of perseverance. Such promotes loose and licentious living in a church's membership. The point is, true Calvinism among Baptists had been destroyed and with it went the covenantal concept of the church.

The Theology of Francis Wayland

Perhaps some of the characteristics of Baptist thinking in the first half of the nineteenth century could be shown by the consideration of the views of one man, Francis Wayland. This could be dangerous in some cases, we admit, for not always does one man illustrate the whole body, mainly it's trend of thought, especially among Baptists. Yet we shall show how Wayland was in agreement with the ideological trends already mentioned in the eighteenth century, and how he continued them. This proves he was not an isolated thinker, but very much influenced by the thought of his day.

Wayland was born on March 11, 1796, in New York to immigrant parents from England.224 He was converted while a medical student and immediately immersed himself in Christian work, eventually entering the ministry. Before becoming president of Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, he attended Andover Seminary, tutored at Union College, and pastored in Boston. It was in 1827 that he became president of Brown University, and he continued in that position until 1840.225

Surprisingly, Wayland does not hold the consistent views one would expect from a college president or even a trained educated minister. For example, though he wrote and spoke much on theological themes and subjects, he had little confidence in or knowledge of systematic theology. In a letter to his father he naively stated:

I have but little idea of systematic theology. I have, it is certain, paid very little attention to it. I am of the opinion that the Bible is the best book a minister can study.226

Murray says he was even, " . . . averse to anything like closely articulated theological systems.227 His attitude towards church history was no better, He freely admitted again, he " . . . pretends to no learning in ecclesiastical history . . . ."228 Further, he said he " . . . has no leisure for extensive research or indeed any research whatever.229 Hinton states further that for Wayland all appeals to history or antiquity concerning practices were irrelevant and frivolous.230

Latourette speaks of this anti-historical attitude, which was present among many denominations in the nineteenth century, when he notes there was a tendency to ignore the history and developments of Christianity in the old world after the first century.231 Mead comments on this attitude of the nineteenth century saying that the American free church system

. . . had no mind to be bound by the past and little thought that wisdom might be found, even by American churchmen between the first and nineteenth centuries. Hence in a sense the very freedom which they felt and acted upon, a freedom without historical perspective, served many times to bind them to the obvious tendencies of the moment. In all innocence they built into the life of the denominations what time and tide happened to bring to their shores. And each tended to sanctify all the various elements of doctrine and practice that it adopted, under the supposition that it all followed a blueprint revealed in the Word of God.232

Such was the plight of Wayland, as he ignored the help of systematic theology and history. Assuming the Bible was an easy book to understand, interpret and teach, he was convinced his was completely a Biblical theology. But in coming to the Bible with such an attitude, he brought some presuppositions, which a knowledge of systematic theology might have altered. It is no wonder he was led into serious confusion concerning some doctrines.

As an example of the presuppositions he brought to the Bible, we mention his fractured concept of its nature, as he placed the New Testament almost antithetical to the Old. He maintained Baptists had always held that the law of God, or the first covenant, required for salvation a sinless obedience, and without such one could make no claim of salvation.233 In fact, according to Wayland, the two testaments were so antithetical that he found no authority for the New Testament Christian in the Old Testament. He boldly stated, " . . . we profess to take our guide, in all matters of religious belief and practice, the New Testament, the whole New Testament, and nothing but the New Testament.234

It is obvious that such thinking put Wayland out of step with the English Baptists we have discussed and the Philadelphia Confession, especially concerning the covenantal concept of the church. Wayland would rule out the possibility of the church being manifested in the Old Testament era. To him it was strictly a New Testament entity, as was salvation by grace. Maring notes that he did agree in theory with the need to render the church visible coextensive with the church invisible.235 Yet Maring says Wayland made no mention of the church as the people of God; the only relation between the Old and New Testament people of God was that there were pious souls in each period.236 Maring notes further the universal church to him was important, but being invisible, he felt it to be an abstraction, and thus seldom spoke of it.237

In his other areas of doctrine it is obvious that Wayland was not a strong Calvinist or even in agreement with the earlier Baptists, though he claimed emphatically that Baptists held the doctrines of the Reformation.238 Regarding sin, he felt we do not become sinners until capable of moral action.239 Regarding man's freedom, he felt every individual man was free to resist or conform to the tendencies surrounding him, with a man's character being dependent on his free will.240 Yet, on the other hand, he spoke of God electing some to everlasting life, and the work of the Holy Spirit in rendering the Word effectual to the elect.241

Regarding the Individual freedom of each church member, Wayland robbed the church of the right of supporting missions. He said, "No church has any right to obligate any member to give to foreign missions any more than to go upon a foreign mission.242 It is understandable, also, that he denied the need, benefit, or use of a confession of faith.243

Enough has been said, we trust, to show Wayland's theology was confusing and inconsistent. Maring terms his church views as "hopelessly illogical" and "irrational."244 It is also clear that he was extremely practical in his emphasis, and that his practicality colored much of his thinking. The tragedy was that he was an educator and leader in religious thinking. His importance is noted by Maring, when he says that Wayland did not produce a new tradition, but was influential in the future of Baptist thinking. He says Wayland " . . . helped erase from memory many things in the Baptist heritage.245 Our point is this: Wayland exemplifies the logical development of the tendencies among Baptists that we have noted in the eighteenth century. He shows the confusion of one who was so influential upon others. Plus, he previewed the developments of Baptists in his own century.

We summarize the points of Wayland's thinking and our discussion of his thinking as follows:

1. He possessed an emphasis on the practical and experiential, as opposed to true theology, which in turn would lead to the destruction of the value of the theological and the historical.

2. He possessed a naive attitude towards the Scriptures and their interpretation, which included a fragmented and fractured viewpoint, making the Old and the New Testaments antithetical in their importance, authority, and even the plan of salvation.

3. He claimed inconsistently to hold to Reformation theology, speaking of election and efficacious calling, and yet did so inconsistently, without the solid foundation of the covenant of grace.

4. He did speak of the invisible and universal church, yet again without the background of the covenant of grace.

5. He embraced an extreme individualism, which robbed the local church of its authority over the individual in some sense, though he did seek to maintain the importance of discipline. This extreme individualism was also seen in his further modification of some of the key points of Calvinism, as he laid great stress on human freedom and initiative and little on the divine.

The New Hampshire Confession of Faith

Further solid evidence of the changing thoughts of Baptists concerning their doctrine is to be found in the New Hampshire Confession of Faith, which was published in 1833. We boldly see that in comparison to the Philadelphia Confession, it contained fewer articles; it was much more brief in the handling of the doctrines; it was greatly modified in its Calvinism, and it was completely non-covenantal and non-universal in its concept of the church.246 Not even once is the covenant of grace mentioned, nor is the universal and invisible church mentioned. The section concerning the doctrine of the church reads as follows:

That a visible Church of Christ is a congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the Gospel, observing the ordinances of Christ; governed by his laws; and exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by his word; . . . 247

What other authors have to say about the New Hampshire Confession is quite interesting and serves to fortress our contention. McGlothlin states it is:

. . . non-committal on every point of difference between the Calvinistic and Arminian systems. It is brief and very moderately Calvinistic. It emanated from the region where Arminian influences among American Baptists have always been the strongest, and it faithfully reflects the modifying tendency of their presence.248

Goen says the New Hampshire Confession is the culmination of the modification tendencies among Baptists away from their strict Calvinism as found in the Separates.249 Wooley argues it was the rise of the Free Will Baptists in New England under Benjamin Randall, which brought about the Baptist modification of doctrine, and thus a new confession, the New Hampshire Confession. He then calls it a " . . . tactful, moderately Calvinistic document."250 This same viewpoint is expressed in the Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists.251 Hill and Torbet note that the defining of the church with a stress on the local aspect over the universal was a result of the weakening of the Baptists' Calvinistic theology.252 So these writers and writings are all in agreement that the New Hampshire Confession is strong evidence of the change of thought in Baptist doctrines, especially concerning the doctrine of the church.

In the event one would think the New Hampshire Confession was only a local statement indicative of the convictions of Baptists in the state of New Hampshire, such is not the case. Hill and Torbet state that the New Hampshire Confession very rapidly won a wide acceptance and did become a formative influence in Baptist life and thought.253 According to Rone it was the confession included in the following publications:254

a. The Baptist Manual by J. Newton Brown (1853)

b. Church Manual by J. M. Pendleton (1867)

c. The Standard Manual for Baptist Churches by Edward T. Hiscox (1890)

d. New Directory for Baptist Churches (1894)

e. Manual for Baptist Churches by F. M. McConnel (1926)

f. Pastor's Guide by R. H. Boyd (for the National Negro Baptist Convention

g. It became the "Articles of Faith" of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, 1908.

h. It was adopted as "The Southern Baptist Faith and Message" at the Southern Baptist Convention in Memphis, Tennessee in 1925 and was printed and distributed extensively by the Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention.

i. It became the "Articles of Faith" in 1944 of the Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary (a Southern Baptist Seminary in Oakland California).

j. What Baptists Believe by O. C. S. Wallace, a book that was originally published by the Southern Baptist Sunday School Board in 1913. It is an article by article exposition of the New Hampshire Confession.

Summary

We have finished the task of tracing the loss of the covenantal concept of the church among Baptists. It faded and vanished in the continual modification and erosion of the previously held tenets of Calvinism, which were once firmly entrenched in Baptist thinking. The waters which contributed to the erosion, as we have seen, were the waters of revivalism; individualism; anti-historicalism; anti-theologicalism,; Arminianism; Universalism; Wesleyianism; Free Willism; Finneyism; anti-confessionalism; and others. This certainly is not to castigate all of these influences, but it is to note that some of them must be rejected as totally unscriptural, while others were harmful because they were extreme and overbalanced. We must admit even in the overbalance, some of these influences did some good, because there were elements of truth contained. We admit many souls were saved, not because of the error involved, but because of the presence of some truth. Our point is that in the overbalanced seeds were sown, which eventually grew to maturity, harming Baptists deeply in their doctrinal stance.

Perhaps Maring can summarize this chapter for us when he says:

Under the impact of individualism, moralism, and revivalism, the Baptists of the nineteenth century came to see themselves in a new perspective. The strict Calvinism which had characterized the denomination was being dissolved, although this was seldom due to a deliberate rejection of its leading doctrines. By the end of the century, in place of the early connectionalism which had bound Baptists together in associations, a new interpretation of independence was paving the way for a contention that it was both wrong and dangerous to speak of the "interdependence" of the churches. The idea of the holy catholic church tended to drop out of common use, and some people denied that anything but the local church could be found in the New Testament. Forgetful of their relation to English Dissent, some Baptists even began to deny that they were protestants, and earlier adherence to confessional statement gave way to the myth that Baptists have no creed but the New Testament.255

Notes:

219 William L. Lumpkin, Baptist Foundations in the South (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1961, p. 133.
220 Ibid., p. 133.
221 Ibid.
222 McLoughlin, Modern Revivalism, p. 57.
223 Samuel S. Hill, Jr., and Robert G. Torbet, Baptists North and South (Valley Forge: The Judson Press, 1964), p. 26.
224 James O. Murray, Francis Wayland (Cambridge, Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, The Riverside Press, 1891), pp. 1-31. These few biographical notes are from these pages unless otherwise noted.
225 Ibid. pp. 59-114.
226 Norman H. Maring, "The individualism of Francis Wayland," Baptist Concepts of the Church, Edited by Winthrop S. Hudson (Chicago: The Judson Press, 1959), p. 139, from a letter to his father dated March 26, 1821.
227 Murray, Wayland, p. 17.
228 Francis Wayland, The Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches, Edited by John Howard Hinton (London: J. Heaton and Son, 1861), p. 3.
229 Ibid., p. 3.
230 Ibid., p. 63
231 Sydney E. Mead, The Lively Experiment (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1963), p. 108, quoting from Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of the Expansion of Christianity (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1937-1945, 7 Volumes), Volume IV, p. 428.
232 Ibid., pp. 112-113.
233 Hinton, Wayland, p. 4
234 Ibid., p. 63.
235 Norman H. Maring, "The Individualism of Francis Wayland," Baptist Concepts, Edited by Hudson, p. 147, quoting Francis Wayland, Salvation by Christ (Boston: 1859), p. 319.
236 Marking, "The Individualism of Francis Wayland," Baptist Concepts, Edited by Hudson, p. 146.
237 Ibid., p. 146.
238 Hinton, Wayland, P. 4.
239 Maring, "The Individualism of Francis Wayland," Baptist Concepts, Edited by Hudson, p. 141, quoting from Francis Wayland, Salvation by Christ (Boston: 1859), p. 92.
240 Ibid., p. 141 in Hudson and p. 91ff in Wayland.
241 Hinton, Wayland, p. 7.
242 Maring, Individualism," Baptist Concepts, Hudson, p. 152, quoting Francis Wayland, Notes on the Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches (New York: 1857), p. 189.
243 Ibid., p. 150, from Wayland, Principles, p. 14.
244 Maring, "Individualism," Baptist Concepts, Hudson, p. 138.
245 Ibid., 138.
246 In the New Hampshire Confession there are eighteen articles as compared to twenty-four in the Philadelphia. See William L. Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith (Valley Forge: The Judson Press, 1969), pp. 361-367.
247 Ibid., pp. 365-366. Se also W. J. McGlothlin, Baptist Confessions of Faith (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publications Society, 1911), p. 305.
248 McGlothlin, Baptist Confessions, p. 299.
249 C. C. Goen, Revivalism and Separatism in New England 1740-1800 (New Haven: University Press 1962), p. 286.
250 Davis C. Wooley, Baptist Advance, The Achievements of Baptists of North America for a Century and a Half (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1964), p. 13.
251 Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1958), Volume II, p. 308.
252 Hill and Torbet, Baptists North and South, pp. 20-21.
253 Ibid., p. 20.
254 Wendell H. Rone, Sr., Southern Baptists and the Concept of a Catholic (Universal) Church (Paducah, Kentucky: The Paducah Printing Company, 1959), pp. 36-38.
255 Maring, "Individualism," Baptist Concepts, Hudson, p. 136.

An Historical Examination of the Doctrine of the Church Among Baptists With Special Reference to Southern Baptists and Church Purity - Chapter 5.1

2009-10-12T13:51:00.004-05:00

Influences and Changes in the the Nineteenth Century

Part One
The Influence of Charles G. Finney

Introduction

It is not our purpose to give a point by point or year by year history of Baptists in America. There are many items of interest we would like to mention, but the scope of this paper restricts us to those matters which relate to the doctrine of the church and its relation to purity. Therefore, we leave the eighteenth century and the influences we have noted and turn to the nineteenth century. We shall show that the trends already mentioned continued until the covenantal concept of the church was fully lost in Baptist thinking.

It is somewhat with fear and trembling that the writer continues this chapter to speak further about the history and development of "revivals." He realizes, as McLoughlin observes, that there are generally two attitudes or extremes regarding revivals in American history.192 There are, first of all, those who would create a false stereotype or straw-man, exaggerating the abuses and extremes in order that the method of revival might be easily discredited. On the other extreme, there are those who eulogize the revivals of the past, portraying them as the most epic events in American history, free of any excess or errors. This second view would consider it heresy and the lack of Biblical orthodoxy and even to be unevangelistic and not love the souls of men, if one were to seek to point out any such excesses or errors, or attempt to picture and understand the revivals in their reality. To seek to be honest and realistic about any of the errors of the revivalistic atmosphere of our day is for some tantamount to being an enemy of God and the souls of men.

The writer would long to communicate the truth that even such meetings which seek to reach men for Christ, many times, as good as they appear, and as much as some think they have accomplished, like other good things can be counterfeited or even contain a mixture of the good and bad, purity and impurity, the real and the spurious in various percentages up and down the scale of right and wrong, even though they accomplish some good.193 After pointing this fact out clearly, but not in your writer's words, Sprague adds saying:

It becomes therefore a matter of great importance that we discriminate accurately between the precious and the vile; that we do not mistake a gust of animal passion for the awakening or converting operations of God's Holy Spirit.194

Sweazey also makes an interesting observation in this area of thought, when he says every evangelistic method could do great harm, and may be easily discredited by calling attention to its abuse or misuse at some point of revival history. Then he adds that any evangelistic method should be taught to a church as a boy is taught to use a gun, with the first lessons on its safe handling.195 We would add so that the boy does not shoot himself or someone else. Or so that the gun does not blow up in the boy's own face, as do so many "methods" of our day---methods which leave the church with "joiners" and "new members," but not with true converts.

The writer's point is that he is not against evangelism, but that a love for these areas of ministry cannot allow one to ignore blindly the abuses and misuses we have encountered and seen in these areas in our churches and their results. Surely we must with great spiritual perception seek to determine the true methods from the false, the right from the wrong, the real from the spurious, as far as methods, speakers, sermons, decisions, and even a foundational theology to the whole subject of revivals and evangelism. May we never align ourselves with either side of the extreme critics, whether they be the hard critics, who have little real concern for the souls of men, or the non-critics, who blindly think all is well and proper, which goes under the name of revival and evangelism, as long as it gets numbers and decisions and new church members. May we all keep these facts in mind, as we now turn to speak critically and also analytically of the revival movement of the nineteenth century.

The Revival Methods of Charles G. Finney

We do not divide these remarks on the history of revival into the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to give the impression that the Great Awakening of the former century was unrelated to the Second Awakening of the latter century. Such is not the case and we state it clearly, as not to lead the reader to misunderstanding. Yet, though there is a relation, several writers have noted the marked differences between the two awakenings. Hudson says the first awakening under Edwards was regarded as the outpouring of God's Spirit as the by-product of the true and faithful preaching of God's Word.196 He continues to note men waited on God for revivals as one waits for rain, without any thought of instruments to produce them. In the second awakening men began to seek to produce revivals by the use of means. He says revivals had been an end in themselves at first, but with the second era in the nineteenth century they became a way to other ends.196 He says in another text, speaking on the same subject, that in the Second Awakening a revival was something which one sought for tangible results.197

Of course, the key figure in this second period of revival was Charles G. Finney. We would not leave the impression that he was the one who brought the whole change, for we have just shown in the last chapter changes which were taking place in the eighteenth century. But it cannot be denied that Finney, building on the modifications in theology and methods, which we have already noted, further transformed both theology and methods in his evangelizing in the nineteenth century. Sweet lists some of his new methods as: praying for people by name in public meetings; the permitting of women to pray in public and with men; and questionable and undignified means of advertising.198 McLoughlin adds to this list the practice of going to towns uninvited by the local pastor, the attacking of ministers who were not in sympathy with revivals in the attempt to break down their resistance or just to skin them publicly; the practice of praying in an overfamiliar way with God; and the introduction of a spirit of disorganization into the churches.199 Yet, just the listing of these new methods alone does not tell the story of Finney's reconstruction of revival. Some of these so-called new methods have become commonplace in our churches, and furthermore, they tell us nothing of the deeper theology which Finney represented. So it will be necessary for us to look at Finney in a greater dimension.

Hudson points out that Finney was bred a lawyer and felt as a preacher he was arguing the case of Christ before his hearers, therefore, he used the tactics of a trial lawyer.200 Thus he was concerned there was a necessity of a call for an immediate decision. The case had to be won and it had to be won now. The result was Finney's method of invitation. That which was probably objectionable to his critics was not just the invitation alone, but as Southard notes, this call for immediate decision created an artificial pressure and unstable emotions which produced conversions which did not last201 This is not to say that Finney was the first man to use the method of invitation, but under him it became quite pressurized. What he actually did was to take the tactics of the frontier revivals and camp meetings and sold them to the city churches and people.202

Mills stresses what Finney did was to remove revivals from the realm of the miraculous and placed them in the context of cause and effect.203 Apply the right methods and one will be assured of success, that is, numbers and decisions. Note this ideology uses as its standard of success the ruler of numbers and outward visible results. Realize also that this thinking opens the door again to pragmatism, that is, the idea that whatever gets results must be of God, or at least must be strongly considered to be of Him. Mills points out again that such a viewpoint cannot possibly leave room for man to be blessed in failure, but God is present and blessing only when there are numbers and results.204

McLoughlin notes Finney's own statements in this matter of pragmatic judgment of methods. He quotes Finney several times and among these statements are the following:

When the blessing evidently follows the introduction of the measure itself, the proof is unanswerable that the measure is wise.
Success in terms of the numbers of converts is a safe criterion.
Show me the fruits of your ministry and if they so far exceed mine as to give me evidence that you have found a more excellent way, I will adopt your views.
. . . all ministers should be revival ministers and all preaching should be revival preaching.205

McLoughlin draws the implication from this that Finney is saying preaching was good if it won souls and bad if it did not.206 He states further that those who followed Finney in years to come found his justification for the new methods to be this pragmatic standard of results.207

This attitude of Finney's verifies that his understanding of revival was extremely man-centered. Revival becomes almost completely human endeavor and God's grace, purpose, and will is subservient to and dependent upon man's works. When man does the right thing, employs they proper method, then numbers, decisions, and converts are assured. This effort of man brings the presence of God in statistics and visible results. On the other hand, if there are no numbers and decisions, then God is not present and man is not using the proper means. There seems no possibility of God's presence in an hour when visible results are absent. God wants to and must give results. If He does not, it is man's fault. Man can either bring God's will to pass or thwart it. In fact, man can even manipulate the will of God. But if one assumes that decisions and numbers are the result of his using the proper method, then in time when he reaps no results from his methods, he may well consider illegitimate methods just for the sake of obtaining results. The end of the use of such methods will be false fruit, which we may convince ourselves is the fruit of the Holy Spirit, but which in time will fade and fail to give the full evidence of true regeneration.

We have been dealing so far mostly with the methods and externals of Finney's work. Every method has a theology behind it, and Finney's were no different. We have hinted at a weak theology in the last paragraph, but now must speak specifically about his theological stance. It is only as we understand Finney's theology, as compared to the earlier thinking of the Great Awakening, that we can understand more fully his methods and pragmatic judgment of the ministry.

McLoughlin reports that when Finney was ordained he acknowledged agreement with the Westminster Confession, though he admitted later that he had not read it. When he finally did get around to reading it, he rebelled against it.208 Instead, with typical American reliance upon piety and rationalism, he approached the Bible with a strong common sense attitude, feeling he could explain all the mysteries of God, and that it was necessary to do so.209 McLoughlin quotes him as saying to the effect that our reason was given to us for the definite purpose of enabling us to justify the ways of God to man.210 It is understandable then why Finney attacked and rejected the Westminster Confession with its strong Calvinistic stance.

McLoughlin notes again, it was this common sense approach, which was so popular with people who thought in a common sense manner and not in a theological framework, that completed the reconstruction of the theology of America from Calvinism to evangelicalism, or even to outright Arminianism.211 He calls it an "Arminianized Calvinism," saying this thinking replaced the Old Calvinistic system, as Finney knocked the last props from under it.212 He states this cutting of the ground from under Calvinism by Finney was intentional, as he wished to start a new movement within the Presbyterian denomination.213 We must admit that this was quite successful, influencing not only the Presbyterians, but many other groups. McLoughlin says that by 1840 Finney's views were held by ministers of almost every non-liturgical denomination with the exception of the Old School Presbyterians, a few Hopkinsians, and the hard-shelled Baptists.214 By 1870, however, even in the Presbyterian church, the Old School had wilted and joined hands with the New School.215

Speaking of Finney's influence on Baptists, McLoughlin notes Baptist revivalists such as Jacob Knapp and Jabez Swan brought the Finney theology and methods into Baptist churches after 1830 only to have to fight the same battle Finney engendered among the Presbyterians. He further acknowledges, however, the Calvinism remaining among Baptists was overthrown in this period, showing that the new theology and methods were more pleasing to the Baptists in general than to the Presbyterians.216

It is the writer's contention that the changes we noted in the last chapter in the eighteenth century prepared the way for Finney, Swan, and Knapp and the completion of the renovation of Baptist theology. When these men succeeded in the demise of Calvinism among Baptists, they were also contributing to the defeat of the covenantal concept of the church, whatever, if any, remnants of it may have remained in Baptist thinking.

To summarize Finney, we have to say he was too much a man of his time and not enough a man of the Word. The pietistic spirit; the rationalistic spirit; the optimistic spirit; the independent spirit; the democratic spirit; and the individualistic spirit of his day---all seemed to combine into one moving and powerful spirit of influence in Finney's life and thought. Because of this he felt man was perfectible and that the millennium was coming. But the old theology of Calvinism stood in the way, and therefore it had to go. Its replacement had to be a mold of thought that was in tune and in step with the spirit of his time. In the process of reconstructing his common sense theology, he also spread new views and methods of evangelism. The theology and methods centered on man and his greatest good and not God and His greatest glory.217

McLoughlin adds that these new methods and new theologies were seen as the way of effecting the new nation's Christian liberty just as quickly as had been effected its political liberty. This was to be the final development in the rising America, which would soon by the power of godly persuasion bring in the millennium.218

An Added Note from the Author

Since writing this material thirty-five plus years ago, the author has read all of Finney's writings (theology books, memoirs, revival lectures, etc.), and he has included in his theological novel series, the journey books, A Journey in Heresy, whereby he further exposes Finney's heretical theology. See also the series on Finney's theology, which appears on this blog, for further understanding of the depth of Finney's false teaching.

Notes

192 William G. McLoughlin, Modern Revivalism: Charles Grandison Finney to Billy Graham (New York: The Ronald Press, 1959), p. v.
193 William B. Sprague, Lectures on Revivals of Religion London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1959), p. 13.
194 Ibid., p. 13.
195 George E. Sweazey, Effective Evangelism: The Greatest Work in the World (New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1953), p. 23.
196 Winthrop S. Hudson, Religion in America New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1965), p. 136.
196 Ibid.
197 Winthrop S. Hudson, The Great Tradition of the American Churches (New York and Evanston: Harper and Row, 1953), p. 69.
198 William Warren Sweet, Revivalism in America, Its Origin, Growth and Decline (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1945), pp. 135-136.
199 McLoughlin, Modern Revivalism, p. 34.
200 Hudson, Religion in America, p. 143.
201 Samuel Southard, Pastoral Evangelism (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1962), p. 13.
202 McLoughlin, Modern Revivalism, pp. 12-13 and 124.
203 Liston O. Mills, "The Church Revival: Con," Review and Expositor, Volume LXIII (Winter 1966), p. 53.
204 Ibid., pp. 53-54.
205 McLoughlin, Modern Revivalism, p. 100 quoting C. G. Finney, Memoirs, p. 83 and C. G. Finney, Lectures on Revival, p. 175, 178 and 167.
206 Ibid., p. 88.
207 Ibid., pp. 99-100.
208 Ibid., p. 23.
209 Ibid., p. 24.
210 Ibid.
211 Ibid., p. 9.
212 Ibid., pp. 12-13.
213 Ibid., p. 41.
214 Ibid., pp. 65-66.
215 Ibid., p. 65.
216 Ibid., p. 136.
217 Ibid., p. 102.
218 Ibid., p. 121.

Welcoming a New Reformed Baptist Church to Central Illinois

2009-10-09T14:10:00.001-05:00

As the pastor of Immanuel Baptist Church in Bloomington, Illinois, which has been the only Reformed Baptist church in our part of central Illinois, I was very excited (to say the least) to discover that a new Reformed Baptist church has been planted in Germantown Hills (just east of Peoria), which is only about 40 minutes away.

This new church is called Christ Bible Church, and the pastor is Kerry Miller. Here is a description of the church from the website:

Christ Bible Church was founded on June 2, 2008 as an organized church of Jesus Christ in the State of Illinois, city of Germantown Hills.

On May 18, 2008 Pastor Kerry and about 17 members and regular attendees of a local church he pastored, broke fellowship with them when it became obvious the church rejected the Word of God as plainly taught by Jesus Christ, the Apostles and the reformers, choosing rather to hold to their traditions.

With much Joy in the Lord and in answer to prayer we met later that evening and by God's grace, began to lay the foundations for Christ Bible Church.

Currently, (October 2009) we are approximately 17 in number and growing. We are looking for a new location to worship and hope to be in a new location by the beginning of 2010.

Christ Bible Church in an Independent REFORMED Baptist Church which affirms and proclaims the doctrines of Grace and the 5 Solas of the Reformation.

We are unashamedly Calvinist in our Theology and believe the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith best articulates the teachings of the Holy Scriptures.

Our musical worship is a mix of traditional and contemporary and our preaching is expositional through books of the Bible, one book at a time for both Sunday School and Morning worship.

Our weekday evening worship service is either teaching through a book of the Bible or other teaching series. Currently, we are learning the overview of the Bible through RC Sproul's DVD Series "Dust to Glory." This will be followed by RC's teaching of Reformed Systematic Theology through his "Foundations" DVD Series.

Our atmosphere is informal and relaxed and we hold to the regulative principle of worship.

We stand against the Biblical errors of:

Arminianism

Purpose drive life

Seeker sensitive church growth

Prosperity gospel

Emergent Church

If you are looking for a strong, Bible-believing church in the Peoria area, a church that is faithful to the Gospel, check out Christ Bible Church!

An Historical Examination of the Doctrine of the Church Among Baptists With Special Reference to Southern Baptists and Church Purity - Chapter 4.4

2009-10-07T00:52:00.004-05:00

Influences and Changes in the Baptist Doctrine of the Church
in the Eighteenth Century

Part Four
The Influence of the Separates on New England

Having noted the Separate influence on Baptists, with particular reference to the south, we now turn to illustrate the same pattern of thought existing in New England. We shall use as our illustration two Baptist leaders of that era, namely Isaac Backus (1724-1806) and John Leland (1754-1841). We present these two men as typical of Baptists in the New England area, and Backus also as an illustration of the struggle of a soul from salvation to separatism to Separate Baptist. One can expect some points of repetition and similarity with the preceding section of the paper, but this will surely emphasize the Separate viewpoint and its influence on Baptist thought. We begin with a biographical sketch of each man.

Isaac Backus

Isaac Backus was born in Connecticut on January 9, 1724.165 Converted in 1741 during the Great Awakening, he joined the Congregational Church in Norwich, Connecticut, in 1742.166 In 1745 thirty persons, including Backus, split from this church and formed a Separate church over the use of the Lord's Supper as a means of evangelizing the unconverted members. In the newly formed church only the regenerate were admitted to the membership, and the Lord's Supper was restricted to these members, and strict discipline was administered.

In 1748 Backus became pastor of a Separate church at Middleboro and began to struggle with the possibility of becoming a Baptist. At one point he did take a stand for Baptist principles, especially believer's baptism, but then retracted that stand very shortly thereafter. Then began an extended period of agonizing of soul, coupled with careful and laborious study, a period that extended about two years. Goen summarizes this study and its results as follows:

After months of painstaking examination of every Biblical passage bearing on the covenants and of every argument advanced to justify the baptizing of infants, Backus communicated to the church his conviction that there was no Scriptural warrant for that practice.167

Thus on July 26, 1751, Backus was immersed, but it was not until 1756 that he and a half dozen others withdrew to form a Baptist church.168 Backus went on to write, defend, and preach Baptist principles until his death on November 20, 1806.169 McLoughlin says concerning him that " . . . the twentieth century admires Backus chiefly for his defense of religious liberty . . . "170 His importance is also noted by Sweet, as he informs us that the whole story of New England Baptists in the Revolution centered around Isaac Backus.171

John Leland

John Leland was born at Grafton, Massachusetts, on May 14, 1754. He was converted and baptized into a Baptist church in 1774, and immediately began to preach. After his marriage on September 30, 1776, he migrated to Virginia.172 Leland is best known for convincing his fellow Virginian, James Madison, of the need for Congress to adopt a bill of rights to guarantee religious freedom. So, though the eventual Bill of Rights was presented by Madison, they bear the strong influence of John Leland.173 Leland's life did extend into the nineteenth century, as he lived until January 14, 1841.174

The point that we seek to make in presenting this biographical material is that Backus and Leland were not just unknown Baptist preachers of their day. Rather, both were highly influential in their denominations and in the politics of the nation. We now turn to something of their religious thinking, as leaders among the Separate Baptists. We shall find their thought quite similar to the Separate groups that we have already discussed, and also to one another.

a. Both Backus and Leland were strongly pietistic with the doctrinal

aspect of Christianity secondary.

Backus readily admitted that he had known much of his theology experientially before he knew it doctrinally, and that only later did he examine the Scriptures to discover the proof of what he already believed.175 Therefore, it is clear that his dependence on divine revelation took a back seat to his own experiential illumination by the Holy Spirit, whereby he sought to perceive the truth. Leland was convinced theoretic principles were of little value unless they had some effect on men's lives. Furthermore, he was positive that " . . . the disposition of the heart will prevail over the system of the head."176

Torbet notes concerning Backus and Leland:

They typified the Separate or revivalistic Baptists' stress upon the religion of the heart and the immediacy of the Holy Spirit in personal experience and in the life of the congregation. The emphasis on personal experience led to a disregard for theological understanding.177

b. Both Backus and Leland were extremely individualistic in their thinking

in regards to the doctrine of the church.

Torbet again helps us here noting that Baptists, though they had grown and expanded rapidly through the repeated waves of revivals which swept over them in this early period of American history, had also suffered from these revivals in that they disrupted the older patterns and thinking about the church.178 He states they were being pressed into an individualism, which weakened the early connections Baptists had known in their associations, and the idea of the universal church began to fade in favor of a local church view. He says this thinking was evident to an extent in the position of Backus, but even more so in that of John Leland. But worse than ever, they then accepted this distorted viewpoint as traditional, even though it was in sharp contrast to the Philadelphia Confession.179

c. Both Backus and Leland were strongly opposed to confessions of faith.

Gaustad notes concerning Leland, "Even a creed, Leland feared, could come between the sinner and his Redeemer. Clearly it dulled the edges of individuality."180 Gaustad then quotes Leland as stating that often confessions of faith hindered the pursuit after truth, confining one's mind to a certain mold of thinking.181

The writer would raise the point here, that if as Leland feared, confessions dulled the edges of individuality, then also the lack of a confession or statement of faith would sharpen the edge of individuality, which could prove to be dangerous in a pietistic and experiential setting. Thus the individualism of these men may very well have militated against confessions, and there was the possibility that because they were ignorant of the confessions, they may have drifted further into individualism. Thus it was a vicious circle. Torbet speaking of Baptists of this era states the problem in this manner:

Thus many Baptists were in danger of a similarly exaggerated individualism at a time of rapid expansion because they were disregarding or rejecting the restraining influence of authoritative confessions and statements of church order which their forbears had relied upon to maintain a balance between freedom and authority. 182

The point we are stressing in this section, as in the preceding section, is that here through the Separates and Separate Baptists there came to bear influences and thought patterns widely divergent from those of their Baptist forefathers. Here in New England, as in the south, was an emphasis which minimized the importance of doctrinal depth, questioned and denied the helpfulness of confessions, magnified the pietistic element of the Christian life, elevated the individual to the overbalancing of the universal and connectional aspect of the doctrine of the church, and planted seeds which would grow wildly for years to come. Certainly, this false or wrong emphasis bears upon the subject of this paper, for when doctrine is minimized, confessions ignored, the pietistic and experiential exalted, then the individual will be elevated, then the universal aspect of the church will be neglected, and the covenantal concept of the church will crumble, as it did under the Separates.

This is not to say that Baptists had totally fled their Calvinistic heritage at this point of history. In one source the writer found a clear article by Backus in the defense of the various points of Calvinism. One was written in 1773 and was titled, "The Sovereign Decrees of God,"183 and another was titled, "The Doctrine of Particular Election and Final Perseverance Explained and Vindicated."184 McLoughlin speaks of Backus' Calvinism and also its modification, when he says Backus:

. . . devoted a large part of his life to a futile attempt to defend the dying doctrines of Calvinism. Unlike Edwards, he nevertheless spoke with the accents of the new America that was being born in the latter half of the eighteenth century.185

It would be the judgment of this writer that when Backus made his extended and prolonged study of infant baptism and the covenants of the Scriptures, that he concluded, unlike his Baptist forefathers, that covenant theology and infant baptism stood or fell as a unit. So when he rejected infant baptism, he also rejected covenant theology and a covenantal concept of the church. The basis for such a conclusion is another article titled, "A Short Description of the Differences between the Bond-woman and the Free."186 In this article he seems to place the Old Testament and the New Testament in an antithetical relationship to one another. He sees God's covenant with Abraham as just a national covenant in which God agreed to save Abraham and his descendants, if they would obey the law. But the Jews failed to live up to the covenant, were blinded to the Messiah, so God established a new covenant between Himself and those who would accept Christ as their Saviour. In this explanation there is not a word about the everlasting covenant nor the relation of the Abrahamic covenant to it. The covenant of salvation by grace through Christ is strictly a New Covenant, according to Backus, replacing the Old Testament covenant of works. Thus there is not only an antithesis between the testaments, but also between their views of salvation. This could in no way lead to nor coincide with a covenantal concept of the church. Backus could not and did not, therefore, hold such a concept of the church, as we saw in the English Baptists and the Philadelphia Confession.

Concerning the theological stance of Leland, Armitage says of him:

He was a Calvinist, but would not be bound by the methods of Gill; neither did Wesley or Andrew Fuller suit him; and for practical purposes he thought that two grains of Arminian with three of Calvinism made a good proportion in preaching.187

Goen quotes Leland in this regard as follows:

I conclude that the eternal purposes of God and the freedom of the human soul are both truth; and it is a matter of fact, that the preaching that has been most blessed of God, and most profitable to man, is the doctrine of sovereign grace in the salvation of souls, mixed with a little of what is called Arminianism.188

Note the highly pragmatic standard of judging preaching and its success. Goen says of this statement, "This is virtually to say that whatever makes for good preaching is ipso facto right doctrine."189 He notes also these sentiments became quite typical of Baptists in that whole section of New England.

Summary

We have spent considerable time speaking of the events and influences relating to Baptists in the eighteenth century. We have seen how as a small denomination they were uninvolved in the Great Awakening at its inception. We have seen how the events of the Awakening forced the withdrawal of the Separates from the established denominations. We have traced their struggles over the matter of purity, and noted their conclusion that a regenerate membership was a necessity. We have seen how that conviction led them to the rejection of infant baptism, which in turn drove them towards the Baptists.

We have seen their entrance into the Baptist churches. We have noted how their viewpoint influenced and swayed Baptists towards revivalism and the Separate views of doctrine. We have stressed what this emphasis did to the Calvinism of the Baptists, modifying their theology even to the rejection of covenant theology and a covenantal view of the church, while still holding on to the outer shell of election and predestination. We have seen how their strong individualism divorced them from the historical confessions of their Baptist forefathers. Thus we contend that as all of these elements came together, they brought the erosion of the covenantal concept of the church, and the overbalance of the local church against the universal or invisible church. Certainly not all of these above mentioned changes took place in every place in one day's time. Our point is that the eighteenth century saw the seeds of change sown, and some of the changes were beginning to develop. The continuing growth of these seeds will be the subject of our next chapter.

May the reader not assume that the writer is critical of every aspect of Separate Baptists. He has only sought to point out their errors and abuses at certain points, which were in the passing of time, even decades, to threaten basic Baptist principles and doctrines, especially the doctrine of the church. One of their strong points worthy of commendation was their clear perception of the need for purity and a regenerate membership. Backus stated emphatically that only the regenerate should be members of the local church.190 He further contested that the door of the local church should be carefully guarded against all who cannot give Scriptural evidence of their salvation and union to Christ.191 It is the writer's contention that a desire for and an ability to uphold discipline would also in time slip without a covenant concept of the church as its foundation, as we shall see in the following chapters.

Notes:

165 Thomas Armitage, A History of the Baptists (New York: Bryan, Taylor and Company, 1887), p. 778.
166 G. Hugh Wamble, "Baptists in America before 1814," Baptist Advance, Edited by Davis C. Wooley, p. 19.
167 Goen, Revivalism, pp. 218-219.
168 Wooley, Baptist Advance, p. 19.
169 Armitage, Baptists, p. 778.
170 McLoughlin, Backus Pamphlets, p. 52.
171 W. W. Sweet, Religion in the Development of American Culture 1765-1840 (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1952), p. 34. For a good biography of Isaac Backus, we suggest William G. McLaughlin, Isaac Backus and the American Pietistic Tradition (Boston: Little, Brown and Company 1967). For an interesting and highly informative account of his part in our early national history, as he fought to procure religious freedom, see O. K. and Marjorie Armstrong, The Indomitable Baptists (Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, 1967), Chapter VII. Also for general biographical material see David Benedict, A General History of the Baptist Denomination in America (Boston: Maning and Loring, 1813), Volume II.
172 L. F. Green, Editor, The Writings of John Leland (New York Arno Press and the New York Times, 1969), pp. 9-40.
173 Armstrong, The Indomitable Baptists, pp. 1-16.
174 Armitage, Baptists, p. 787.
175 McLoughlin, Backus Pamphlets, p. 28.
176 E. S. Gaustad, "The Backus-Leland Tradition," Baptist Concepts of the Church, Edited by Witnthrop S. Hudson (Chicago: The Judson Press, 1959), p. 108, quoting from The Writings of John Leland, Edited by L. F. Green (New York: 1845), p.111.
177 Torbet, Baptists, p. 255.
178 Ibid, p. 255.
179 Ibid., pp. 255-256.
180 Gaustad, "The Backus-Leland Tradition," Baptist Concepts, Edited by Hudson, p. 111.
181 Ibid., p. 112, quoting The Writings of John Leland, Edited by L. F. Green (New York: 1845), p. 114.
182 Torbet, History, pp. 255-256.
183 McLoughlin, Isaac Backus Pamphlets, pp. 289-302.
184 Ibid., pp. 447-471.
185 Ibid., p. 16.
186 Ibid., p. 34f.
187 Armitage, History, p. 788.
188 Goen, Revivalism, p. 285, quoting from "Letters of Valediction on Leaving Virginia, in 1791," The Writings of John Leland, p. 172.
189 Goen, Revivalism, p. 285.
190 E. S. Gaustad, "The Backus-Leland Tradition," Baptist Concepts of the Church, Edited by Winthrop S. Hudson, pp. 121-122, quoting Isaac Backus, A History of New England With Particular References to the Denomination of Christians Called Baptists (Newton, Massachusetts: 1871), p. 232.
191 Ibid., pp. 121-122, quoting from Alvah Hovey, A Memoir of the Life and Times of Reverent Isaac Backus (Boston: 1859), p. 336.

An Historical Examination of the Doctrine of the Church Among Baptists With Special Reference to Southern Baptists and Church Purity - Chapter 4.3

2009-10-05T11:15:00.003-05:00

Influences and Changes in the Baptist Doctrine of the Church
in the Eighteenth Century

Part Three
The Influence of the Separates on Baptists in the South

The point we have been moving toward in this discussion of the Great Awakening and its results is that Baptist churches were suddenly and quickly invaded by an influence and pattern of thought which was at key points different from and unfamiliar to their English and American Baptist forefathers. We have already noted some of the characteristics of the Separates, but feel a necessity to speak further of their thinking and influence on Baptists. We speak now of the similarities between the Separates and the group known as Separate Baptists in the south. We shall document later how these Separate Baptists exercised a great influence on all of Baptist thinking in America, especially Southern Baptists. Note the following similarities between the Separates and the Separate Baptists.

a. Both groups were modified Calvinists and somewhat anti or non-theological.

We have already shown how the Separates placed great emphasis on experience, even sometimes overriding the importance of doctrine. Lumpkin says concerning the Separate Baptists, "They had neither aptitude nor inclination to be heavily theological. The subtleties of speculative thought held no attention for them.139 He notes later they had a weak theology, whose vagueness ultimately proved detrimental.140 He again tells us that they held to an evangelical Calvinism, but they would not countenance a rigid hyper-Calvinism such as that of the Philadelphia thought.141 So we see that the Separate Baptists were not systematic theologians, and they held to a simple theology of modified Calvinism. Concerning the doctrine of predestination, limited atonement and election, Lumpkin states that they either rejected these doctrines or said little about them.142 Goen states definitely that the Separates put them stamp on the life of Baptists in the south, especially by helping to modify the rigid Calvinism of the Philadelphia Confession, so as to leave way for their intense revivalism.143 Wamble attributes to these Separate Baptists a theology which focused on conversion.144

Some have felt that it was the Separates who saved Baptists from Arminian viewpoints. Gaustad relates one of the effects of the Separates was to give the major portion of the Baptists a Calvinistic emphasis, which altered its nature and future history in America.145 That no doubt was true in some instances, where Separates encountered General Baptists. But on the whole, they also definitely modified the Calvinism in the Particular and Regular Baptist churches in time. Smith tells of an instance where the General Baptists in North Carolina in 1750 were transformed into Particular Baptists by a Robert Williams from South Carolina and messengers from the Philadelphia Association. But he notes further that they were saved from this particular view of the atonement and extreme strict Calvinism by the coming of the Separate Baptists.146 This is exactly our point, namely, that the Separates and the Separate Baptists were modified Calvinists, because the former in a large degree influenced the latter.

b. Both groups depended heavily upon revival, mass evangelism, and a pietistic approach.

This certainly is not to castigate entirely the use of revivals, mass evangelism, or even a pietistic element in preaching and witnessing. It is to say that these techniques have their dangers, which must be carefully avoided, just as surely as the total denial of evangelism is to be shunned. Lumpkin admits there was among the Separate Baptists too great a dependence on mass evangelism and excessive emotional appeal, using almost exclusively a mass psychology to bring about a decision. He notes further that the result of this appeal to the emotions, even making this an end in itself, was dulling and obscuring of the intellectual content of the message itself.147

Goen tells us it was the Separates who bequeathed the Baptists this revivalistic tradition with their chief aim to prepare individuals for eternity, while every other concern was subjected to this evangelistic imperative.148 He adds, furthermore, that this revivalistic tradition and evangelistic zeal among Baptists came to prevail by the direct influence of the Separates.149

Lumpkin notes that a Morgan Edwards was correct, when he stated in 1772 that the North Carolina Separate Baptist preachers did resemble the Separates of New England. As Lumpkin quotes another writer, the similarity is said to be

. . . in tones of voice and actions of the body; and the people crying out under
the ministry, falling down as in fits, and awaking in extacies; and both
ministers and people resemble those regarding impulses, visions, and
revelations.150

Smith informs us that the Separate Baptists with their revival zeal had some distinctive manner and practices in their preaching. Those characteristics he mentions are animated gesticulations; a piercing gaze; fluctuating tones of voice; and a sort of holy whine, which was matched often in the pew with such uninhibited responses, such as sobs, screams, and shouts of joy.151

Again, the writer must acknowledge that he is not denying the validity and necessity of genuine revivals nor evangelism. Rather we are seeking to point out some errors of the Separates and Baptists in these areas, while not denying the genuine blessings which were theirs, but not necessarily due to these methods or abuse of them.

c. Both groups undervalued the helpfulness of ministerial education.

We have already spoken of the Separate attitude in this respect. Lumpkin points out this same weakness in the Separate Baptists saying this attitude must be traced to the established churches' emphasis on education, almost to the exclusion of piety.152 But more so, he adds, it must have stemmed from their idea of conversion, which included an immediate illumination and guidance of the Holy Spirit, which made teaching and training of ministers to be of little or no help. Lumpkin summarizes this concept in the Separate Baptists as follows:

The Spirit would certainly aid those ministers who he should call and
commission. Education was counted insignificant as compared with the charismatic
endowment. The two were not mutually exclusive, but in the existential situation
of mystical experience and religious challenge, it seemed obvious that the
non-essential would be passed by and the essential regarded. There was in fact
scarcely a minister in the Separate Baptist ministry who had had formal
schooling for his ministry.153

McLoughlin adds that the Separate Baptists were not educated men, nor well read in history, politics, or theology. They assumed that their teacher was their religious experience, which would give them divine inspiration, understanding and guidance concerning God's truth and will.154 This is not to deny their strong Biblical orientation and foundation, for that would be grossly incorrect. It is only to say that they came to the Scriptures often with their religious experience already authoritative concerning a subject, and that bias kept them at times from truth in doctrine and methods. Also, without an understanding of hermeneutics and other aids to Scriptural study and interpretation, and with a closed mind to the usefulness of such helps, they were certainly prone to stumbling in their search for truth.

The writer feels a compulsion to add once again, lest he be misunderstood, that he is not arguing an either/or solution to the problem of education versus the Spirit's illumination and guidance. Rather, he feels strongly that there is the need of both, and one errs grievously in emphasizing only one of the two, whichever one it is, as has been the case frequently in the past. Such was the error of the Separates and the Separate Baptists. They strongly emphasized the Holy Spirit's presence and illumination, but to the denial of the helpfulness of godly education and training.

d. Both groups possessed a limited view of the ministry.

With their pietistic view of the complete sufficiency of the Holy Spirit to guide and train them and their single goal of evangelism, there existed also among the Separates and the Separates Baptists a limited view of the ministry. That is to say, as they were convinced that the Holy Spirit was the divine illuminator and teacher of the regenerate, then they were led to see the duty of the ministry to be the salvation of souls, or the alarming of souls already saved, so the Spirit could teach them. They failed to grasp the importance and place of teaching and educating the church membership, as part of the duty of the ministry. Lumpkin notes this characteristic stating that as a result most of their people never received much more than a rudimentary education in Christian faith and worship.155

Goen says of the Baptists that their preoccupation with this one thing, the salvation of souls, was the secret of their greatest strength, but also their greatest weakness, for it kept them from working out in their understanding the full implications of their personal religious experience.156 Hill and Torbet, speaking of Baptists in general through their history, note they neglected the formulation of their Christian theological understanding in comparison to their prominent emphasis upon personal religious experience.157 They say further in the same context that this is the reason that there have been few theologians in Baptist circles, also few contributions to apologetics. Baptists have had a tendency to stress the living of the Christian life to the exclusion of the formulation of Christian truth in any depth.

Mead points out, again not speaking of the Separates or Baptists in particular but of revivalism in general, that the method of revivalism has an effect on one's understanding of the ministry. The duty of the pastor then becomes the preparation and promotion of revivals, even attempting to keep a revival atmosphere in the services all through the year. The pastor's ability or inability to do this becomes the basis of judgment of his ministry.158 It is easy to see how this inevitably leads to a pragmatic standard of judgment for the ministry or for a sermon and even for the Christian life. If a pastor or preacher was able to produce numbers and decisions, then he could be considered a success and beyond doubt blessed of God. If a sermon resulted in numbers and decisions, then what had been preached must undoubtedly be the truth of God. Mead points out again this revivalistic pragmatism eventually played havoc with the traditionally rooted standards of doctrine and polity in the American churched.159

e. Both groups were fearful of creeds and confessions.

Having come out of strong confessional, but what they felt were corrupt churches, and having a strong emphasis on the immediate illumination of the Holy Spirit, and being convinced that each man had the right to hold those views which were in accordance with his conscience, the Separates and the Separate Baptists were extremely dubious of confessions. They feared them, thinking they might become a bridle upon a man's own individualism and right of private judgment. Lumpkin points out that the arrival of the aggressive Separate Baptists in the south in the years of 1755 to 1783 raised the issue of confessionalism in a church as never before.160

Lumpkin gives a solid example of this attitude in Virginia, as it kept the Separate Baptists from uniting with the Calvinistic or Regular Baptists for a time. Finally, the General Association of Separate Baptists of Virginia in 1783 did adopt the Philadelphia Confession, with the reservation that this acceptance did not mean that everyone was bound to the strict observance of everything contained therein. Neither did they acknowledge, and rightfully so, that it was superior or equal to the Scriptures in matters of faith and practice.161

Thus we have shown the great similarity between the Separates and the Separate Baptists of the south. Both were modified Calvinists with little concern for theological depth or study. Both depended heavenly on revival, mass evangelism, and a strong pietistic approach in their ministerial performance. Both underestimated the value or need of education in preparation for the ministry. Both possessed a limited view of the ministry, because of their naive understanding of the Holy Spirit and His word. Both failed to see the importance of training and feeding the flock. Both possessed a pragmatic judgment of preaching, causing them to assess a ministry on the a basis of numbers and decisions. Both were fearful of creeds and confessions, even though Baptists previously had used them extensively and unashamedly. Our point is that these Separates, as they either became Baptists or exerted their influence as Separate Baptists, had a great impact on Baptist thinking for years to come.

According to Lumpkin, not only has the importance of the Separate Baptists not been fully realized as to their impact on Baptists, but also their impact on all American Christianity has to a great extent gone unnoticed. He is convinced more than any others, the Separate Baptists helped to establish the nature of American Christianity, stamping it with the revivalistic mold.162 Their stamp on Baptists in particular is undeniable, and Lumpkin points out that they " . . . are historically and hereditarily the chief component of Baptist life in the South, both white and Negro . . ."163 Perhaps the most interesting observation he makes, in light of the particular thrust of this paper, is that "In many distinguishable ways the Separate Baptists live on in Southern Baptists."164

Notes:

139 Lumpkin, Baptist Foundations, p. 63.
140 Ibid., p. 153. The term "rigid hyper-Calvinism" is obviously defined differently by various people. Some would say that the Calvinism of the Philadelphia Confession was a balanced Calvinism. Thus often definitions depend on the perspective of the one defining the term.
141 Ibid., p. 157
142 Ibid., pp. 61-62.
143 Goen, Revivalism, p. 298.
144 Wooley, Baptist Advance, p. 120.
145 Gaustad, Awakening, p. 120.
146 Smith, American Christianity, Volume I, pp. 360-361.
147 Lumpkin, Baptist Foundations, p. 150.
148 Goen, Revivalism, p. 294.
149 Ibid., p. 282.
150 Lumpkin, Baptist Foundations, pp. 39-40, quoting Morgan Edwards, from "Materials Toward a History of the Baptists in the Provinces of Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia" (MS in the Furman University Library, Greenville, South Carolina), p. 145.
151 Smith, American Christianity, Volume I, p. 361.
152 Lumpkin, Baptist Foundations, p. 150.
153 Ibid., pp. 150-151.
154 William G. McLoughlin, Editor, Isaac Backus on Church, State, and Calvinism, Pamphlets 1754-1789 (Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1968), p. 17.
155 Lumpkin, Baptist Foundations, pp. 151-152.
156 Goen, Revivalism, p. 294.
157 Samuel S. Hill, Jr. and Robert G. Torbet, Baptists North and South (Valley Forge: The Judson Press, 1964), p. 107.
158 Mead, The Lively Experiment, pp. 125-126.
159 Ibid., p. 33.
160 William G. Lumpkin, "Baptist Confessions of Faith," Baptist Advance, Edited by Wooley, p. 12.
161 Ibid., pp. 12-13.
162 Lumpkin, Baptist Foundations, pp. 147-148.
163 Ibid., p. 154.
164 Ibid. p. 158.

Defense of a Conscious Intermediate State: Updated and Reposted

2009-10-02T12:09:00.007-05:00

Introduction

I have begun to notice a trend in many evangelical circles today toward acceptance of the idea that has been known historically as "soul sleep." This is the idea that, after death, a person is in an unconscious state while awaiting the resurrection, after which the person will experience the final judgment. This idea has been rejected by Reformed theologians over the centuries. They have commonly held, instead, to a doctrine of a conscious intermediate state. That is, they have held that, after death, a person consciously exists as a disembodied spirit. The wicked experience torment in the intermediate state, but the righteous experience joy in the presence of the Lord while they await the resurrection.

This brief article is my attempt to gather together the passages commonly cited by both the opponents and the advocates of the traditional doctrine of a conscious intermediate state and to offer a defense of the traditional view. It is my hope that this will provide a helpful resource for God's people in understanding and defending this doctrine.

Passages Used in the Debate Between Those Who Hold to Soul Sleep and Those Who Hold to the Traditional View of the Intermediate State

Following is a list of many of the passages that are often used by those who argue for and against the doctrine of “soul sleep.” Brief comments are offered from the standpoint of the traditional Reformed understanding of a conscious intermediate state. Unless otherwise noted, all passages cited are from the New King James version.

Passages Frequently Cited by the Proponents of Soul Sleep:

Psalm 6:5, “For in death there is no remembrance of You; in the grave who will give You thanks?”

This passage is said to teach that we are in an unconscious state when we die. However, there is no indication in the context that David intended to teach about the state of the dead at all, whether conscious or unconscious. Instead, his focus is on the fact that, if he dies, there will be no one alive to praise the Lord before men for His great mercies. Note the focus in the context on his desire to be delivered so that his enemies will be put to shame (vss. 7-8). What David is really saying is that, if he dies, there will be no remembrance of God before his godless enemies, and there will be no one to give God thanks in the presence of his enemies, in order to bring them to shame.

Psalm 115:17, “The dead do not praise the LORD, nor any who go down into silence.”

Again the context helps to explain the Psalmist's point. He begins the psalm by focusing on how God deserves the glory for His mercy and truth (vs. 1) and by asking rhetorically, “Why should the Gentiles say, 'So where is their God?'” (vs. 2). So, the theme of the psalm is the way the glory of God should be manifested before unbelieving Gentiles, who trust in idols rather than the true God. The Psalmist carries this forward by comparing faith in God to the futility of trusting in idols (vss. 3-8), and then by reminding the people of Israel to continue to trust in the LORD in the midst of such idolatry (vss. 9-13). This is followed by an expression of blessing upon true believers and their children (vss. 14-15). Thus, the Psalmist has in mind the need for believers to prosper with God's help and by trusting in Him as sovereign over all creation, not only because it is the truth and brings blessing to themselves, but also as a witness to the Gentiles. The dead cannot give such praise to God before the Gentiles. This is the point. The Psalmist is viewing the grave from the standpoint of this life and the opportunities for witness that this life provides, over against which the grave is a place of silence. If any doubt remains as to the correctness of this interpretation, all one has to do is read on to verse 18, “But we will bless the LORD from this time forth and forevermore. Praise the LORD!” The writer clearly believes that those who praise the LORD now will continue to do so after death.

Psalm 146:4, “His spirit departs, he returns to his earth; in that very day his plans perish.”

Generally, those who cite this verse do so from the KJV or the NASB, which says, “His spirit departs, he returns to the earth; In that very day his thoughts perish.” However, the Hebrew word translated as “thoughts” in this verse is eshtonah, which The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament defines as “plan”(#7406 [BibleWorks]). This is the translation that is found in the ESV, the NET, and the NKJV. It is the translation that I will follow.

In verse 3 the Psalmist has admonished the reader, “Do not put your trust in princes, nor in a son of man, in whom there is no help.” Thus, when he goes on to say that “his spirit departs, he returns to the earth; in that very day his plans perish,” he clearly means that, even though such men may look successful and powerful, they will die just like the rest of us. Where will their plans for conquest or riches - or whatever else they may seek in this life - be in the day of their deaths? The answer is that those plans will perish with them. So we should instead trust in the Lord, whose plans never perish.

Ecclesiastes 9:5, “For the living know that they will die; but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten.”

First, we must remember to use caution when building doctrine from the book of Ecclesiastes, for there has been continuous disagreement over whether the author is always stating his own views, or whether he is stating opposing views from the culture in which he lives in order to respond to them. This form of dialog is not uncommon in ancient wisdom literature, and may be the best explanation for how to properly read Ecclesiastes.

Second, assuming the passage cited does contain the view of the author, it still does not give aid to the proponents of soul sleep, for the author is referring to the dead from the standpoint of this life and is therefore not necessarily trying to go into a description of the state of the dead beyond this life. Rather, he is saying that, once a man is dead, he knows nothing of this life and the opportunities it may (seem to) offer. That this is the focus is clear when one considers the last part of the verse, which declares that the dead “have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten.” Here the author must be referring to rewards among the living, for it is the living among whom the memory of the dead person is said to be forgotten. The correctness of this interpretation is further seen when one reads verse 5 in conjunction with the whole context, especially verse 6, which carries the point of verse 5 further when it says, “Also their love, their hatred, and their envy have now perished; nevermore will they have a share in anything done under the sun.” So, when the author says that “the dead know nothing,” he clearly means that they no longer know the experience of the rewards, love, hatred, or envy of this life “under the sun.”

Note: The phrase “under the sun” occurs some twenty-nine times in Ecclesiastes, highlighting an important theme of the book, which is the apparent futility of life in this world (but see 12: 13-14).

Ecclesiastes 9:10, “Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might; for there is no work or device or knowledge or wisdom in the grave where you are going.”

See above on Ecclesiastes 9:5 and observe that this verse is bracketed by an emphasis upon life “under the sun” (vss. 9, 11). Thus, again, the author refers to a lack of opportunity in the grave to accomplish anything more in this life, i.e. in this world. I would also observe that later in the book, the author refers to an “eternal home” for man, when his “spirit will return to God who gave it” (see 12:5-7). This indicates the idea of the spirit departing the body at death to be with the Lord, an idea frequently denied by proponents of soul sleep, many of whom hold to a monistic view of man that does not allow for the separation of the spirit from the body at death.

Ezekiel 18:4, “Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine; the soul who sins shall die.”

Some who advocate soul sleep refer to this verse as describing the death not only of the body, but also of the soul. If the soul dies as well as the body, they argue, then it must be in some unconscious state. However, this misunderstands the way in which the term for soul (Hebrew nephesh) is frequently used. For example, the word may also often be used to mean either “person” or “life” (see, for example, BDB #6250, TWOT #1395a, HALOT #6283 [BibleWorks]), usages which may better fit this passage.

However, even if this is referring to the death of the “soul” as distinct from the body, it is speaking of the spiritual death of sinners and does not necessitate the idea that the person is unconscious after death. For example, doesn't the Bible teach that the second death entails conscious torment of unbelievers in Hell (Matt. 25:41, 46; Rev. 14:9-11; 20:6, 10, 14-15; 21:8)? How, then, can it be argued that the idea of the death of the “soul” requires the idea of unconsciousness?

At this point it behooves us to give special attention to those passages which refer to death as sleep, since so many of the proponents of soul sleep refer to such passages (for obvious reasons). Following is a brief, representative list of such texts, followed by my own observations:

Matthew 27:50-53 “50 And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit. 51 Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, 52 and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.”

John 11:11-14, “11 These things He said, and after that He said to them, 'Our friend Lazarus sleeps, but I go that I may wake him up.' 12 Then His disciples said, 'Lord, if he sleeps he will get well.' 13 However, Jesus spoke of his death, but they thought that He was speaking about taking rest in sleep. 14 Then Jesus said to them plainly, 'Lazarus is dead.'”

Acts 7:59-60 “59 And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.' 60 Then he knelt down and cried out with a loud voice, 'Lord, do not charge them with this sin." And when he had said this, he fell asleep.'”

Acts 13:35-37 “35 Therefore He also says in another Psalm: 'You will not allow Your Holy One to see corruption.' 36 For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell asleep, was buried with his fathers, and saw corruption; 37 but He whom God raised up saw no corruption.'”
1 Corinthians 15:20, 51 “But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.... Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed....”

1 Thessalonians 4:13-15 “13 But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus. 15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep.”

2 Peter 3:3-4 “3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, 'Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.'”

Those who argue for the doctrine of soul sleep and advocate an unconscious state of the dead claim that such passages clearly demonstrate this contention. Without attempting to be exhaustive, I would suggest several points in response:

First, none of these passages actually says that the soul sleeps when a person dies. They simply refer to dead people as sleeping, and this apparently from the perspective of what we can see, namely the body.

Second, the reference to death as “sleep” in these passages is intended metaphorically, as a euphemism for death. “When Scripture represents death as 'sleep' it is simply a metaphorical expression used to indicate that death is only temporary for Christians, just as sleep is temporary” (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, p. 819). It is especially interesting that the primary New Testament texts which refer to death as “sleep” also teach the doctrine of the resurrection. This reinforces the understanding of the metaphor as referring to death as merely temporary.

Third, it is unclear what the proponents of soul sleep really mean when asserting the unconscious state of the dead from the metaphor of death as sleep. For example, when we sleep, are we really unconscious? Aren't there examples in Scripture of God communicating to believers through dreams and visions while they sleep? And don't we often dream when sleep? If this is our experience of sleep now, how can anyone say that a soul's "sleeping" after death (if the metaphor be taken literally) would require that it be unconscious?

Fourth, although the proponents of soul sleep seem to be trying to read these passages literally, it is not really possible to do so. For example, sleep is very much a process of the living, not the dead. People who are asleep still breath, for example, and they still move around. But do the dead do these things? Now, it may be argued at this point that they are asserting only that the soul sleeps at death, but then we come back to the fact that no text explicitly states this. And we again encounter the difficulty of saying what sleep would even mean in such a case, and whether or not it is really possible to exclude consciousness by definition as a part of what it means to sleep.

Thus, it really isn't possible to take the references to death as “sleep” as anything more than metaphorical references describing death as a temporary state, and that from the standpoint of what we can see of the physical body, which may at first appear to be sleeping.

Excursus Concerning Proper Principles of Interpretation:

The approach of those who accept the doctrine of soul sleep fails to observe several very important principles of interpretation:

1) Interpret according to context – As demonstrated above (particularly with respect to the use of texts from the Psalms and Ecclesiastes) those who argue for soul sleep often ignore the context of the passages they cite.

2) Do not press metaphors too far – Metaphors generally intend one point of comparison between that which is being used as a metaphor and that which is being described metaphorically. For example, when Jesus says, “I am the door” (John 10:9), He certainly does not mean that He is like a door in every respect. Rather, the context indicates that He is like the door of a sheepfold in that He is the only way through which we may find safety and rest. In my opinion, the proponents of soul sleep either take the metaphor of sleep too literally, or they press the metaphor further than the individual texts in which it is used will allow.

3) Interpret ambiguous passages in the light of clearer ones – As demonstrated above, the proponents of soul sleep tend to rely on too many ambiguous texts (such as those in Ecclesiastes). They take such texts too literally, or wrench them from their contexts, or read into them, and then try to understand clearer texts in the light of these faulty readings. In reality, a proper method of interpretation will do the opposite.

4) Interpret earlier, less detailed passages in the light of later and more detailed ones, appropriately recognizing the principle of progressive revelation – This is probably one of the most disturbing errors of those who advocate soul sleep. They seem to ignore the concept of progressive revelation and to read the Old Testament as though it intends to speak as clearly to the issue of the state of the dead as does the New Testament. They thus read more into the Old Testament texts than those texts warrant, and then try to make the New Testament texts conform to their questionable understanding of the Old Testament texts. A better approach is to allow the New Testament texts that actually deal with the subject to interpret the Old Testament texts that usually refer to the state of the dead merely from the standpoint of this life and with little or no interest in asserting anything specific or detailed about the state of the dead.

Questions for further study:

1) Is the term sleep ever used in the New Testament to describe the death of the wicked? So far as I can tell after a brief examination, it appears as though this metaphor is used only of believers when New Testament authors are describing or teaching about death. What significance – if any – might this have? Could it be that Jesus and the Apostles used this metaphor only of believers because it expresses the temporary nature of the death of the body and the hope of the life to come in the resurrection? To be sure, the wicked will also be resurrected, but they will then experience the second death, not the hope of everlasting life.

2) Is the soul/spirit ever said to be resurrected? After a brief examination, it appears as though resurrection is consistently asserted with regard to the body only. But if the doctrine of soul sleep is correct, and the body and spirit are never parted, then wouldn't we expect to see this indicated with respect to the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead?

Passages that Support the Traditional View of the Intermediate State:

Genesis 35:18, “And so it was, as her soul was departing (for she died), that she called his name Ben-Oni; but his father called him Benjamin.”

Death is described as the departure of the soul (nephesh) from the body. This supports the traditional understanding that the soul/spirit is separated from the body at death.

Isaiah 14:9-11, “9 Sheol beneath is stirred up to meet you when you come; it rouses the shades to greet you, all who were leaders of the earth; it raises from their thrones all who were kings of the nations. 10 All of them will answer and say to you: 'You too have become as weak as we! You have become like us!' 11 Your pomp is brought down to Sheol, the sound of your harps; maggots are laid as a bed beneath you, and worms are your covers.” (ESV)

Although too much weight should not be given to what may be intended as allegorical language, if taken literally this passage supports a conscious state of the dead in Sheol.

Matthew 10:28, “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”

Jesus clearly assumes that the death of the body does not include the death of the soul. And He sees the death of the soul of the wicked as ultimately in hell (gehenna), which refers to the place of final judgment.

Matthew 17: 1-8, The Transfiguration.

Both Elijah and Moses appear to Jesus (even though Moses had died and was buried, Deut. 34: 5-6). See also the parallel passage in Luke 9: 27-36. The point here is that Moses is clearly experiencing a conscious intermediate state. Of course, a proponent of soul sleep might argue that this is an exceptional case, but I think the number of other passages listed here belie such a contention.

Matthew 22:31-32, “31 But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, 32 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”

Jesus is here citing Exodus 3:6, but how does this passage necessitate the doctrine of the resurrection? It is important to see Jesus' answer in the context of both the beliefs held by the Sadducees and the common Biblical understanding of the nature of humans as a unity of body and soul.

First, the Sadducees did not believe in any existence for humans beyond the grave. They taught that when the body died the soul/spirit died right along with it. Thus when we die, they thought, we simply cease to exist. So, when Jesus cites Exodus 3:6, in which God tells Moses that He is “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” and asserts that God is “not the God of the dead, but the God of the living,” His point is clear. It is absurd to think that God would claim to be the God of non-existent beings, as would be the case if the Sadducees were, in fact, correct. So, when God says to Moses that He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob – many years after they had all died and were buried – He is also asserting that they are still alive. And this must mean that they are alive as disembodied spirits – which the Sadducees also denied.

Second, if Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are alive as spirits, then doesn't this also demand that they will be resurrected? For they have not been saved as whole beings unless their bodies are saved as well. Jesus clearly assumes the truth of this view of the unity of humans as body/soul beings, which is why He can see Exodus 3:6 as necessitating the resurrection.

Thus, Jesus' arguments clearly assume the correctness of the common view among the Pharisees in His day, namely that human beings are a unity of body and soul/spirit, but that their spirits are separated from their bodies at death to be re-united with them in the resurrection. Jesus' argument from Exodus 3:6 makes sense only if He is assuming the correctness of these ideas.

Luke 16:19-31 The story of the Rich Man and Lazarus.

It has often been debated whether this is only a parable or whether it is an actual account of the death of two people and their following existence in Hades. Those who advocate soul sleep often argue that this story is only a parable used by Jesus to illustrate a point and is not, therefore, to be taken as a literal description of a conscious intermediate state. They also sometimes argue that there are other similar stories that were told by the Jews and that Jesus was not, therefore, referring to something that was true, but was simply using the kind of story they would be familiar with in order to make a point. In my opinion, they are correct to see this story as a parable and to observe that such a story was not altogether unique. As Klyne Snodgrass argues in his recent work Stories With Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus:

Preachers and certain people throughout church history sometimes have asserted that this story is not a parable but depicts real people and the consequences of their lives. I am not aware of any modern scholar who would agree. Certainly Luke viewed this as a parable. It appears in a collection of parables, possibly stands chiastically parallel to the parable of the Rich Fool, and uses the exact same introductory words (anthrōpos tis) which Luke uses to introduce several other parables [e.g. 10:30; 14:16; 15:11; 16:1; 19:12]. This is without question a parable. (p.426)

As for the contention that this story was not entirely unique in first century Palestine, Snodgrass, in the aforementioned work, is again helpful:

Such usage of preexisting materials is evident in other parables and would not be surprising. In this case, though, such a theory is unlikely and unnecessary, especially when the Gospel story is so different from the Egyptian [story of Setme] and Jewish [1 Enoch] accounts. The Gospel story uses common folkloric motifs shared by several cultures: descent to the underworld, reversal of circumstances, and denunciation of the rich for their neglect of the poor. Lucian's use of these themes in a variety of works, although from the second century A.D., shows how futile it is to think of even indirect dependence of the Gospel parable on some other account. (p.427)

But, even though dependence upon some particular work or even some specific stock story is highly unlikely, let us assume that the advocates of soul sleep are correct in saying that as a parable it would have been recognized by the Jews as a fictional account intended to make a point. I still cannot agree in such a case that the Jews would have thought Jesus intended to affirm nothing concrete about the intermediate state. On the contrary, Jesus clearly does assume the kind of view of the intermediate state that appeared to be commonly held by the Pharisees and many Jews in the first century. He certainly doesn't seem to expect them to take issue with the basic features of the story. But I wonder, then, how Jesus could tell such a story without at the same time affirming the validity of such ideas. If, in fact, there is no conscious intermediate state, then how could Jesus tell such a story without leading many people astray? In my opinion, it really doesn't matter with respect to the issue under discussion whether the story is a parable or not. I see no way that Jesus could have told it in any case without at the same time affirming the concept of a conscious intermediate state such as the story describes. At any rate, this passage is hardly the primary or only text to which advocates of a conscious intermediate state appeal.

Luke 23:39-43 “39 Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, 'If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us.' 40 But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, 'Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong.' 42 Then he said to Jesus, 'Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.' 43 And Jesus said to him, 'Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.'”

It is hard to imagine how the promise that the thief would be with Jesus that day in Paradise could be thought of in any other way than as an affirmation of a conscious intermediate state. After all, why promise that someone will be with you if, in fact, the person would be in an unconscious state in which he would be unaware of being with you? The common view of the advocates of soul sleep is that this verse is being misunderstood by those who hold the traditional view. They often claim that Jesus' statement in verse 43 should be punctuated differently. Instead of placing the comma after the words, “I say to you,” they argue that the comma should be placed after the word “today.” Thus, instead of saying, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise,” Jesus was really declaring, “Assuredly, I say to you today, you will be with me in Paradise." Thus, it is argued, Jesus was not indicating the time when the thief would be with Him in Paradise, but was emphasizing that He was making the promise “today.” In other words, Jesus was intending to assert something like, “today, even this day that I hang upon this cross, I promise you that you will be with me in Paradise.” I would make several observations in response to this line of argumentation:

1) It is hard to imagine why Jesus would find it necessary to point out to the thief that He was making the promise “today.” Wouldn't this have been so obvious to the thief that it would not need to be pointed out to him?

2) The punctuation proposed by the advocates of soul sleep ignores the usual way that Jesus employs the introductory formula, “Truly [amen], I say to you,” or “Truly, truly, I say to you.” I have searched for every other case in which Jesus uses this introductory formula, and I have discovered that He always begins the important statement He wishes to make immediately following the phrase, “Truly, I say to you,” or “Truly, truly, I say to you,” with no intervening words or emphases upon the time at which He is speaking. The passages I checked include Matthew 5:18, 26; 6:2, 5, 16; 8:10; 10:15, 23, 42; 11:11; 13:17; 16:28; 17:20; 18: 3, 13, 18, 19 [variant]; Matthew 19:23, 28; 21:21, 31; 23:36; 24:2, 24, 47; 25:12, 40, 45; 26:13, 21, 34; Mark 3:28; 8:12; 9:1, 41; 10:15, 29; 11:23; 12:43; 13:30; 14:9, 18, 25, 30; Luke 4:24; 12:37; 18:17, 29; 21:32; John 1:51; 3:3, 5, 11; 5:19, 24, 25; 6:26, 32, 47, 53; 8:34, 51, 58; 10:1, 7; 12:24; 13:16, 20, 21, 38; 14:12; 16:20, 23; 21:18. In no instance did I find that Jesus varied from this pattern. Yet, the advocates of soul sleep would have us believe that in this one particular case Jesus parted from His habitual manner of speaking, and that He did so in order to point out something that would have been obvious to the thief anyway. Such an argument is truly incredible.

3) It is also important to remember that Jesus is making the promise to the thief in order to comfort Him by responding to his request. But the thief's request includes a time element. He has requested that Jesus will remember him when He comes into His kingdom (verse 42). Isn't it likely that, when Jesus responds to the thief and says, “today you will be with me in Paradise,” He is actually answering the thief's request? Isn't He encouraging him that he will have to wait no longer than that very day to be with Him?

4) When Jesus says that the thief would be with Him in “Paradise,” He appears to be referring to Heaven. The only other uses of the Greek word paradeisos are in 2 Corinthians 12:4 and Revelation 2:7, both of which refer to Heaven. Again, it is hard to imagine how this could be a promise that the thief would be with Jesus in Heaven in an unconscious state. There are those, however, who have argued that Jesus could not have been referring to Heaven here because He told Mary after His resurrection, "Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father" (John 20:17). But this later statement of Jesus, having been made after the resurrection, refers to His ascension in His resurrection body. There is no reason to assume that Jesus is referring to His post-death/pre-resurrection (i.e. intermediate) state at all.

John 11:25-26, “25 Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. 26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?'”

This statement, along with the other statements of Jesus which refer to everlasting life as a present possession, do not promise that the body will never die, but rather must mean that we will never die spiritually. But how can He say that the believer will never die, unless He is referring to the soul as living on beyond the death of the body?

Now, I suppose that Jesus' promise here does not demand that we have a conscious life beyond the grave, but it is hard to imagine why Jesus made such a promise that we will never die if, in fact, He thought we would not be aware of being alive while existing in some unconscious state. At any rate, Jesus' promise certainly does appear to contradict the assertion of many soul sleep advocates that the body and soul die together and are then raised together unto new life in the resurrection.

2 Corinthians 4:16-18, “16 Therefore we do not lose heart. Even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day by day. 17 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, 18 while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal.”

Paul is teaching here that it is only the outward man that is perishing, not the inward man. In the context it would appear that the outward man (apparently referring to the body) is of the “things which are seen” and that are temporary, whereas the inward man that is being renewed day by day is of the “things which are not seen” and are eternal. Isn't this a reference to the spirit? If so, how can it be credibly argued – as is often attempted by proponenets of soul sleep – that the spirit dies along with physical the body?

2 Corinthians 5:1-9, “For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven, 3 if indeed, having been clothed, we shall not be found naked. 4 For we who are in this tent groan, being burdened, not because we want to be unclothed, but further clothed, that mortality may be swallowed up by life. 5 Now He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has given us the Spirit as a guarantee. 6 So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. 7 For we walk by faith, not by sight. 8 We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. 9 Therefore we make it our aim, whether present or absent, to be well pleasing to Him.”

Paul refers to an intermediate state here when he envisions the possibility of being out of the body and at home with the Lord, without saying that we are in a new body yet. But why would being in the presence of the Lord while out of the body be something to look forward to if, in fact, we will be unconscious in such a state?

2 Corinthians 12:1-4, “It is doubtless not profitable for me to boast. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord: 2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago -- whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows -- such a one was caught up to the third heaven. 3 And I know such a man -- whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows -- 4 how he was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.”

Paul clearly believes that a man can be conscious while “out of the body,” which must be a reference to one's spirit leaving the body. This contradicts the idea of many soul sleep advocates that the body and the soul/spirit form an inseparable unity and that consciousness outside the body is not possible.

Philippians 1:19-26, “19 For I know that this will turn out for my deliverance through your prayer and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, 20 according to my earnest expectation and hope that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but with all boldness, as always, so now also Christ will be magnified in my body, whether by life or by death. 21 For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain. 22 But if I live on in the flesh, this will mean fruit from my labor; yet what I shall choose I cannot tell. 23 For I am hard pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better. 24 Nevertheless to remain in the flesh is more needful for you. 25 And being confident of this, I know that I shall remain and continue with you all for your progress and joy of faith, 26 that your rejoicing for me may be more abundant in Jesus Christ by my coming to you again.”

Paul clearly contrasts departing to be with Christ (dying, vss. 20-21) with living on in the flesh. Thus death will mean being with Christ outside the flesh (the body), which is considered by Paul as “gain” (vs. 21) and as “far better” than the current state (vs. 23). I fail to see how looking forward to being with Christ can be thought of as the anticipation of an unconscious state in which one will be unaware of being with Christ, as the proponents of soul sleep envision the intermediate state.

Hebrews 12:22-24, “22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.”

The author of Hebrews clearly thinks of those who have died before us in the faith (“so great a cloud of witnesses,” vs. 1) as spirits who are now alive with the angels in Heaven, having been made perfect. They must, therefore, be experiencing a conscious intermediate state.

James 2:26 “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.”

In describing death as the body's being “without the spirit,” isn't James assuming that the spirit leaves the body at death? This again contradicts the common notion among advocates of soul sleep that the body and soul/spirit are inseparable.

2 Peter 1:13-14, “13 Yes, I think it is right, as long as I am in this tent, to stir you up by reminding you, 14 knowing that shortly I must put off my tent, just as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me.”

As Paul had done in 2 Corinthians 5, so Peter also uses the metaphor of a tent to describe the earthly body as a temporary dwelling. Observe that death is referred to as putting off this tent, which implies the continuance of that which puts off the tent, i.e. the soul/spirit.

Revelation 6:9-11, “9 When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held. 10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?" 11 Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed.”

It is hard to imagine how John's vision of the souls under the alter cannot be seen as teaching a conscious intermediate state for those who have died in the Lord. Of course, I suppose one could argue that this is a highly symbolic passage, and that we must not take it as a literal reference to actual disembodied souls. But I would respond by asking what this reference then symbolizes, if not the existence of conscious spirits in the intermediate state?

Conclusion:

Although there seems to be a growing number of evangelicals who are beginning to question the traditional understanding of the intermediate state, a fair examination of the relevant passages – taken in context – confirms that the traditional Reformed view of a conscious intermediate state is correct. It is my hope that this brief examination has demonstrated this clearly for any who may question this doctrine.

© 2004 Keith Throop

An Historical Examination of the Doctrine of the Church Among Baptists With Special Reference to Southern Baptists and Church Purity - Chapter 4.2

2009-09-30T12:40:00.005-05:00

Influences and Changes in the Baptist Doctrine of the Church
in the Eighteenth Century

Part Two
The Rise of the Separates and Their Influence on Baptists

The years and even decades following the Great Awakening can best be described as years of deep and divisive conflict in the established churches. Goen says it brought to New England not peace, but a sword.103 The real issue of dispute (though just the revival, its techniques and practices were hotly debated) came to be the matter of regenerate church membership. Remember, we are not speaking of Baptist churches yet, but of the older institutional churches. The new converts and newly revived persons desired to limit church membership to the regenerate only.104 Their reasoning is traced by McLoughlin as follows.105 As the new converts experienced the joy of salvation, they were bound to ask several questions. Why hadn't they been saved sooner? Why were others still lost? Why were the churches so dead? The answer put the blame on the preachers, yet it had to be understood that the people had put the preachers in office. How could the people have been so blind? It was only because unconverted preachers had accepted lost people into the churches, abandoning the strict discipline and membership standards of the past. After all, had they not cast aside oral profession and the examination of a candidate for membership, while adding such corruptive practices as Half-way membership and Stoddardeanism? The answer seemed to be to call an awakened preacher, but the ministerial association had some control of the local churches and ordination, making this close to impossible. So it seemed almost beyond hope to reform a church from within. The only other choice for these New Lights, as they were called, was to separate or withdraw from the established churches, which they did. Thus they became known as Separates.

To give a general description of these Separates, we would note that they were Calvinistic and revivalistic, with a pietistic stress on the immediacy of the Holy Spirit's leadership and illumination,106 and a demand that the local church have only regenerate membership.107 Goen says the Separates, " . . . considered that they were the real descendants of the Puritans and were now seeking to repurify churches which had apostatized from their original ideals.108 However, the Separates' distrust of the established clergy, and their view of immediate illumination by the Holy Spirit led to the ignoring of the ancient Puritan insistence on a qualified and trained ministry.109

Because of the aforementioned, multitudes of new converts eagerly hastened to give their testimonies and even preach; and the common people heard them gladly. Goen notes again that though these new converts were rather rough and unskillful in the word of righteousness, they still did not hesitate to speak boldly; and they were preferred to those they called the letter-learned Pharisees and unconverted ministers.110 Thus itinerant preaching by laymen became one of the chief novelties of the Great Awakening and especially of the Separates; and the method was quickly established as an evangelistic tool.111 McLoughlin says they were convinced that ". . . a layman who had experienced conversion was better equipped to get to the heart of spiritual matters than was a professionally trained minister blinded by scholastic logic, academic traditions and abstract theories.112 For the Separates, then, it was close to an either/or proposition and not a both/and matter. One was either uneducated and illuminated by the Spirit, or one was trained and yet spiritually blind. One could not be trained and Spirit-filled.

It was inevitable and understandable that eventually the Separates came out of the old established churches and set up societies of their own. Lumpkin says, "By 1744 the informal societies of New Lights were assuming the status of churches in actual practice."113 Concerning their Calvinism, Mode includes in his book the confession of faith of a Separate church organized at Mansfield in 1745, noting it may be taken as typical of the separate churches.114 Article 15 states:

We believe we are of that number elected of God to eternal life, and that Christ did live on earth, die and rise again for us in particular . . .115

Article 22 speaks regarding their emphasis on regenerate membership:

That at times the doors of the church should be carefully kept against such as cannot give a satisfying evidence of the work of God upon their souls, whereby they were united to Christ.116

As these Separates came out of the established churches, calling them corrupt, they broke the law and were legally open to punishment. Often their pastors were imprisoned and their members fined for not attending the established churches. Worst of all, Separates were forced to support established churches through the payment of their taxes---the support of these pastors, and practices that they detested and criticized so often in severity.117

In summary we would stress that there was much to commend about the Separate movement. More specifically, their Calvinism, their evangelistic zeal, their enthusiasm, their sacrificial spirit, their willingness to suffer for their convictions, their desire to use laymen in the work of the Lord, their stress upon a pure church in the emphasis of regenerate membership. These were all traits worthy of commendation.

But, on the other hand, the Separates were not without their faults. In that category this writer would include their naive attitudes about education and training for the ministry, their sometimes unbridled individualism which allowed novices and untrained laymen to go forth preaching without supervision, assuming the illumination of the Holy Spirit was sufficient to enable them to perform such a task, and the beginning of a definite shift away from the staunch Calvinism of the Puritans. Perhaps some would argue this shift from Calvinism was necessary to allow for their revivalism and pietism. This author does not agree with that thought, but it is not necessarily our point of contention. Our point of contention is that there was a subtle shift in emphasis with the Great Awakening. Brauer states it this way:

Formerly the Puritans had emphasized God's covenant---what he had done. This was found in Scripture and in doctrine, and a correct understanding of both was essential This was taught and made real in the church. But revivalism tended to
stress, not so much what God had done, but how man responded. Earlier revivalists such as Edwards and Whitefield did not make this error, but later men did.118

Brauer continues:

The really important thing was not what man believed but what he did. So the emphasis was placed on man's activity, with less and less regard for doctrine, theology or the Church as the chosen instrument of God.119

Smith describes the shift away from Calvinism by acknowledging that though revivalism was the heir of the Puritan emphasis of the new birth and sanctification, yet it was conspicuously lacking the Puritan self-discipline.120 Smith says further that this emphasis and lack, " . . . prepared for the ignoring of theoretical questions in favor of direct experience and practical results that was to become so popular in America. But during the Great Awakening only a start was made in this direction."121

Therefore, though the Great Awakening resulted in many converts, and though it made Christianity a religion of the people, and though it revived many persons and churches, and though it bore other commendable fruit, there was a subtle shift of emphasis from a God-centered framework of theology and church service to a man-centered one. The shift was not full and complete, and much of the Awakening is commendable and worthy of praise. But, nonetheless, the seeds were sown for a further shift, which was to come later in history.

The Separates Join the Baptists

Having traced the events prior to and during the Great Awakening, we are now ready to consider how these events related to the Baptists of this period. The Baptists' status prior to the Awakening is noted by many writers. Burr says the Baptists ". . . were a small minority, and were considered by the established churches as a schismatic sect."122 McLoughlin also terms Baptists prior to the Awakening as " . . . an obscure, ignored, and ignoble small sect . . ."123 Lumpkin agrees using much the same language calling them " . . . an insignificant and generally despised sect . . ."124

These statements strongly imply that Baptists were changed greatly by the Awakening. Such an inference is correct, for the Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists notes, "Baptists have been called the 'true heirs' of the Great Awakening."125 Yet other writers point out that when the thrust of the Great Awakening began, the Baptists either ignored it or opposed it.126 The question is, then, if Baptists were not involved in the Great Awakening, then how did they happen to be so influenced by it?

To answer this question we must turn once again to the Separates, having already noted their withdrawal from the established churches in dispute over purity and regenerate membership. This emphasis inevitably led them to wrestle with the matter of infant baptism, which had been practiced by the churches from which they came. Goen says, " . . . an uneasy conscience regarding infant baptism was part of the separatist ferment almost from the very beginning."127 He also traces their thinking to conclude that the rite of admission into the local church should be restricted to confessed believers, if they were to hope to to achieve their goal of regenerate membership.128 As Lumpkin says, "The logic of events pushed Separates more and more in the direction of the Baptists . . . "129

Thus the phrase "gone to the Baptists" became a very frequent entry into the Separate churches' record books, as they adopted the principle of believer's baptism and went to join Baptist churches.130 Goen further notes as a result the Separate churches were tagged with the label "nurseries of baptists."131 So we see that the Great Awakening became immensely important in moving Baptists from the realm of a small, insignificant sect to a strong, dissenting voice and denomination as the Separates invaded and swelled the Baptist membership. As Wamble summarizes for us he says, "During the generation following 1750, Baptists grew rapidly from the Great Awakening converts, who gradually adopted Baptist views."132

The point we are making is that as these bold and convinced Separates entered the Baptist churches, they carried an influence, good or bad, whatever the case may have been. They brought to the Baptists characteristics we noted in the proceeding section of this paper.133 We shall reiterate and further discuss these points regarding the characteristics of the Separates, as we shall mention those who came to be known as Separate Baptists. Before doing so, we must point out that at first not all Baptists went the way of the Separates. McLoughlin indicates that during the 1740's and 1750's there were two Baptist movements in New England, the Old and New Baptists, with the new being the Separates134 In the south it was the Separate Baptists and the Regular Baptists, with eventually a union of the two. Baker writes that these two groups united in Virginia in 1787, in North Carolina in 1788, and in Kentucky in 1801.135

Thus the influence of these Separates on the Baptists is undeniable. Smith says they brought to the Baptists, especially in the south, an emotional warmth and an evangelistic fervor.136 McLoughlin confesses the influence they brought to Baptists was impossible to measure, but nevertheless they had a very profound effect on the vigor and temper of the denomination.137 We make special note of Baker's statement that " . . . the effect of the Awakening on Southern Baptists occurred principally in the Separate Baptist movement.138 We now seek to discover further their influence on Baptist life and thought.

Notes:

103 Goen, Revivalism, p. VII.
104 Lumpkin, Baptist Foundations, p. 13.
105 McLoughlin, New England Dissent, Volume I, pp. 342-343.
106 Smith, American Christianity, Volume I, p. 361.
107 Lumpkin, Baptist Foundations, p. 7.
108 Goen, Revivalism, p. 159.
109 Ibid., p. 28.
110 Ibid., p. 29.
111 Ibid., p. 54.
112 McLoughlin, New England Dissent, Volume I, p. 351.
113 Lumpkin, Baptist Foundations, p. 8
114 Peter G. Mode, Source Book and Bibliographical Guide for American Church History (Boston: J. S. Canner and Company, Inc., 1964), p. 226.
115 Ibid.
116 Ibid., p. 227.
117 McLoughlin, New England Dissent, Volume I, p. 366.
118 Jerald C. Brauer, Protestantism in America (London: SCM Press LTD, 1966), p. 61.
119 Ibid.
120 Smith, American Christianity, Volume I, p. 310.
121 Ibid., p. 314.
122 Burr, Critical Bibliography, 285.
123 McLoughlin, New England Dissent, Volume I, p. 438.
124 Lumpkin, Baptist Foundations, p. vi.
125 Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists, Volume II, p. 1191.
126 McLoughlin, New England Dissent, Volume I, p. 421.
127 Goen, Revivalism, p. 213.
128 Ibid., p. 208.
129 Lumpkin, Baptist Foundations, p. 15.
130 Goen, Revivalism, p. 208.
131 Ibid.
132 G. Hugh Wamble, "Baptists in America before 1814," Baptist Advance, the Achievements of Baptists of North America for a Century and a Half, Edited by Davis Collier Wooley (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1964), p. 19.
133 Supra, pp. 50-55.
134 McLoughlin, New England Dissent, Volume I, p. 422.
135 Robert A. Baker, A Baptist Sourcebook (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1966), pp. 22-24.
136 Smith, American Christianity, Volume I, p. 361-362.
137 McLoughlin, New England Dissent, Volume I, p. 438.
138 Baker, A Baptist Sourcebook, p. 16.

An Historical Examination of the Doctrine of the Church Among Baptists With Special Reference to Southern Baptists and Church Purity - Chapter 4.1

2009-09-28T13:11:00.005-05:00

Influences and Changes in the Baptist Doctrine of the Church
in the Eighteenth Century

Part One
The First Great Awakening

It is our goal and purpose in this chapter to speak of the influences brought to bear upon Baptists in America during the eighteenth century, which would over a period of time tend to undercut their strong covenantal concept of the church. We must realize, however, that Baptists did not live in a vacuum. Therefore, one cannot even begin to understand these influences and developments in Baptist life and history without first being knowledgeable of events which transpired on the whole religious scene in America at this time. Hence, the writer feels a necessity to present a picture of the religious life and events in general in America at this period, and then to speak more particularly of their influence upon Baptists.

American Religion Prior to the First Great Awakening

It is known to most anyone even vaguely familiar with American history that the early settlements in the seventeenth century were religiously oriented, influenced, and controlled. One set of writers point out that for the first several years the settlements in the new world sought to reproduce, as nearly as possible, the pattern of life, even church life, from the old world.74 Theirs was a fidelity to and an emphasis upon the old world's inherited forms and patterns.

But as others note, this was a new world with a new environment. Old world patterns could not meet the new world's needs and problems75 (so some thought). Mead shows us that the new land with new opportunity to build as one wished in a seemingly endless continent cut off from the patterns and traditions of the past, produced a new man.76 As time passed, the second and third and following generations were not as convinced of the sacredness of these inherited forms and practices. Neither were they as concerned about the old theological issues and subjects, nor were they as respectful toward the authoritarian church structures, organizations, creeds and pronouncements.77

With this new unbridled freedom and opportunity to be what he wanted to be, to go where he wanted to go, and to build in like manner, there was bred a rugged individualist with a highly independent and strong-willed spirit, and one who began to question the traditional and the historical. Sweet notes, "The pioneer is always an independent individualist, determined to go his own way in religion as well as in politics."78 Speaking further of this early frontier condition and its pressure on American religious life, Sweet says, ". . . no single fact is more significant in its influence upon American religion."79

Gaustad, on the other hand, notes that the churches and organized religious life were becoming more institutionalized and less personal, more a product of instruction than of experience, and more of an affair of the intellect than of the emotions.80 Thus we see two factors at work, the external changes in organized religious life, and the internal changes in the frontier man, with both forces separating men from the churches and their influence.

McLoughlin described these prior to the First Great Awakening as times of confusion, an hour when it seemed the churches were incapable of meeting the needs of the people, with the pastors powerless to cure the sick souls before them, the doctrine insensible to the people, and authority in every area lacking authenticity and meaning. The whole situation seemed to be lacking rational, standards, or a faith which could relieve the people of their guilts, tensions, and fears.81

It is no wonder then that sin of every form began to abound in every place. In Boston at a Synod meeting on September 10, 1679 quite a lengthy lamentation and list of sins was reported.82 Among sins listed were pride, contention, rebellion against God, swearing and profanity, irreverence, Sabbath breaking, prayerlessness and godlessness in the homes, inordinate lusts and passions, hatreds, censures, backbiting, tale bearing, lawsuits, intemperance, immodest dress, nakedness, gaming, idleness, dishonesty, love of the world, etc.

Though the churches (all churches) were aware of the problem, they were not aware of any answer, but not because they did not seek to make some adjustments. However, their adjustments were, it seems, more of a compromise with the people and their sin than a solution to the problem. We refer here, first of all, to the Half-Way Covenant, which was a halfway church membership, which allowed those who had been baptized as infants to continue as members of the church, even though they had grown up into a life of sin and unconcern. The only restriction was that they could not receive the Lord's Supper.83

The next step of adjustment or compromise was called Stoddardneanism, a measure named after its most influential exponent, Solomon Stoddard, the powerful minister at Northampton, Massachusetts, and Jonathan Edwards' grandfather. This was the practice of allowing the baptized but unconverted the privilege of receiving the Lord's Supper in hopes it would lead to or contribute to their salvation.84

It is obvious that such measures as these would destroy the discipline of the churches, for as Tracy acknowledges ". . . unconverted members, generally, would not be strict in calling others to account for errors of doctrine or practice."85 But even more, these compromises led to spiritual confusion and the denial of the possibility of ever being able to tell a true believer from a hypocrite. Thus, the conclusion came that it was useless to insist on a profession of faith, and to even hope for or attempt to construct a local church that was composed only of real saints.86

Sweet speaks of the religious decadence of colonial America just prior to the Great Awakening by noting that the lower classes were influenced very little by organized religion, and only a small percentage were members of churches. He says that America in this period had more unchurched people than any other country.87

Now, of course, we have not been speaking specifically of Baptists, but of the other denominations more particularly. Furthermore, as we come to the First Great Awakening, we shall continue the story as it unfolded outside of Baptist churches. In time, however, we shall see how these events did involve and include Baptists in the thrust of the reactions and influences which developed.

The First Great Awakening

It was into the forgoing context of events and affairs that there came what has been called the First Great Awakening. There had been stirrings through other men, such as the stirrings under Theodore J. Frelinghuysen in the Dutch Reformed Churches in Raritan Valley in the colony of New Jersey.88 And there was the Scotch-Irish revival of the 1730's in the middle colony influenced greatly by William Tennant's Log College.89 But the greatest name and most influential personality was Jonathan Edwards. Sweet says the revival began under Edwards in December of 1734 from a series of sermons he was preaching on justification by faith alone.90 As far as Edwards the man is concerned, he was by no means what some today would imagine him to have been. Sweet tells us that he was not a popular preacher, but rather

He lived the life of a student, spending thirteen hours daily in his study, writing two sermons each week, one to be preached on Sunday, the other at the weekly lecture. To him sermon preparation and study were far more important than pastoral ministration, for he seldom visited among his people. In the pulpit he was quiet, speaking without gesture, and in a voice not loud, but distinct and penetrating. It was the content of his sermons, filled as they were with fire and life, combined with remarkable personality and presence of the preacher, which accounts for the results which now began to manifest among his hearers.91

It is clear, also, that Edwards was a strong Calvinist, yet his was not a dead, cold and unevangelistic Calvinism. Rather his doctrinal commitment was flavored with an element of piety. Sweet says concerning Edwards that ". . . it was only by impregnating his Calvinism with pietism that Jonathan Edward's gospel was rendered effective in reaching the hearts of his people at Northampton.92 What exactly this element of piety in Edward's thinking was, Sweet does not spell out. Others have noted it to be a technique of preaching aimed at persuading the will, engaging the affections and deepening the sense of personal responsibility in the hearer.93 He did not expound doctrine without application upon God to do His work. Edwards defends the appeal to the emotions as legitimate and proper, and at the same time warns concerning dangers and possibilities of false emotions in one of his books.94

Just how much Edwards may have intricately and technically modified Calvinism or Calvinism's evangelistic concerns is beyond the scope of this paper. The point is that Edwards was a Calvinist, and that the Great Awakening was grounded on this commitment of thought. For example, Heimert acknowledge that, "The revival in America, unlike that of the Wesley's, built and throve on the preaching of Calvinistic doctrine."95 He adds ". . . the typical sermon of the Great Awakening was a careful disquisition on such points of theology as man's total depravity or unconditional election of the saints."96

Goen tells us:

A classic Reformed doctrine which emerged quite prominently in the revival was that of sovereign grace---even irresistible grace. This means that salvation is entirely a free gift of God, who bestows it according to his inscrutable purposes upon whomever he will, and that no one can possibly merit or deserve it, and that those to whom it comes ("the elect") are completely unable to resist or refuse it.97

So we see that there came to Edwards' church an unusual manifestation resulting in crowds thronging the building in high emotion. Sweet acknowledges there is every indication to believe that Edwards handled this situation very adequately so as not to discredit these outward manifestations.98 Part of that method was to encourage those under conviction to come to him privately so that he might deal with them further, when the emotional stress had subsided.

It is not our intent to set Edwards in complete antithesis to all other revivalists of this era, but it does seem as revivalism spread, though it spread in a Calvinistic frame of thought, that many eventually drifted into excesses and overbalance in the area of the emotions. As the movement unfolded there seems to have developed more and more a highly experiential and emotional thrust. This is not to say that this element is totally wrong, but only to recognize its presence. and the possibility of excess at times.

Concerning these emotional manifestations, let us note Lumpkin's observation, when he says:

Such manifestations appeared under the preaching of both Edwards and Whitefield, and both men saw validity in them and at first took no steps to suppress them. They were regarded as marks of divine favor. However, some of the preachers and exhorters who followed Edwards and Whitefield, supposing that the approval of such manifestations by the greatest preachers of their acquaintance gave them license to exploit this form of excitement, encouraged extravagant emotional display. Hysterical "screechings, crying out," shouting, barking, dancing, trances, and visions became common in some areas. These manifestations "assumed the character of an epidemic" toward the climax of the awakening in 1740.99

Though dramatic expressions of feeling took place under Edwards and Whitefield, others (not necessarily all) who followed, knowingly or unknowingly, began to make this the standard of their judgment of God's favor and presence, and thus it also became the goal of their preaching, rather than the by-product of it. Sweet points out that it was only natural for preachers to seek to imitate Whitefield, but that often they copied his faults and not his virtues.100 Sweet indicates that the greatest excesses of the New England Revival took place after Whitefield's departure.

It is little wonder then that some have concluded that some of the revivalists ". . . put on all the heat they could and with some exceptions, appealed to the emotions more than to the intelligence.101 Goen believes the most striking characteristic of the great awakening was religious excitement.102

Summary

To summarize what we have said: the Great Awakening had a solid Calvinism as its basis; it was balanced with a preaching which was both doctrinal in depth and soundness, yet at the same time laid great stress on man's responsibility before God. We have seen that at times this balance overturned and ended in excessive and uncalled-for emotionalism. Such an overbalance was inconsistent with the Calvinistic foundation, but nevertheless, it existed with some of its promoters unaware of the inconsistency and others not caring.

Thus at a time when American religion was decadent, the colonies were hit with the unexpected impact of the Great Awakening in 1740. Many professed salvation. Others who professed salvation previously now professed renewal. Spiritual interest and religious life in general were touched deeply, yet not without some accompanying excesses and inconsistencies. The question we now face is what followed this Great Awakening, and how did all of these events impact Baptists? That will be our subject in Part Two of this chapter.

Notes:

74Shelton H. Smith, Robert T. Handy, and Lefferts A. Loetscher, American Christianity: An Historical Interpretation with Representative Documents (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1960), Volume I, p. 189.
75William Warren Sweet, Revivalism in America, Its Origin, Growth and Decline (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1945), pp. 24-26.
76Sidney E. Mead, The Lively Experiment (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1963), see the whole of Chapter I.
77Smith, American Christianity, Volume I, pp 310-311.
78William Warren Sweet, The Story of Religion in America (New Your: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1950), p. 4.
79Ibid., p. 3.
80Edwin Scott Gaustad, The Great Awakening in New England (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957), p. 14.
81William G. McLoughlin, New England Dissent 1630-1833---The Baptists and Separation of Church and State Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971), Volume I, p. 335.
82Smith, American Christianity, Volume I, pp. 205-212, taken from "The Necessity of Reformation, with the Expedients Subservient Thereunto, Asserted in Two Questions," and The Results of Three Synods (Boston) pp. 94-117.
83Gaustad, Awakening, pp. 10-11.
84Ibid., p. 12.
85Joseph Tracey, The Great Awakening, A History of the Revival of Religion in the Time of Edwards and Whitefield, 1740-1800 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962), p. 160)
86C. C. Goen, Revivalism and Separatism in New England, 1740-1800 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962), p. 160.
87Sweet, Story of Religion in America, p. 5.
88William W. Sweet, Religion in Colonial America (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1942, pp. 274-275.
89Ibid., pp. 275-277.
90Sweet, Story of Religion in America, p. 129.
91Ibid.
92Sweet, Colonial America, p. 282
93Nelson R. Burr, James Ward Smith and A Leland Jamison, A Critical Bibliography of Religion in America (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1961), p. 132.
94Jonathan Edwards, Religious Affections (Grand Rapids: Sovereign Grace Publishers, 1971).
95Alan Heimert and Perry Miller, Editors, The Great Awakening (Indianapolis and New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1967), p. xxvi.
96Ibid.
97Goen, Revivalism, p. 42.
98Sweet, Colonial America, p. 283.
99William L. Lumpkin, Baptist Foundations in the South, (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1961), p. 5
100 Sweet, Colonial America, p. 287.
101 Mead, Experiment, p. 22. quoting Winfred E. Garrison, "Characteristics of American Organized Religion," Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Science, CCCVI (March 1948), p. 19.
102 Goen, Revivalism, p. 17.

An Historical Examination of the Doctrine of the Church Among Baptists With Special Reference to Southern Baptists and Church Purity - Chapter 3

2009-09-23T10:02:00.003-05:00

The Covenantal Concept of the Church
among Early Baptists in America

Having shown that a clear covenantal concept of the church existed among the early English Baptists, we now face the question of the doctrine of the church among Baptists, as they came to and were established in America. Was theirs ever a covenantal concept of the church? If so, where and how was it lost or forfeited. In this chapter we will prove that the early Baptists in America evidenced the same view of the church as we found in Gill and the English Baptists. This is not to say all Baptists in America in the nation's early years held the position of the covenantal concept of the church. Many did, and the conviction was strong and widespread.

The Philadelphia Association and Confession

To prove the presence of the covenantal concept of the church in Baptist thinking in early America, we shall refer to the Philadelphia Association and its confession of faith, known also by the same name, the Philadelphia Confession. Hudson informs us that the association itself was founded in 1707 and was composed of churches in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and later included churches in Connecticut, New York, Maryland, and Virginia.56 However, the evidence clearly illustrates this association was highly influential even beyond the boundaries of its own churches, as Hudson states again that, ". . . ultimately subsidiary associations were formed in Massachusetts and Virginia, and a relationship was established with the Charleston Association in the Carolinas.57 Lumpkin's observation is, that "This association became the pattern for numerous other Calvinistic Baptist associations."58

The Philadelphia Confession of Faith itself was definitely a restatement of the Second London Confession59 to which we have already referred and have shown to be a restatement of the Westminster Confession.60 The Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists, speaking of this confession of the Philadelphia group, notes a further modification, when it says it was Keach's Confession which became the Philadelphia Confession.61

To clarify our thinking at this point, we state simply the following relationship between the Philadelphia Confession and the Westminster Confession. First, the Westminster Confession was modified slightly by the English Baptists in 1677 and adopted as the Second London Confession. The Second London Confession in turn was modified by Elias Keach, who had been converted and pastored in the Philadelphia area. His modification was not published in Philadelphia , but rather in London in 1697. In turn the Philadelphia Association adopted this confession, thereby giving the association a clear tie doctrinally with the Second London Confession and the Westminster Confession.

The Philadelphia Confession did have two added articles not found in the London Confession, but which had been added to the Keach Confession. These two new articles had to do with the singing of Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, and the laying on of hands upon baptized believers.62 However, the similarity between the Philadelphia Confession and the Second London Confession was so great that Lumpkin only prints in his book on Baptist confessions the two added articles, which we have just mentioned.63 Exactly at what date the Philadelphia Association officially adopted this confession is not certain. It is reported that in 1724 the association in meeting referred to it, and that on September 25, 1742 they ordered a new printing of it, which was done by Benjamin Franklin.64

Thus we have given strong evidence that the Philadelphia Association held a clear covenantal concept of the church similar to that of John Gill and the English Baptists. Robert T. Handy agrees with this conclusion when he acknowledges that this group of Baptists followed the basic doctrine worked out in England by the seventeenth century Baptists,65 and their definition of the church was always related to their doctrine of election, that is, the local church is to be composed only of the elect (those called out of their natural state of sin into the state of grace by an effectual calling).66

Not only did they believe the covenantal concept of the church, but they sought to carry it out in practice, as their English ancestors had done. Converts were to be baptized only after giving sufficient evidence that they had been regenerated and had been recipients of sovereign grace.67 Handy quotes their discipline on the reception of members as follows: "Let there by pretty clear evidence of a work of grace. Slackness, or inattention here, has been the bane of the church, in all ages.68

Not only was the church kept pure by the use of the keys at the door of entrance, but even those who were members were expected to continue a life of holiness and concern. Discipline to those who did not was a serious matter shown by the fact that the churches acted to keep their purity, as a reading of their associational minutes will show.69 So careful were they that even the denial of election was grounds for discipline.70

The Widespread Influence of the Philadelphia Concept

Let no one assume that this understanding of the Philadelphia Association and Confession was just the position of a few Baptist churches in early America. We have already touched on this point, but we feel compelled to stress it once again. We are not maintaining this was the doctrinal commitment of all Baptists in the young nation at this time, but this position was widespread. We have already shown that the Philadelphia Association was extensive and far-reaching, even beyond the boundaries of Philadelphia and Pennsylvania. Lumpkin shows the confession also had a vast and extensive usage, since it was adopted by many other churches and associations, namely: the Ketockton of Virginia in 1766; the Warren Association in Rhode Island in 1767, the Charleston Association of South Carolina in 1767; the Elkhorn in 1785; the Holston in Tennessee in 1788; as well as others.71 Lumpkin again stresses the broad and far-ranging thrust of the confession, when he notes even though the confession passed into the shadows of Baptist life in America in the nineteenth century, ". . . it still was often referred to in America as 'the Baptist Confession.'"72 The Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists acknowledges its influence as follows: "Throughout the South it shaped Baptist thought generally and has perhaps been the most influential of all confessions."73

To summarize this chapter thus far we would make note of the following points of emphasis:

1. The Philadelphia Association, as evidenced by its confession, was clearly covenantal in its concept of the church, the confession being pretty much of a restatement of Keach's Confession, the Second London Confession and the Westminster Confession.

2. The covenantal concept of the church was very widespread among the early Baptists of America, due to the great influence of the Philadelphia Association and Confession.

3. The Philadelphia Association in its churches practiced a sound and solid discipline in reception of and in dealing with its members.

We now need to consider the loss of the covenantal concept of the church among Baptists in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries of their history in America, which brought with that loss other results influencing the churches of our day.

Notes:

56Winthrop S. Hudson, Religion in America (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1965), p. 44.
57Ibid., p. 44.
58William . Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith (Valley Forge: The Judson Press, 1969), p. 348.
59Clifton E. Olmstead, History of Religion in the United States (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey; Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1960), p. 109.
60Supra, p. 27. See also Hudson, Religion, p. 44.
61Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1958), Volume I, p. 308.
62Lumpkin, Confessions, p. 349.
63Ibid., p. 351.
64Ibid.
65Robert T. Handy, "The Philadelphia Tradition," Baptist Concepts of the Church, Edited by Winthrop S. Hudson (Chicago: The Judson Press, 1959), pp. 30-31.
66Ibid., p. 35.
67Ibid., p. 36.
68Ibid., p. 35.
69A. D. Gillette, Editor, Minutes of the Philadelphia Baptist Association from 1707 to 1807 (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1851.
70Ibid., pp. 68-69.
71Lumpkin, Confessions, pp. 352-353.
72Ibid., p. 353.
73Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists, p. 308.

An Historical Examination of the Doctrine of the Church Among Baptists With Special Reference to Southern Baptists and Church Purity - Chapter 2

2009-09-20T10:36:00.006-05:00

The Covenantal Concept of the Church
Among Early English Baptists

The Origin of Baptists

It would not serve our purpose to go into any lengthy detailed discussion concerning the subject often debated among Baptists regarding the origin of their denomination. We could hardly expect in a few words to solve the matter to the satisfaction of all. Yet the writer does feel compelled to speak a few words concerning the origin of Baptists, stating his own convictions, as a background for discussing the English Baptists.

Various opinions have been set forth on the subject, some tracing Baptists of today all the way back to the New Testament days, others linking them to the Anabaptists of the sixteenth century, and still others claiming that they descended from the English Baptists. Torbet notes that the attempt to trace Baptists back to New Testament days, which he calls the successionist theory, has been advanced on several grounds---apostolic succession, baptismal succession, church succession, or even a succession of principles.18 This writer would take the position that though he feels Baptistic principles are to be found in the New Testament, and though they may reappear at times in church history, it is impossible to prove any successionist theory, whatever the basis might be.

Regarding the view that today's Baptists or even the English Baptists are descendants of the Anabaptists, no lesser authority than Philip Schaff said regarding this matter, “The Calvinistic Baptists have not the slightest historical connection with these fanatics of the days of the Reformation, whose excesses in the Peasant War and the transactions at Munster are so notorious.”19 Schaff goes on to state concerning Baptists, that, “They originated in the times of those violent Puritanic commotions, which in the seventeenth century, disturbed the whole ecclesiastical and religious life of England.”20 [Though we would not agree with Shaff's condemnation of all Anabaptists as fanatics---there were some good godly men, as well as some extremists---the point is not their fanaticism in some cases, but that there is no historical relationship between Baptists and Anabaptists.] The present writer's conclusion would be that today's Baptists can be traced as an historical movement back to the English Baptists. Any study beyond that point would not be the study of a continuous movement, but the study of individual groups and their principles.

The English Baptists

Returning to consider the English Baptists, we would note that they were Calvinists, even though they were divided into General Baptists and Particular Baptists (names which speak of the two views of the atonement within their Calvinistic thinking). Torbet notes for us that the General Baptists were originally English Separatists, that is, those who had broken with the Church of England, as they regarded it as a false church, while the Particular Baptists rose from the non-separatist Independents a few years later.21 Torbet says further, the basic principle which gave rise to these Baptists was the issue of purity, that is, “ . . . whether or not it is possible to have a visible church of visible saints, a truly regenerate church membership.”22 He says again, “ . . . they had become convinced that the Bible taught that the church is composed only of those who have had a personal experience of regeneration prior to baptism."23 Thus, by believer's baptism and discipline, they sought to establish and maintain purity in their churches.24

Torbet says again that they

. . . did not ascribe to the principle of unbridled individualism. Instead they insisted upon a disciplined church; one disciplined from within, not by external coercion. They had a vision of a True Church as a gathered fellowship of believers, bound together in a covenantal relationship to God to witness fearlessly to their faith wherever they might be.25

The Covenantal Theology of Early English Baptists

To summarize these several points we have drawn from Torbet, it is clear that the English Baptists had a dream and a desire for a pure and disciplined church. Because of this desire they placed great emphasis on the believer's baptism and discipline. But Torbet made another point, which is often overlooked today. It was the statement referring to believers being bound together in a covenant with God. What did he mean by that statement? What part did it play in their quest for purity? To answer these questions we need a deeper understanding of the English Baptist view of the church, and perhaps one of the best ways to attain that would be to examine the writings of the English Baptist pastor, John Gill. But first a few words of background about Gill himself.26

Gill was born November 23, 1697 at Kettering in the Northamptonshire, England, the son of a Baptist deacon. Without doubt he was an unusually intelligent and gifted young man, for it is reported that he had mastered the Latin classics and Greek by the age of eleven. Converted at the age of twelve and baptized at the age of nineteen, and having preached his first sermon the Sunday following baptism, he became the pastor at Horsley-down, Fair-Street, Southwark, where he labored faithfully and wrote extensively for many years, expiring in 1771. His writings included most notably a large commentary on the whole Bible and a body of divinity.

The Covenant of Grace

Among Baptists and many evangelicals today there seems to be two popular divergent viewpoints concerning the date of the founding of the church. Both views place the beginning of the church at a moment in the New Testament. One view begins with Christ at some hour in His earthly ministry; the other view begins on the day of Pentecost. However, John Gill and the English Particular Baptists placed the origin of the church at neither place. Rather, their concept of the church went all the way back to eternity past to a free sovereign God and what is usually called the everlasting covenant of grace. Gill defined the covenant of grace as “ . . . a compact or agreement made from all eternity among the divine Persons, more especially between the Father and the Son, concerning the salvation of the elect.”27 Again, Gill said, “ . . . the covenant of grace, with respect to the elect, is nothing else but a free promise of eternal life and salvation by Jesus Christ, which includes all other promises of blessing of grace in it . . ."28

So in eternity past, according to Gill, the Holy Trinity entered into a covenant agreement consisting of the following parts. First, the Father's part was the choosing of a people (the elect) to be His own.29 He proposed the work of their redemption to the Son, Who would also be given charge and care over them. Part of that proposal and agreement between the Father and Son was the necessity of the Son to assume a human nature in order that He might redeem the elect. Also, it was imperative that he obey the law in the room and stead of His people, that He suffer death (the penalty of the law) for them , and thus become the sacrifice for their sins making atonement for them. As part of the covenant, the Father promised strength to the Son and assistance to perform the work in light of the humanity He would assume. All of this was part of the proposal the Father made to the Son before the foundation of the world.

But also, part of the agreement with the Son included the promise that the elect would be delivered and redeemed, justified and acquitted, their sins forgiven and forgotten, and they would be adopted into the family of God. They would be regenerated and circumcised in their hearts, receiving also the knowledge of God as the covenant God. They would be given further gifts of repentance and faith, the spiritual knowledge of the law (as it was to be written in their hearts), the filling of the Holy Spirit , and perseverance in grace and holiness to the end. All of these benefits to the elect were to be granted on the basis of the work Christ would do for them.

Second, was the Son's part in the covenant, which has already been mentioned in reference to the Father's part.30 Christ was in agreement and designated as Mediator of the covenant. In other words He would act to reconcile God and the elect. Necessary to the fulfillment of this office were His humanity and deity, obedience to the law as a man, as well as the human suffering of death. His mediatorship became the only way between God and man, be it the individual Jew or Gentile, Old or New Testament saint. Further, His mediatorship toward the elect was infallible, effectual, everlasting, and ever succeeding. Lastly, all that He did in life and death, He did in the stead of His elect.

Third, was the Holy Spirit's part in the covenant.31 It was necessary for Him to be in agreement with and give consent to every part of the previous portion, as well as to the present part of the covenant, which He did. Furthermore, it was His work to form the human nature of Christ and to fill that nature with gifts and graces. He was to descend on Christ at His baptism, and to raise Him from the dead after His death. Again, He was to be the agency of the inspiration of the Scriptures, both the Old and New Testament. He was to speak through the Scriptures telling of Christ's coming, and then to convict, regenerate, and grant the gift of faith to the elect. Lastly, it was His to sanctify and comfort the elect in their journey through this life, and to grant gifts to the ministers of all ages for the elect's edification and encouragement.

Thus, according to Gill, each person of the Holy Trinity had a part in the choosing, redeeming and saving of the elect. Further, note that Gill stated that the covenant originated in eternity, was eternal, absolute, unconditional, perfect, complete, sure, immutable standing forever.32

The Church the Body of Christ

The second point of our analysis of Gill's concept of the church grows out of the first. Since God has a group of His choice, the elect, whom He has given to the Son to redeem, with the Holy Spirit being designated to apply that work of redemption, then it is this group of persons who are included in the covenant, who make up the church---the body of Christ.33 This is to speak of the elect of all ages as making up that aspect of the church, which is known as the invisible or universal church. From this concept Gill drew the opinion that it is these elect ones and only these who are fit to be members of the visible church, and it is their duty to be so.34 This is why it is called the covenantal concept of the church, because only those already included in the covenantal relationship with God by virtue of their election are members of the body of Christ (the church universal), and only these are eligible and qualified to be members of the local church. Thus, according to Gill, it was the work of the visible church to convert the elect by God's power, and then to nurture them in faith and holiness.35

So, it seems obvious that Gill's concept of the church laid stress not on numbers or quantity, but on the necessity of the true meaning of ecclesia---called out ones. Those who would be received into the local church must give evidence of that divine calling and regeneration by the presence of a holy life and conversation. Further, the elect must evidence some ability and knowledge to perceive and understand the spiritual and the divine.

Gill summarized this point about the church, while commenting on Matthew 16:18. He said,

. . . by the church is meant not an edifice of wood, stones, etc., but an assembly and congregation of men; and that not of any sort; not a disorderly tumultuous, assembly, in which sense this word is sometimes taken; nor does it design the faithful of a family, which is sometimes the import of it; nor a particular congregated church, but the elect of God, the general assembly and church of the first born, whose names are written in heaven; and especially such of them as were to be gathered in, and built on Christ, from the Jews and Gentiles. The materials of this building are such as by nature no better, or more fit for it, than others: these stones originally lie in the same quarry with others; they are singled out, and separated from the rest, according to the sovereign will of God, by powerful and efficacious grace; and are broken and hewn by the Spirit of God, generally speaking, under the ministry of the Word, and are by Him, made living stones; and being holy and spiritual persons, are built up a spiritual house: and these are the only persons which make up the true and invisible church of Christ in the issue, and are only fit to be members of the visible Church; and all such aught to be in a Gospel church-state, and partake of the privileges of it . . . .36

The Church Administered in Two Dispensations

According to Gill, and this point is also obvious in light of the previous discussion, that the church is not just a New Testament entity, as many Baptists today seem to feel. Rather the church, or the covenant of grace, is manifested in two dispensations, the Old and the New.37 Gill observes some agreement between the two eras of the church. Namely, they agree in the efficient cause---God. Secondly, there is agreement in the moving cause---the sovereign mercy and free grace of God. Again, both eras have the same Mediator---Christ. Also, the subjects are identical---the elect. Lastly, the blessings are in agreement.

But there are some disagreements between the two dispensations according to Gill. First, the outlook of the saints was different from those of the first dispensation, who were looking forward, while those of the second look backward to the coming and work of the Mediator. Again, in the second there exists a greater clarity of understanding due to the previously mentioned outlook than in the first. Also, the second has a greater spirit of liberty, a larger and more plentiful effusion of the Holy Spirit and His gifts, and a greater number of persons, including the Gentiles. Lastly, the two eras have different ordinances with the second set continuing to the end, while the first ended with the coming of the second.

A Summary of Gill's Viewpoints

Before relating this concept of the church to the subject of purity, perhaps it would be helpful to summarize Gill's view that it might be fixed clearly in our minds, as we approach the subject of purity. So to summarize Gill's view of the church, we would make the following points of emphasis:

1. It began with a sovereign God entering into a covenant of grace between the Persons of the Holy Trinity.

2. Through that covenant God entered into agreement with a people of His choice (the elect), and gave them to His Son, Who was to be their representative Head, Mediator, Surely and Testator.

3. The Holy Spirit in agreement was designated to apply the work of the Son to those elect of God.

4. This group, known as the elect, makes up the body of Christ, the general assembly and church of the first born, also known to us as the universal or invisible aspect of the church.

5. In Order to administer and manifest the covenant of grace, the church exists locally in two dispensations, the Old and the New.

6. In the New Covenant, the era we now see, the local visible church is to be composed, as nearly as possible, of the elect of God. That is to say, the local church ideally, should be made up of the objects of God's everlasting covenant of grace, and all of these should be members of a local New Testament church.

7. Finally, it is the work of the local New Testament churches to convert the elect by God's power through the preaching of the Word and by the power of the Holy Spirit and to train and nurture them in the way of the Lord.

The Relation of the Covenantal Concept of the Church to Purity

The charge has been made by some that Baptists never benefited from holding a doctrine of the universal aspect of the church. W. H. Rone, Sr. states it as follows: "Baptists have never been encouraged and aided in being better and stronger Baptists by advocating the view of a Catholic (Universal) Invisible Church."38 This writer wonders how much Rone knew about John Gill and the early English Baptists and their view of the church. He does refer to the English Baptists, but then wholly dismisses their view as having been a perverted one picked up from the Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, the Dutch Mennonites and others of the Protestant and Reformed faith.39 He argues that because of this perversion, it was necessary for American Baptists to readjust and rediscover Biblical principles in the area of the doctrine of the church.40

As to whether or not Baptists moved to a more Biblical view of the church in their history in America, we shall explore that in a later chapter41 Our point and argument now is that Gill's understanding of the church was a benefit to the churches in England. Rone seems to be convinced that any understanding or conviction of the universal church will weaken the local church, and will in time breed an ecumenical movement. But on the contrary, John Gill is an example of one who holds a strong covenantal concept of the church, yet he did not allow the local church to be swallowed up in the universal. This will be clear to anyone who will take the time to read Gill's Body of Divinity, especially on the subjects pertaining to ecclesiology.42 It will become evident that Gill was strong in his emphasis on the importance of the local church; he was Baptistic in his thinking concerning the government, organization, and ordinances of the local church; yet he held firmly to the universal aspect of the church based on the covenant of grace.

Our argument in this section is that such a view tended toward greater purity. When one is convinced that God has a group known as His elect that He is calling to salvation, and that group and these alone are to be members of the local church, then it is bound to have an influence upon how we do the Lord's work---our methods of ministry, our reception of members, and our demands upon them as God's elect and members of the local congregation. Some have criticized Gill for the lack of an evangelistic thrust, which may be a valid criticism. However, the other extreme, a completely man-centered program of evangelism, such as we may possess today, which ignores God's will, plan and purpose for eternity, and thus produces wave upon wave of false fruit is not the proper method for evangelism either. The point of Gill's view of the church that we are stressing is that the local church is to be composed of those included in God's plan and purpose for eternity.

Someone might rightfully ask, “How do we know those included in the covenant of grace? How do we distinguish the elect from the non elect?" The English Baptists were convinced that the elect would give clear evidence in the hour of their regeneration by a new life that would follow. The work of God done within His elect was such a definite and deep work of grace to them that the reception of members in the local church could be based on that work and its evident results. Thus, Gill's view granted a solid foundation for understanding the necessity and importance of purity and the maintenance of it.

Gill's View Was Also That of the English Baptists

Perhaps before closing this chapter of the paper, it would be wise to document the fact that Gill's view was the same as that of the English Particular Baptists and not just the view of one man. We could refer to several confessions of faith,43 but have chosen just one, the Second London Confession.44

Lumpkin points out that due to the religious persecution against the dissenters in England, there was the feeling of needing a united front among them which would be demonstrated by showing doctrinal agreement among themselves.45 The document which became that proof of agreement was the Westminster Confession, which had been prepared by the Westminster Assembly in 1646. Lumpkin notes that it (the WCF) had already become the official confession of Scotland; it had been adopted by the English Parliament with some alteration; it had been adopted by the Congregationalists after changes to confirm to their views of their church at the Savoy Conference in 1658; and it still was the confession of the English Presbyterians. He continues the story of the Baptist part as follows:

The Particular Baptists of London and vicinity determined, therefore, to show their agreement with the Presbyterians and congregationalists by making the Westminster Confession the basis of a new confession of their own. A circular letter was sent to the Particular Baptist churches in England and Wales asking that representatives be sent to a general meeting in 1677. By the time this meeting was held, it appears that Elder William Collins of the Petty France Church in London had worked over the Westminster document, altering it as he saw fit. At the meeting the Confession was issued in the name of the gathered representatives.46

The doctrinal viewpoint of this confession is clearly the same as John Gill's. In Chapter III and section three, concerning the decree of God, the confession clearly spells out election as it says " . . . some men and Angels are predestinated, or foreordained to Eternal Life, through Jesus Christ, to the praise of his glorious grace; others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation to the praise of his glorious justice."47

Point five of this same chapter of the confession notes that God's election is unconditional, that is, it is not based on any thing in the creature as a condition or cause.48 Point six then follows to assure that God also has foreordained all the means whereby the elect shall be called out, saved and redeemed.49

Chapter VII of the confession speaks of God's covenant noting that man would never by his own power seek God, but God has made a covenant of grace whereby He gives salvation to sinners through Christ, and ". . . promises to give all those that are ordained unto eternal Life, his Holy Spirit to make them willing, and able to believe."50 It is stated in the same chapter that this covenant is revealed in the gospel in both the Old and New Testaments, and that ". . . it is founded in that Eternal Covenant transaction, that was between the Father and the Son, about the Redemption of the Elect: . . . "51

Chapter VIII of the confession speaks of Christ the Mediator of the covenant, according to the covenant between the Father and the Son.52 The language makes it clear that the Mediatorship is on behalf of those God gave to Christ from all eternity past. The rest of the chapter spells out the work of Christ for His people in very similar language and thought as was found in John Gill.

In Chapter XXVI the covenantal concept of the church is clearly stipulated, as we read:

The Catholick or universal Church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit, and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the Elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.

All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the Gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ, according unto it; not destroying their own profession by any Errors perverting the foundation, or unholyness of conversation, are and may be called visible Saints; and out of such all particular Congregations to be constituted.53

In light of these clear statements we conclude the confession was in agreement with the view of John Gill. Again, we state confidently that the English Particular Baptists possessed a clear and strong covenantal concept of the church, and this concept bore an influence in the maintenance of purity in the local membership.

We close this chapter with two quotations concerning these English Baptists of the seventeenth century. First, a summarizing statement of Torbet as he says:

English Baptists of the seventeenth century were clear on what makes a true church. They regarded the church as a gathered community of redeemed men and women who had covenanted to walk together under the discipline of the Word of God and, with a properly appointed leadership, to proclaim the gospel and observe regularly the ordinances.54

Second, it is to be noted that J. H. Shakespeare calls these Particular Baptists ". . . the real forefathers of the modern denomination."55

Notes:

18Robert G. Torbet, A History of the Baptists (Valley Forge: The Judson Press, 1963), pp 18-19.
19Philip Schaff, America---A Sketch of Its Political, Social, and Religious Character, Edited by Perry Miller (Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1961), 169.
20Ibid, p. 169.
21Torbet, History, p. 22.
22Ibid., p. 32.
23Ibid., p. 61.
24Ibid,. p. 31.
25Ibid., p. 30.
26The basis of this brief biographical sketch is the two short biographies found in the front of Gill's Body of Divinity (Grand Rapids: Sovereign Grace Publishers, 1971), pp. vii-xii and Gill's Old Testament Commentary (London: William Hill Collingridge, 1960), Volume I, pp. ix-xxxxvi. The first is written by Jay Green, while the second appears to be the work of David Alfred Doudney.
27Gill, Body, p. 214. What Gill terms "the covenant of grace," others have called "the covenant of redemption." Both terms refer to the agreement in the Trinity concerning the salvation of a people, whereby God chose a people, gave them to the Son, who agreed to purchase their redemption, while the Holy Spirit in agreement was designated to apply the work of the Son to the elect. Those who use the phrase "covenant of redemption" to speak of this work, then use the phrase "covenant of grace" to refer to the outworking of the former. Gill seems to use the term "covenant of grace" to refer to the whole.
28Ibid., p. 215.
29Ibid., pp. 219-226. These pages cover the whole of the Father's part in the covenant.
30Ibid., pp. 227-237.
31Ibid., pp. 244-246.
32Ibid., pp. 247-250.
33John Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament (London: William Hill Collingridge, 1960) Volume I, p. 767.
34Ibid., p. 150.
35John W. Bush, “John Gill's Doctrine of the Church,” Baptist Concepts of the Church, Edited by Winthrop S. Hudson (Chicago: The Judson Press, 1959) pp. 58-59.
36Gill, New Testament I, p. 150.
37Gill, Body, pp. 345-348. The whole of the discussion under this heading is from these pages.
38W. H. Rone, Sr., Southern Baptists and the Concept of a Catholic (Universal) Church (Paducah Printing Company, 1959), p. 74.
39Ibid., p. 28.
40Ibid.
41Infra, pp. 109-126,
42Gill, Body, see particularly Book II, pp. 852-895 and Book III, pp. 896-972.
43William L. Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith (Valley Forge: The Judson Press, 1969), note "A True Confession 1596," p. 79ff and "The London Confession 1644," p. 144ff.
44Ibid., p. 235ff.
45Ibid., p. 236.
46Ibid.
47Ibid., p. 254.
48Ibid., pp. 254-255.
49Ibid., p. 255.
50Ibid., pp. 259-260.
51Ibid., p. 260.
52Ibid., p. 261.
53Ibid., page 285.
54Torbet, History, p. 55.
55Hudson, Baptist Concepts, p. 17, quoting J. H. Shakespeare, Baptist and Congregational Pioneers (London: 1906), pp. 188-183.

Gospel Convictions: A Statement From Matthias Media

2009-09-19T13:27:00.006-05:00

Recently Matthias Media, publisher of The Briefing (one of the best Christian magazines available), began to draw up a list of principles they have entitled Gospel Convictions: A call to evangelical integrity in truth and life.

In the process of writing these principles, they have been seeking feedback, especially from subscribers to The Briefing. Here is the statement as it currently stands:

THE STATEMENT

Scripture teaches us that true life is to be found only in the knowledge of God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It also warns us that the times we live in will be marked by doctrinal error and godless living. We therefore commit ourselves to proclaim and contend for the following teachings of the Bible, being convinced that these truths express not only the liberating faith once for all delivered to the saints, but the points at which that faith is under threat at the present time.

1. The truth and centrality of the gospel of Jesus, the crucified and risen Christ.

The gospel is the momentous news concerning God's divine Son, who was sent into the world by his Father and who became the man Jesus Christ. The gospel declares that Jesus was God incarnate, that he lived a sinless life, that he died on the cross to bear God's righteous anger at us because of our sin, and that he was bodily raised from death and exalted to the right hand of God as the Lord and Ruler of the world
(i.e. ‘the Christ’). According to this same gospel, Jesus Christ will return as judge of the living and the dead, bringing eternal punishment on those who have not obeyed him, but salvation from wrath and eternal life to all who have repented and put their trust in him. The gospel thus commands a twofold response: turning back from our rebellion against God to submit to Jesus Christ as Lord (repentance), and trusting in the risen Christ alone for forgiveness of sins and eternal life (faith).

This gospel of Christ crucified demonstrates the wondrous love and righteousness of God, and reveals his eternal plan to unite all things in heaven and on earth under one head, even Jesus Christ, to the praise of his glory and grace. By the proclamation of this gospel, God is gathering from every nation a people for his own possession—a people who are justified by Jesus' blood and zealous for good works.

Accordingly, we are opposed to any teaching that denies the unique and universal Lordship of the risen Christ as the only name under heaven by which people must be saved, that rejects the penal substitutionary atonement of the Cross, or that diminishes the reality of future judgement and hell. We also oppose any practice of Christian ministry that displaces the clear, faithful and frequent speaking of this gospel in favour of other emphases, such as social action or personal fulfilment, or
that promises salvation without personal repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. We also resist the call to any Christian ‘unity’ that is not based on the truth of this gospel.

2. The necessity of the indwelling work of the Holy Spirit to initiate and enable repentance and faith.

In view of the universal sinfulness and spiritual deadness of all people, only the inward life-giving work of God's Holy Spirit can open our eyes to the truth of the gospel, and initiate repentance and faith (these being also the basic ongoing responses to God's grace throughout the Christian life). All Christian believers are baptized in the Spirit, and by his power are born again to eternal life with God as our Father and Jesus as our Lord. The Spirit leads us to put to death the misdeeds of the body and to produce the fruit of holy living. He unites us as one body in Christ, and draws us together in local assemblies to love and encourage one another.

Accordingly, we reject any teaching that denies God's predestining sovereignty in bringing believers to new birth by his Spirit, and we oppose the worldliness that resists the Spirit's leading towards daily holiness and love of our neighbour. While affirming the powerful and miraculous work of God by his Spirit in our world today, we are opposed to any teaching that divides Christians according to their experience of the Spirit—whether on the basis of a so-called ‘second blessing’ or ‘baptism’ or ‘filling’ of the Spirit, or a higher level of emotional experience, or the exercise of miraculous gifts such as ‘speaking in tongues’, or the claim of complete victory over sin in this life.
3. The assurance of salvation that belongs to those who have been justified by the blood of Jesus and sealed by his Spirit.

Those who by the Spirit's work trust in Christ's blood alone are now justified before God, are given eternal life and are assured of their salvation at the Last Day. This true living faith will always lead to the good works God has prepared for us to do, but these good works do not earn our salvation, either now or on the Last Day.

Accordingly, we are opposed to any teaching that undermines assurance of salvation for believers, either by denying our present justification, or by questioning our experience of the Spirit, or by requiring the performance of certain religious observances as necessary for salvation.
4. The authority and sufficiency of the God-breathed Scriptures for gospel truth and life.
The gospel of Jesus Christ is revealed and explained in the writings of the Old and New Testaments. All the words of the Bible are God's words. They are not only true, reliable and authoritative, but God's sufficient means for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training his people in every age. Whatever else it may entail, or however it may be supported, all Christian evangelism and ministry centre on the prayerful speaking of the Bible's truth.
Accordingly, we refute any view that diminishes the Bible's authority, such as those who place the Bible under the authority of the Church or scholarship. We also oppose the claim that sections of Scripture are erroneous (e.g. in rejecting the bodily resurrection of Christ) or no longer relevant (e.g. in denying the continuing validity of biblical gender distinctions or the Bible's teachings on sexual morality). We also stand opposed to any who reject the Bible's sufficiency by claiming access to new or fresh revelation—whether by ecstatic experience, words of knowledge, meditative contemplation, church councils or liturgical ritual.
5. The tension of gospel living in the world today.

As those living between the resurrection and return of Christ, we rejoice and give thanks for all the good gifts we receive from God's hand in creation. We also count it
all joy when we suffer the inevitable trials, illnesses and persecutions of this present evil age, knowing that in his goodness, God uses them to prove and strengthen our faith. In the midst of our trials, we entrust ourselves to God and devote ourselves to doing good, confident that he will deliver us, either now or in the age to come. We long for the resurrection of the dead and the new creation, which God will bring decisively in his own secret time, and in which all the blessings won by Christ will be experienced in their fullness, including freedom from sickness, pain, injustice, poverty and death.
Accordingly, we stand opposed to the ‘social gospel’, the ‘prosperity gospel’ and the ‘healing gospel’—all of which falsely seek to draw into this age the blessings of the
next. We also lament how many are in love with this present world and its pleasures, rather than longing for the age to come.
6. The urgency of gospel living in the world today.
By their nature, these glorious gospel truths demand not only to be proclaimed and contended for, but also to be lived. To assent to these truths without also enacting them in our lives is neither to understand them nor really to believe them.
Thus, in the power of the Holy Spirit, and with our hearts compelled by the love of Christ, we declare our determination to:

- abandon our lives to the honour and service of Christ in daily holiness and decision-making
- pray constantly in Christ's name for the fruitfulness and growth of his gospel
- speak the Bible's life-changing word whenever and however we can—in the home, in the world and in the fellowship of his people.
Revised July 2009.

These uncompromising Gospel convictions are part of what I like so much about The Briefing, and I would imagine this blog's readers would agree. However, if you would like to weigh in on the formulation of these principles, please send your feedback to the folks at Matthias Media.

A Subscriber Will Receive Two Free Journey Books For Christmas

2009-09-16T12:38:00.007-05:00

This is just a reminder to the blog's readers that, as I announced on September 1, I am going to offer a free copy of two of the Journey books for Christmas this year to one of the blog's email subscribers. They will include the recent book, A Journey in Heresy, and the first book in the Journey series, A Journey in Grace. If you already have the first book, then I will allow the substitution of another from the series. On December 11 I will draw from the addresses included in the email subscriber list from FeedBurner. So, if you want to have a chance to receive these books, then make sure you sign up as an email subscriber to the blog using the Subscribe in a reader link on the right panel of this page. And make sure you click the "Get Reformed Baptist Blog delivered by email" option. Current email subscribers are already in the running. I will send the two books to the first email subscriber drawn or that I can contact, so make sure that your email address is valid.

I suspect that once you have read a couple of the books, you will want to read more of them and will recommend them to others as well. As a pastor, I have found that folks have really been helped by them and have found them enjoyable reading as well.

What is a Reformed Baptist Church?

2009-09-11T12:19:00.010-05:00

Back in July I posted a brief defense for Why I Call Myself a Reformed Baptist. In that article I also mentioned a poll I had conducted in 2007-2008 that revealed some significant diversity among those who would call themselves Reformed Baptists. I have also previously cited a paper by Jim Savastio entitled What is a Reformed Baptist Church?, in which he summarized well the (sometimes frustrating) diversity in the usage of the term Reformed Baptist.

Today I would like to inform the blog's readers of yet another attempt to define what it means to be a Reformed Baptist. This paper is also entitled What is a Reformed Baptist Church?, and it was written back in 1999 by Andrew Kerkham, the pastor of Tauranga Reformed Baptist Church in Papamoa, Tauranga, New Zealand.

Here is the the complete text for your consideration:

WHAT IS A REFORMED BAPTIST CHURCH?

1. IT HOLDS TO HISTORIC CHRISTIANITY

It holds to the essential doctrines of the historic Christian faith as set out in creeds such as the Apostles' Creed, Nicene Creed and Athanasian Creed.

1.1 The Bible: The Bible in its original writings is fully inspired by God, and is therefore the supreme and final authority for belief and practice.

1.2 God: God is one in essence, eternally existing in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

1.3 Jesus Christ: Jesus is the incarnate Son of God, born of the virgin Mary, and is therefore truly God and truly human; he lived a holy and sinless life, died on the cross bearing our guilt as our vicarious substitute, rose bodily from the dead, ascended into heaven, and will return personally, visibly, and in power and glory.
1.4 The Human Race: God created human beings in his own image, but Adam the first human being sinned, and through this transgression every one of us inherits a sinful nature which results in personal transgression and guilt, incurring the penalty
of death, both physical and spiritual.

1.5 Salvation: Salvation is through regeneration by the Holy Spirit (the new birth), justification by faith alone without works of righteousness, and sanctification by the indwelling Holy Spirit which produces the fruits of righteousness including good works.

1.6 The Future: There is a future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, the just to eternal blessedness in heaven and the unjust to eternal banishment in hell.
2. IT HOLDS TO REFORMATION DISTINCTIVES
It holds to the great doctrines emphasized during the Reformation as set forth in documents such as the Belgic Confession, Canons of Dort, Heidelberg Catechism, Westminster Confession of Faith, and Baptist Confession of Faith (1689). These may be summed up in the threefold statement:
Sola scriptura - Sola gratia - Sola fide
Scripture alone - Grace alone - Faith alone

2.1 Sola Scriptura: The Bible in its original writings is verbally and fully inspired by God and therefore the inerrant Word of God to the human race; it is therefore the
supreme and final authority for belief and practice. (For a modern statement see
the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, 1978). Neither human reason, experience nor the Church can be our final authority. Therefore liberal theology (which exalts the authority of human reason), the charismatic movement (which exalts the authority of human experience) and Roman Catholicism (which exalts the authority of the church) are all viewed as inadequate systems of belief.
2.2 Sola Gratia: Salvation is entirely by the grace of God. The implications of this statement are summed up in the so-called "Five Points" (TULIP):
2.2.1 Total inability (or, total depravity): Sin has affected human beings to the extent that every part of our beings—body and soul, mind will and emotions—have been contaminated by sin, so that no one is able to do anything to gain salvation. We are therefore all under the condemnation of God.

2.2.2 Unconditional election: Since we are incapable of effecting our own salvation, God in his grace has chosen to call out specific individuals from the condemned human race to be his people. This election is unconditional in that is it based entirely on God's grace and good pleasure, not on any merit, neither intrinsic nor foreseen, in us.

2.2.3 Limited atonement (or, particular redemption): If election is particular (individual) and Christ's death is a vicarious and substitutionary sacrifice, then the atonement is limited in its design or purpose to the elect.

2.2.4 Irresistible grace (or, efficacious calling): If the Father has elected specific individuals for salvation, and the Son has died a substitutionary death for them, then the Holy Spirit in time calls them irresistibly and efficaciously to salvation.

2.2.5 Perseverance (or, security) of the saints: If the Father has specifically elected us, and the Son has died specifically in our place, and the Holy Spirit has irresistibly called us to eternal life, then our salvation is secure, for (by God's grace) we shall persevere in holiness to the end and be assured of heaven.

2.3 Sola Fide: In salvation we are justified by faith alone.

2.3.1 Justification: Justification is God's forensic (legal) declaration
that a sinner is not guilty. This declaration is based entirely on the
righteousness of Christ, who himself bore the sinner's penalty of death in
his substitutionary death on the cross. Since we have no righteousness of
our own, in justification Christ's righteousness is imputed (reckoned, accounted) to the sinner.

2.3.2 Faith: Justification is effected through the instrument of faith. This faith involves various aspects, in particular, knowledge, assent and trust.

2.3.3 Faith alone: Justification is by faith alone. Justification is not on the basis of our own merit or righteousness, nor is it on the basis of baptism or penance.
3. IT HOLDS TO BAPTIST DISTINCTIVES

It holds to Baptist distinctives that distinguish it from non-Baptist churches, namely:

3.1 The Church: The Church is the whole company of those who have been redeemed by Jesus Christ and regenerated by the Holy Spirit. The local church, as a manifestation of the universal church, is a community of believers in a particular place where the Word of God is preached, the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper are observed, and scriptural discipline is exercised. It is fully autonomous, and remains so notwithstanding responsibilities it may accept through voluntary
association.
3.2 Congregational Church Government: A constituted church meeting, under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and through the guidance of the Scriptures, is the highest court of authority for the local church. Elders and deacons are chosen and lead through the common consent of the church itself. Each individual member has a right and responsibility to participate fully in the life and government of the church, particularly in the appointment of its leaders.
3.3 Believer's Baptism: Baptism is an outward sign of an individual's union with Christ in his death, burial and resurrection, and is a confession of personal regeneration, repentance and faith. Its scriptural mode is immersion in water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
3.4 The Priesthood of Believers: Each believer has direct access to God through
Christ our High Priest, and shares with him in the work of reconciliation through intercession, worship and faithful service.
3.5 Liberty of Conscience: Each believer has the right to private conscience, and has an obligation to interpret the Scriptures responsibly and to act in the light of
his/her conscience, and should not be coerced by any State, secular, ecclesiastical or religious group in matters of faith. Nevertheless, it is right and proper that like-minded believers should express their fellowship in voluntarily submitting to confessions, creeds and statements of faith.
4. THE EFFECTS OF THESE DISTINCTIVES ON PRACTICE

The effects of these historic, reformed and baptist distinctives should be seen in the life and practice of the church as follows:
4.1 Preaching: Preaching of the Word of God is the method that God has ordained for proclaiming the name of Christ and building up the body of Christ. No other methods (e.g. music, films and other art forms; debate, discussion, broadcasting or other communication forms) should detract from or replace the faithful and public exposition of the Scriptures and the preaching (proclamation) of the gospel of Christ.
4.2 Evangelism: While God knows who the elect are, we do not, so God has ordained that his church should preach the gospel (the good news) of his salvation to all people throughout the world. Evangelism is conducted with confidence, knowing that it does not depend on human persuasiveness, but on the irresistible working of the Holy Spirit. Evangelism is based on the preaching of the Word of God, and both
the message and the method of evangelism must be founded on Scriptural principles.
4.3 Worship: Worship is viewed as a serious and reverent approach to God, who is majestic, glorious and holy. Worship therefore should be free from all superficiality, frivolity and irreverence. Although worship is conducted in a serious and reverent manner, it is also joyful as we rejoice in the God of our salvation.
4.4 Godly Living: Individual believers are expected, on the grounds of Scripture and as proof of their salvation, to live godly lives in obedience to the Law of God, to seek to be holy even as God is holy, to love one another as Christ has loved them, and to do good works as an expression of the love of Christ within them.
© 1999 by Andrew Kerkham
kerkham at gmail dot com

I am in essential agreement with Pastor Kerkham, as I would imagine most Reformed Baptists are. For those who are interested, he has also penned a modern English version of the Baptist Confession of 1689.

An Historical Examination of the Doctrine of the Church Among Baptists With Special Reference to Southern Baptists and Church Purity - Chapter 1

2009-09-07T11:44:00.012-05:00

This material was originally written as part of a Th.M. dissertation submitted to Covenant Theological Seminary in 1973, but it is believed that it is still pertinent to issues facing contemporary Baptists.

Introduction

The Problem of Impurity in Southern Baptist Churches

For an extended period of time now, voices at various intervals and places have been arising in the Southern Baptist Convention, expressing deep concern over the signs of impurity that seem to be evidencing themselves in the local churches. Some have sought to discount and overlook these suspected trends toward impurity and their possible implications in light of the unparalleled success Southern Baptists were reaping numerically. Others, including the writer, have had to face and admit the inescapable conviction that many churches of the denomination are firmly in a lifestyle stemming from a pattern of thought and practice, which allows for and even sometimes encourages impurity, laxity, and passivity in their membership.

C. E. Matthews, when Secretary of Evangelism for the Convention's Home Mission Board, concluded from a 1953 study that “. . . 48.4 per cent of the entire membership of the Southern Baptist churches is lost to the cause of Christ.”1 Finley Edge, another Southern Baptist writer, speaking of the Convention churches, echoed the same thoughts several years later, when he said, “Thus a conservative estimate would be that at least 50 percent of our total membership is inactive, that is, they are either nonresident or almost totally unenlisted."2 Another author, a professor at one of the denotation's seminaries, acknowledges that fifty per cent of the members of the total churches appear to be lifeless.3 He refers also to the danger sign of the unfruitful living of those who are supposed to be saved.

James Leo Garrett, another Southern Baptist leader, stated, “Inactive and nonparticipating church members and the problem of nonresident membership have become major Southern Baptist difficulties.”4 Garrett further notes that while Southern Baptists are showing capable leadership and example in many important fields “ . . . yet, in the practice of an ordered disciplined congregational life . . . Southern Baptists are providing neither leadership nor example.”5 Garrett clarified the great extent of this deficiency, when he states that this lack of ordered and disciplined churchmanship “. . . appears to be true whether one considers ethics, theology, or church order.”6

Furthermore, it is being asked by some whether or not the boast over the great evangelistic successes, as evidenced in all the numbers and statistics, carries a true ring, especially in view of the lack of continuance and perseverance in the lives of many supposed converts. Gaines Dobbins, as one of the denomination's professors in practical theology, wrote as early as 1945 that, “As matters now stand, if Southern Baptists should add one million new church members to their rolls, they would at the same time add approximately six hundred thousand to the number of the unenlisted.”7

In his book, S. W. Powell, tells of a conversation with a great and hardworking Southern Baptist pastor. He quotes the man as saying, “I receive hundreds of new members every year, yet my morning service is no larger, there are no more people at my evening services, and my prayer meeting does not grow.”8 Others agree with this failure to assimilate the converts to a life of faithfulness and concern. Southard says of us, “The major criticism is the instability of the converts.”9 C. E. Matthews agrees that, “The most justifiable criticism can be made of all that Southern Baptists are doing today is their failure to conserve the results of their evangelistic efforts.”10

Some are becoming convinced that the reason we are hard-pressed to preserve our evangelistic results is that in reality much of it is false fruit. Finley Edge accuses us of becoming so accustomed to such [false] fruit that we think this abnormal condition we are in is quite normal.11 Duke McCall, president of Southern Baptist Seminary, summarizes the whole condition, as well as the writer's contention, when he says, “In recent years, however, there has been growing concern that ours is not in fact a regenerate church membership.”12

To further summarize our total thought so far, we have sought to bring evidence of the impurity of the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention. We have noted that a great portion, possibly even fifty percent of our total membership, is inactive. In most churches these inactive ones continue as members with full rights and privileges. This situation clearly indicates there is lacking in many of our churches any disciplined and ordered congregational life, which would help these persons to understand the grave condition of their being, or that would deal with them to maintain purity in the church. It is a practice quite widespread to continue to pour supposed converts into the churches with little or no regard that false fruit may be the result, as well as an impure church. It appears, further, that the condition of impurity, which these practices have produced, is considered perfectly normal [by many]. Thus, Southern Baptists must face the question of whether or not they are still faithful to the historic Baptist principle of regenerate church membership both in doctrine and practice.

In all fairness, however, we must admit that Southern Baptists are not the only denomination struggling with this problem of impurity. Hill and Torbet, speaking of Baptists in general, say that, “In the average Baptist Church, must less than seventy-five percent of those on the rolls give tangible evidence of serious churchmanship.”13 Torbet writes in another text, “ . . . Baptist discipline of wayward members has become rare, except in cases of flagrant immoral conduct.”14 Littell notes this same trend of impurity in all American churches, as he says, “The American churches seem well on their way to settling for the status of culture-religion, scuttling the discipline and mobility which was once their pride.”15

The fact is, anyone even remotely familiar with Baptist history knows impurity has not always been the case with Baptists! Discipline and church purity, as reflected in the doctrine of regenerate membership (with its implications and resultants), were once central in Baptist thinking, as we shall show in the course of this work. Thus, the question is not, have we always born this burden of impurity? Rather, the question is, how did we move from a disciplined regenerate society [as Baptists] to our present status of impurity.? What factors contributed to this fall? What can be done to reverse the trend? It is clear that the problem needs further analysis.

The Problem of Impurity Further Analyzed

In seeking to understand and to explain this strange phenomenon of impurity, which is plaguing Southern Baptists, this writer has found himself lost in a labyrinth of possible influences and causes. Some of those influences would have to include: (1) Our present day practices of evangelism; (2) Our methods of receiving church members; (3) Our lack of any real effective program of discipline, formative and reformative; (4) Our theology, especially in the area of objective and subjective soteriology; (5) Our concept of ministry and preaching; (6) The relation of these influences to one another.

Each of the forgoing areas of thought could be broken down into numerous and varying categories, which would also relate to one another and the overall problem of impurity. In thinking upon these categories and areas and their relation to the matter of local church purity, the writer came to several conclusions. First, it was judged that each of the above major and minor divisions could call for a thorough and extensive analysis in relation to the problem of impurity, even a dissertation on each. Second, the writer has concluded that these above categories and their division, though contributing to the presence of impurity, are not the basic and underlying problem in the situation confronting our churches. There is, the writer is convinced and will seek to show in this paper, a basic foundational doctrinal weakness, which is the primary cause of the impurity and its contributing factors. To deal with the contributing factors, as mentioned above and not the primary doctrinal weakness underlying the them, might temporarily improve some aspects of the problem of impurity [in our churches], but it could not bring a full and lasting settlement of the difficulty.

The conviction, which is the need to remedy a doctrinal weakness as the foundation to the restoration of purity, came to the writer first while reading the book titled Baptist Concepts of the Church.16 This book is a compilation of articles by different authors presenting various concepts of the church, which Baptists have held from the early English Baptists to the present day Baptists. This is not an attempt to tie these views together in any manner of historical development. Instead the book seems to have the assumption and thesis that Baptists have always varied in their views of the church through their history, and here is the evidence.

But in reading the book this writer began to sense the definite possibility of an historical relationship between the various Baptist views presented, and he thus set out to understand if such was the case. The result of the research which followed was the thesis that there is an historical development of Baptist thinking concerning the doctrine of the church, which can be traced from the early English Baptists to the present day, and that the doctrine of the church has a strong relation to the subject of church purity.

To prove that the doctrine of the church is related to the subject of purity, it is necessary to demonstrate that there is an historical development in Baptist history of the doctrine of the church. Therefore, the heart of this paper will seek to trace that historical development of Baptist thinking regarding the church. We shall proceed as follows:

a. We shall note the strong covenantal concept of of the church in the early English Baptist thought represented in the writings of John Gill.17

b. We shall show how this strong covenantal concept of the church had an early and widespread beginning in America, as evidenced in the Philadelphia Confession and Association, and through these influences, dating around and following the year of 1704.

c. We shall show a clear departure from the covenantal concept of the church by the eighteenth and nineteenth century Baptists in America, noting the influence which contributed to its loss.

d. We shall note the extreme result of this departure, as evidenced in what has been termed the Landmark movement, dating around the last half the nineteenth century. We shall also note this movement's relationship to and influence upon Southern Baptists.

e. We shall cite briefly the lack of any major developments in the doctrine of the church among Southern Baptists from the Landmark view down to our present day, and some possible reasons for that lack.

f. We shall relate this doctrine of the church to the subject of purity, as we move through the paper, while also summarizing, restating, and adding further arguments at the close of the paper.

It is the writer's strong conviction that the doctrine of the church needs desperately to be reopened and reevaluated among Southern Baptists. In many places there seems to be an historical ignorance among Southern Baptists that assumes present thinking concerning the nature of the church is the historic and only understanding of the church that was ever held by Baptists. To many Southern Baptists the subject is closed, and they are convinced that their view is the final word for Baptists concerning the subject, but they say this with an absolute ignorance of church history and Baptist doctrine of the past. It is hoped that this paper may dispel some of those dark shadows of false thought and assumption, and thereby contribute to the reexamination of the doctrine of the church among Baptists, especially among Southern Baptists.

Notes:

1 C. E. Matthews, A Church Revival (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1955), p. 103.
2Finley Edge, A Quest for Vitality in Religion (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1963), p. 199,
3Samuel Southard, Pastoral Evangelism (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1962), p. 5.
4James Leo Garrett, Jr., Baptist Church Discipline (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1962), p. 1.
5Ibid., p. 2.
6Ibid., p. 1.
7G. S. Dobbins, “Achieving a Great Goal and Avoiding a Grave Danger,” Review and Expositor, Vol XLI (October 1944), p. 310.
8Sidney W. Powell, Where Are the Converts (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1958), p. 6
9Southard, Pastoral, pp. 149-150.
10Matthews, Revival, p. 102
11Finley B. Edge, “A Time Lapse for Receiving New Members?---Yes!,” Review and Expositor, Vol LX (Spring 1963), p. 173.
12Duke K. McCall, “Editorial Introduction,” Review and Expositor, Volume LX (Spring 1963), p. 134.
13Samuel S. Hill, Jr. and Robert G. Torbet, Baptists North and South (Valley Forge: The Judson Press, 1964), pp. 104-105.
14Robert G. Torbet, A History of Baptists (Valley Forge: The Judson Press, 1963), p. 452.
15Franklin H. Littell, From State Church to Pluralism: A Protestant Interpretation of Religion in American History (Chicago; Aldine Publishing Company, 1962), pp. vii-viii.
16Winthrop S. Hudson, Editor, Baptist Concepts of the Church (Chicago: The Judson Press), 1959).
17If the reader is unfamiliar with the term “covenantal concept of the church,” the writer deems it unnecessary to define the concept here, as that shall be done fully in the next chapter.

Stay tuned for the next installment in the series.