Francis Schaeffer’s Covenant Premillennialism

Francis Schaeffer’s paedobaptist covenant premillennialism appears to be rarely held today, although apparently it was commonly held among the Bible Presbyterians and the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod (RPCES), both of which he ministered in during his career.

The following is Schaeffer’s view in a nutshell and basically explains why he takes prophecy “literally” but why he wasn’t a dispensationalist even though he was a pre-tribulationist. It is from the second half of the message on the Covenant of Grace in the Westminster Confession of Faith series that was taught at L’Abri in the early 1960s. (This series includes the sermon from which his little book on Baptism was drawn.)

This is basically an introduction to a series of messages on the Abrahamic Covenant in which he emphasizes what he terms the unity and diversity of the covenant. This transcription is very lightly edited to remove repetition, etc. My apologies for any grammatical errors.
—————————
Schaeffer:

We have here two halves in the first three verses of the Abrahamic Covenant. [He then quotes Gen 12:1-3.]

Here we have two halves and we must not get the two halves confused. There is a national, natural promise here to the natural seed of Abraham who are the Jews. But there is also the spiritual portion. The Covenant of Grace is operating here. The Covenant to Noah is under the Covenant of Grace. The Covenant to Abraham is under the Covenant of Grace. It is not aside from the Covenant of Grace. It is a part and a portion of the Covenant of Grace.

What you have is the two halves given. There is the half that deals with the Jews as the Jews, a nation. And I would say that Romans makes very plain that God is not done with the Jews. This portion of the covenant still stands. As a matter of fact, I would say immediately that if it doesn’t stand, then we cannot trust God, because he says in reference to his covenant to the Jews, as Paul is speaking to the Jews concerning national, natural Israel, his brethren according to the flesh, he says “The gifts and calling of God are without repentance.” He’s talking about the national, natural portion of the promise of the Abrahamic Covenant to the Jews as Jews. But we mustn’t forget that that isn’t all there is to it. There is a spiritual portion, a spiritual and personal element that is shown here: Looking forward to the coming of Messiah and an individual’s partaking in personally in it.

Those who tend to take the amillennial position tend to lose the diversity of this and confuse the national, natural portion with the spiritual portion. But there are many many people today who make the opposite mistake. And that is that they lose the unity, the failure to understand the total unity of the Covenant of Grace from the promise of Gen 3:15 onward, including the fact that there is a unity to those of us who are born again, now on this side of the cross, a unity with these promises, the spiritual side of the promises made to Abraham. Let us not lose the diversity. There is a difference between the promise made to the nation of the Jews as Jews and the spiritual portion, but let us equally beware of losing the unity, There is a unity to the Covenant of Grace. To say in passing, this is the reason I am not a dispensationalist. There is a unity.

Read Full Post »

Francis Schaeffer L’Abri Lectures

I recently discovered a great number of lectures by Francis Schaeffer.  Evidently these are the “L’Abri tapes” that I first saw mentioned in True Spirituality.

I haven’t listened to very many of these yet, but this includes lectures that appear to be the basis of several of his books. These include True Spirituality, No Little People, Joshua and the Flow of Biblical History, Genesis and Science, A Christian Manifesto, The Mark of the Christian and The Finished Work of Christ, among others. I must confess that I am less familiar with his well known apologetical works than I am with some of his others but I’m sure much of that material is there in embryonic form as well.

Overall, a wide variety of topics are covered, from cultural analysis, theology in general (including a series on the Westminster Confession of Faith), apologetics, the arts, etc.  There are also a good many lectures on eschatology, including an exposition of the book of Revelation.  It is well known that Schaeffer was premillennial, which was not uncommon among Presbyterians of his day, particularly among those of his background.  The titles of some of them seem to indicate that he was pretribulational as well.  But those lectures appear to be from the early 1960’s so I don’t know if he ever changed his views as did some others like James Montgomery Boice, for example.  I haven’t read that much of Schaeffer’s work, but I hope to remedy that soon.  However, I have noticed allusions to a future for Israel in some of his writings that were published in the 1970’s.  I do think it’s interesting that a leader who was known for teachings on cultural and other issues would have taught so much on prophetical themes. But most if not all of those lectures were from the early 1960’s, prior to him becoming a popular evangelical leader in the United States and beyond.

There is also a large amount of video material available online as well, perhaps most notably the film version of How Should We Then Live?

Read Full Post »

Warfield: Baptists are the Consistent Puritans

In The Polemics of Infant Baptism, B.B. Warfield writes:

All Protestants should easily agree that only Christ’s children have a right to the ordinance of baptism. The cleavage in their ranks enters in only when we inquire how the external Church is to hold itself relatively to the recognition of the children of Christ. If we say that its attitude should be as exclusive as possible, and that it must receive as the children of Christ only those whom it is forced to recognize as such, then we shall inevitably narrow the circle of the subjects of baptism to the lowest limits. If, on the other hand, we say that its attitude should be as inclusive as possible, and that it should receive as the children of Christ all whom, in the judgment of charity, it may fairly recognize as such, then we shall naturally widen the circle of the subjects of baptism to far more ample limits. The former represents, broadly speaking, the Puritan idea of the Church, the latter the general Protestant doctrine. It is on the basis of the Puritan conception of the Church that the Baptists are led to exclude infants from baptism. For, if we are to demand anything like demonstrative evidence of actual participation in Christ before we baptize, no infant, who by reason of years is incapable of affording signs of his union with Christ, can be thought a proper subject of the rite.

Your thoughts?

 

Read Full Post »

Quick Thoughts on the Attraction of Eastern Orthodoxy

Over the past several years, I’ve had a few acquaintances who have converted to Eastern Orthodoxy (hereafter EO).  Others are currently drawn to it or at some point have been strongly attracted to it.  Most of these are people I’ve encountered in various online discussion forums dedicated to the discussion of Reformed theology.

All of these have been folks who were at one time members of a conservative Presbyterian denomination like the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) or the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) and who were often some kind of Baptist to begin with.  Often, although not always, they were attracted to the Federal Vision and the New Perspective on Paul in the mid 2000’s.   The following observations may or may not apply to the same degree to Westerners from different backgrounds who go EO.

It seems to me that Westerners convert to Eastern Orthodoxy due to a few reasons or considerations:

1.  They reject Roman Catholicism because they cannot accept papal infallibility, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and maybe a few other things.  In general, Rome has too much baggage for many Americans and some other Westerners of a Protestant background.  Due to Trent and subsequent statements, Rome’s teaching appears to be a lot more clearly defined as well.  A clear marking of boundaries tends to give rise to controversy.  I don’t know that the East ever experienced a scholastic phase to the extent that the West did during the Middle Ages and later with the Reformation and Counter-Reformation.  Thus, it seems that one can look eastward and see what he wants to see to a greater degree.

2.  Many of them would have been attracted to Anglicanism in previous years.  However, Anglicanism is now basically a disaster in the West, having been eviscerated by liberalism over the past 100 years and with apparently no cohesive conservative remnant.  Some Calvinistic evangelical Anglicans (or what used to be called low church) may go into some kind of Reformed or Presbyterian church and a few others may affiliate with the African Anglicans that are now overseeing some parishes that have disaffiliated from the Episcopal Church USA.  A good many of the high church types tend to cross the Tiber eventually unless they are hung up on the ordination of women, celibacy or Rome’s claim to authority. 

3.  They have rejected Calvinism and for whatever reason cannot be Lutheran, probably because of the strong law/grace distinction and Two Kingdom theology that is found in Lutheranism.  The EO types are typically into the idea of Christendom and often have an emphasis on influencing the culture.  Thus, Anglicanism would have been a good fit but see #2.  Lutheranism, like Calvinism, is also viewed as insufficiently apostolic by those who equate the ancient church (and thus authentic Christianity) with Rome or the East.  But I find that the rejection of Protestantism on the grounds of it not being apostolic in its teaching or authority typically follows discontent with it in some other regard.

4.  Due to the conversions of Peter Gillquist and others, the easy availability of information on the internet that wouldn’t have been readily available a few decades ago and perhaps some of the American Orthodox churches becoming less of an ethnic social club, Eastern Orthodoxy is more accessible to Americans than it has ever been.

Read Full Post »

Was St. Patrick a Baptist Preacher?

(Reposted from 3/17/2009)

Was St. Patrick a Baptist preacher?  W.A. Criswell thought so.  See here for full page transcript of the sermon.  The first link has the audio.

Former Roman Catholic priest Richard Bennett thinks similarly as well.  Last year Bennett was interviewed on this subject by Chris Arnzen on his program Iron Sharpens Iron.  (The preceding link is directly to the mp3 file.)

Richard Bennett also has similar material on his own site, Berean Beacon. Here is a video that Berean Beacon produced on “The Real St. Patrick.”

“We have strong reasons for regarding St. Patrick as a Baptist missionary, and beyond contradiction his baptism was immersion.”

– The Baptist Encyclopedia: Edited by William Cathcart. (1883) pp. 886-7

Read Full Post »

Acts 29 Network Pastor: “Uncool People Need Church Too”

Just over a year ago, I noted the parallels between the current contextual/missional/hipster/urban church planting movement inspired by Mark Driscoll and others and the Bill Hybels/Rick Warren inspired church growth movement of 10-20 years ago.  (Note that I did not say there was a 1:1 correspondence between the two, but simply noted a similar mentality that is evident in both movements.  I think the theology and general approach of Mark Driscoll and Tim Keller is much more preferable.)

While I rather doubt that I was the first one to connect those dots, I’m pretty sure that I spent more time on those posts and the related discussion across the blogosphere than I have on any other subject since I established this blog.  Depending on your point of view, that series of posts was either the most popular or the most infamous material I’ve ever posted in my short and generally undistinguished blogging career.  This was largely due to the context, which was the latest spat among Southern Baptist bloggers.  (For the few who may be keeping score, I am still an occasional blogger, but no longer a Southern Baptist.)

Earlier this evening, a post by Dean Bob Gonzales of Reformed Baptist Seminary tipped me off to an interesting post by Bill Streger, an Acts 29 church planter in Houston.  In my view, Dr. Gonzales accurately describes the original post in this fashion:  “An Acts 29 network pastor offers a caution to his colleagues and provides an example of a healthy and humble self critical posture.”

Pastor Streger cautions against a herd or movement mentality among younger leaders and church planters and warns against an uncritical emulation of prominent pastors and leaders as we saw with the church growth/seeker sensitive movement of the last generation.   Predictably it was this concluding sentence that provoked the strongest reaction:

“Or it could be that we’re simply following in the footsteps of the church growth movement that we’ve loved to publically criticize while privately trying to emulate – we’ve just replaced Bill Hybels and Rick Warren with Tim Keller and Mark Driscoll.”

The post in question clearly touched a nerve, as a furor ensued that appears to be almost worthy of the Southern Baptist blogosphere.  Indeed, the ensuing discussion resulted in a follow up post that some feel retracted more than was necessary.  As someone who has too often hastily posted things that were somewhat uncharitable, however true they may have been, I can to some small extent identify with Bro. Streger’s plight in perceiving that his initial post was not as carefully worded as it could have been.

The real news here may be the apparent inability or unwillingness of some who identify with Acts 29 (whether formally or not) to accept public criticism of their movement, especially from an insider.  Ironically, this bears no small resemblance to the reaction you might expect to see from some of the more rigid independent fundamentalists when one of their own dares to utter some criticism of their movement.  However, I was grateful to see that the criticism (which all things considered really seems to be rather mild) was taken in stride by many others.

Read Full Post »

Don Johnson on the Local Church

HT:  Truth Matters

Here is a copy of the tract that Bro. Johnson mentions.

Read Full Post »

Why Converted Church Membership

Baptist Why and Why Not (1900)

Chapter 12:  Why Converted Church-Membership

By Rev. J. O. Rust, LL. D.
Pastor Edgefield Baptist Church.
Nashville, Tennessee

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, and holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. – 1 Peter 2:9.

As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man but of God. – John 1:12-13.

JESUS said:  “Except a man be born again, he can not see the kingdom of God.”  (John 3 :3.)  To put this in plain English, our Lord teaches that only converted people should belong to a church.  Baptists stand squarely for this doctrine.  We contend that only those who have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit through intelligent faith in Christ, and who have confessed their faith in word and declared it in baptism, are scripturally qualified for church membership.  We would not claim that every Baptist is converted; for, unfortunately, unconverted persons, those honestly deceived and hypocrites, have been received into our churches; but their number is not large.  Nor do we hold that all members of other communions are not converted.  We greatly rejoice in the many examples of eminent piety outside of our ranks; and we gladly believe that the vast majority of those who profess faith in Christ everywhere are converted.  Our contention is simply this:  Baptist principles strictly applied would exclude from church membership all but the converted; whereas the principles of other denominations strictly applied would include in their respective church memberships some who are not converted.  That is, non-Baptist churches, by admitting the unregenerate into their membership, can not be pure spiritual churches; whereas Baptists, by admitting only the regenerate into their membership, are the only people who even in theory stand for the pure spirituality of the churches.  That is, Baptist doctrine is the only system of truth which will logically, inevitably and ultimately make a church a pure spiritual body of Christ.

1. It is but just to examine these statements a little more in detail to see if they are in fact true.  In the first place, is it true that Baptist principles strictly applied in practice will limit church membership to the converted exclusively?  We can answer this inquiry only by looking at the customs of our churches.  Baptists demand a public, personal, intelligent profession of faith in Christ before admitting any one into their churches.  We will not receive one individual into membership on the confession of another individual; for we repudiate in theory and in practice the doctrine of proxies in religion; for “Every one of us shall give account of himself to God,” (Rom. 14:12.)  This public profession of faith is the voluntary act of an intelligent moral agent declaring his conversion.  No one is ever admitted into a Baptist church until he professes conversion.  Again, Baptists demand that the convert shall further declare his faith in baptism, a public immersion of the believer in water.  Thus we require two professions of the applicant for church membership; one in the word of confession, the other in the act of baptism.  In the former the convert speaks his faith; in the latter he acts his faith in the solemn symbolism of immersion.  All of this is a genuinely kindly arrangement; for a church would be untrue to the applicant for membership if it did not assist him by simple and severe tests of his true heart condition to ascertain certainly and consciously the fact of his conversion; and a church would be untrue to itself if it did not exercise the utmost care to prevent those who are honestly deceived, or hypocrites, from assuming duties and obligations which they will certainly renounce to the injury of their own souls and the distress of the body of Christ.  Thus Baptist churches in principle and in practice do all that human beings can do to make a church a spiritual body.  If an unconverted man gets into a Baptist church, he must profess conversion, and his presence in the membership is not the fault of the church but of himself.  If after joining a Baptist church, it is discovered that one is not converted, then it is his duty to withdraw, or it becomes the duty of the church to exclude him.  Thus we see that Baptist doctrine will inevitably and ultimately produce a pure spiritual church.

II. In the second place, it is equally just to inquire if the principles and practices of other churches do introduce into their respective memberships some who are not converted.  We can answer this inquiry only by looking at the creeds and customs of these churches.  These can broadly be divided into two groups; that is there are two kinds of practices in non-Baptist churches which may introduce the unconverted into church membership.

1. Those who practice infant baptism do in some sense consider these infants as members of their churches.  In which case they have received into their churches those who can not exercise saving faith in Christ, and hence who are unconverted.  Having thus introduced unregenerate material into their churches, their churches cease to be pure spiritual bodies.  And these churches are themselves responsible for this, for it is the act of the church that brings the unintelligent infant into membership.  These churches are not to be excused as they would be in the case of hypocrites who creep into the membership by assuming conversion, or as in the case of those who are honestly deceived.  This custom might be practically harmless if the infants would remain infants, but they will not.  Often the unregenerate infant grows into the unregenerate man, and these congregations are embarrassed by having un-Christian men in their membership as Christian churches.  However harmless we may consider the practice, the principle is an error, and it will logically and inevitably destroy the pure spirituality of the church.

It is but fair to state that churches which practice infant baptism are of two kinds, viz.:

(1) There are those who claim that the infant is actually regenerated in baptism.  Cardinal Gibbons states the belief of Catholics:  “Water is the appropriate instrument of the new birth.”  “Hence baptism is essential for the infant in order to attain the kingdom of heaven.”  As the infant can not believe, it follows that baptism must do all of the saving.  The Episcopal view of this matter can be found in the formula for the baptism of infants:  “We receive this child into the congregation of Christ’s flock.”  “Seeing now that this child is regenerated and grafted into the body of Christ’s church,” etc., etc.  In both cases we have baptismal regeneration pure and simple.  If baptism regenerates, then unbelieving children would be converted church members.  Laying aside the paradox as to how one incapable of exercising faith can be converted when faith is necessary for conversion, Baptists would contend that baptism does not regenerate, and that this practice of Romanists and Episcopalians opens a wide door for the admission of the unconverted into their churches.  For it is in evidence on all sides that some who received this presumed baptismal regeneration in infancy fail to give any evidence of it in maturity, either in a profession of saving faith in Christ, or in the practice of piety, and yet they remain unchallenged members of the churches which they were baptized into.  Thus these churches assume a grave risk of not being pure spiritual bodies of Christ.

(2) Again, there are those who practice infant baptism who profess not to believe that the baptism saves the infant; and yet these all do in some sense receive these infants into their church memberships.  The position of all such can be fairly stated in the language of the Presbyterian confession of faith, viz.:  “The infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized.”  “Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church.”  “The visible church consists of all those who make a profession of true religion together with their children.”  “The infant seed of believers are members of the church.”  Let it be noted that this second class in the practice of infant baptism denies a belief in baptismal regeneration, though the writer does not see how they can escape such a belief, or some other fatal error, if the logic of their position is severely pressed to a just conclusion.  For they baptize infants either to save them, or not to save them.  If the baptism is not to save, as they say, then the baptism of the infant must be for a declaration of faith, or for some other purpose.  It can not be a declaration of the infant’s faith, for the infant has not and can not have intelligent faith, nor is the act of baptism the voluntary act of the infant.  If it be a declaration of faith, it declares the faith of some person other than the infant.  But we have no right to baptize one person on another person’s faith Rom. 14:12.  If the baptism of the infant be neither a saving act, nor a declaration of faith, then it is for some other purpose.  But, if they use baptism for any other purpose save as a declaration of faith, they pervert that ordinance from the meaning and mission which Christ gave to it; and besides they construct two baptisms, one for adults with one meaning, and another for infants with another meaning, which is contrary to the scripture which saith:  “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” Eph. 4:5.  Therefore as they turn away from baptismal regeneration to escape one error, the logic of their position coerces them either into the practice of proxies in professions of faith, which is an error condemned by Rom. 14:12, or into a perversion of the ordinance, which is contrary to Eph. 4:5.

But turning away from these objections which are fatal to the practice of infant baptism, it is just that we should fairly examine the grounds of those who are in this practice and yet who claim that they do not believe in baptismal regeneration. They allege two reasons for baptizing their unregenerate infants into then church membership. This inquiry is legitimate to this paper because infant baptism leads to infant church membership.

(a) It is argued from the baptism of certain households (Acts 10:47; 16:15; 16:32-34; 1 Cor. 16:15) that there were infants in those homes which were baptized into church membership.  It is enough to say in reply that the burden of proof is upon those who affirm that there were infants in those homes.  The only possible proof is the Scripture record.  But the record contains no mention of infants.  Therefore the assertion is without possibility of proof.  If you will look about you, you will see many homes where there are no babes.  Besides, there are intimations in each account of these household baptisms which deny the assumption that there were babes in these homes.  In the case of Cornelius it is said that “all his house feared God;” Paul and Silas “comforted” those who were baptized in Lydia’s home; Paul distinctly tells the jailer that those who “believe” should be saved; and it is said of the household of Stephanas that they all “have addicted themselves to the ministry.”  None of these terms or conditions could apply to infants, they describe the acts of intelligent believers.  There is no such thing in the New Testament as infant baptism begetting infant church membership.  It is true that Jesus blessed babes but he did not baptize them.  Late in our Lord’s life his disciples quarreled at mothers for bringing their children to Jesus.  (Matt. 19:13).  If infant baptism had been in vogue then these disciples would have welcomed these babes into the church.  The New Testament recognizes as church members none but converted adults.

(b) Again, it is alleged that the infants of believers should be baptized and received into the church for the reason that baptism takes the place of circumcision; that as circumcision inducted the infant into the Old Testament church, so baptism inducts it into the New Testament church.  This is a blind confounding of the Jewish state with the Christian church.  There was no Old Testament church with its rites corresponding to the New Testament church with its ordinances.  The Christian church was for the first time set up in the New Testament.  Circumcision was a racial, not a regenerating act.  It has always been true that men became the true children of Abraham through faith, not through any rite, be it circumcision or baptism.  One could be born a Jew, but all must be re-born to become Christians.  And so circumcised Jews and uncircumcised Gentiles were alike baptized on the common grounds that they believed in Christ.  This is clearly the teaching of Gal. 3 :29:  “If ye be Christ’s, then ye are Abraham’s seed, and his heirs according to the promise.”  To be Christ’s one must believe; infants can not believe, and so they are not entitled to baptism or to membership in a Christian church.  Thus again true scripture teaching blocks the entrance of unregenerate children into Christian churches.

There is no warrant either in scripture doctrine or precedent for the baptism of infants; and those churches which in any sense receive into their membership these baptized unregenerate infants have in that far destroyed the pure spirituality of their churches.  Their very principles unavoidably lead them into receiving the unconverted into their membership.

2. Infant baptism is the most frequent way of bringing the unregenerate into church membership; but we are now to examine other practices of non-Baptist churches which may corrupt the pure spirituality of the body of Christ.  A word before getting to the main point about the danger of receiving members into churches on probation.  In some sense they are members, and yet their conversion is not certain.  The probationer may turn out to be a Christian, or he may not.  As long as he is on probation his conversion can not be affirmed, and the church which receives him is not a pure spiritual body.  If probationers are on its list all the time, then it never is a pure spiritual body.  Nor is this all the harm such a church does itself; this practice will inevitably lead men to believe that there is a saving efficacy in just belonging to a church.  They will come to look to Christ and church membership to save them.  This is a fatal partition of faith.  How very dangerous this is will appear in the next paragraph.

Next to infant baptism the most prolific source of unconverted church members is sacramentarian baptism administered to adults.  There are churches which do not practice infant baptism and yet they attach a saving significance, in part or in whole, to the baptism of adults.  From this perversion of the meaning of baptism arises another danger of an unconverted church membership.  For we are saved by faith in Christ alone (Jo. 3:16; Acts 16:31; Eph. 2:8).  Our Lord did not invent baptism to help him save sinners.  A man who gives part of his faith to Christ and part to baptism has a divided faith.  Paul says that to such a man “Christ is become of no effect,” (Gal. 5:4.)  The apostle is arguing this matter in Galatians.  In the fifth chapter he maintains that to administer circumcision as the ground of salvation, or the condition of justification, is to renounce Christ himself.  It does not take Christ and circumcision to save a soul, and to divide one’s faith between the two results in a renunciation of Christ.  Just so baptism can be no part of salvation without destroying the pure faith principle of redemption, and “Christ is become of no effect.” If “Christ has become of no effect” to such a one, then he can not claim conversion; and, if he comes into the church with this divided faith, he will be an unconverted church member.  This teaching is severe, but Paul emphatically declares that to condition salvation, in part or in whole, on any ordinance or institution is to do away with Christ himself.  If the inquirer in any sense looks to circumcision or to baptism, or to church membership to help in his salvation, then he has destroyed the possibility of his salvation because he is not trusting Christ alone for redemption, for our Lord will not accept a divided heart.  Thus the practice of sacramentarian baptism and of probationary membership may open the door for the unregenerate to enter the churches.

So far as the writer knows Baptists are the only people who are entirely free from infant baptism, on the one hand, and from sacramentarian baptism on the other.  We condition salvation for all alike on simple, personal faith in Christ.  We admit into our churches only those who have, or who profess to have, this saving faith.  Thus Baptist principles strictly applied will admit to church membership only those who are converted, which is the first proposition laid down in the opening paragraph of this paper; whereas, the principles of other denominations strictly applied will include in church membership some who are not converted, which is the second proposition affirmed in this argument.

III. In the third place, it is just to inquire into the correctness of the Baptist position.  Ought we to have only converted persons in our churches?  Should churches be pure spiritual bodies?  We answer these questions in the affirmative.  The proposition submitted is this:  Only the regenerate should be members of a church because of what a church is and does; and we appeal to sound reason and obvious Scripture teaching to support this proposition.

The Greek word for church (ekklesia} means “the called out.”  Only those can be called who can hear and who can come.  This recognizes intelligence and voluntariness as necessary qualifications of the called.  God is calling on men to believe in Christ that he may organize them into churches to whom he will commit his word (1 Tim. 3:15) and his work (Matt. 28:19, 20).  In the nature of the case, only those can answer this call who can understand its conditions, and who will voluntarily comply with its requirements, and who are qualified and competent to discharge the duties imposed.  God does not refuse as coworkers men of humble gifts and children who have reached the years of discretion; but he does require willing loyalty and intelligent obedience.  All who answer the call must be workers, though they are not to be perfect workers.  Capacity then is the necessary qualification in the called rather than competency.  It would be absurd to think that God would lay the duties above mentioned upon those who could not, or upon those who would not, discharge them.  Our Lord would not exhort impotent infants or unwilling unbelievers to go into all the world and preach the gospel.  Hence it follows from the very work required of the churches that their members should all be active, intelligent, spiritual agents.

The New Testament history is in exact accord with this conclusion.  Search the record and you will find no instance of a professedly unconverted man being baptized.  There were doubtless hypocrites like Ananias (Acts 5 13) who came in under pretense of faith; but the one aim of our Lord and his followers was to recruit to their service only regenerate men to whom the work could be committed.  Naturally enough those churches would receive into membership only those who could help in the work; and so baptism was refused to infants and unbelievers.  The writer feels that in justice he must state that no denomination would advocate the admission of professedly unconverted adults into the church; but the practice of infant baptism and sacramentarian baptism will bring unconverted adults into these churches, and this is ample apology for the extended argument above on these two points.

Our Baptist churches in refusing to receive members in either of these ways are in exact line with New Testament precedent; and our practice of requiring an intelligent faith before baptism, and faith and baptism before church membership, is the only sure way of bringing into the churches the same kind of material that came into the Apostolic churches of the New Testament era.

We must look to the Scripture for more explicit instruction.  If we would know the qualifications for church membership, let us read Acts 2:41-47.  Every person which the Lord added to that Jerusalem church was converted. Here is the description of them:  They “received his word,” were “baptized,” and “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship,” etc., etc.  Surely these terms can not apply to infants or to unbelievers; there were none such in that Jerusalem church.  In Acts 11:21 we have a description of the material which was gathered into the church at Antioch:  “A great number believed and turned unto the Lord.”  Under these conditions there could be no infants in the Antioch church.  A duty is required of church members which none but intelligent converts can discharge:  “Give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you.”  (1 Pet. 3:15.)  Infants and unbelievers can not do this.  The discourses of Jesus, and the Epistles of Paul. Peter and John are all addressed to intelligent, spiritual agents.  The saints are those who can serve.  The argument from Scripture is cumulative and conclusive that all church members should be converted.  The reason is that God wants in his churches only spiritual workers to do his spiritual work.  Baptist practice is in exact accord with this Scripture principle.

To admit the unconverted into the churches is to destroy the very nature of the church.  When we speak of a church being a pure spiritual body we mean it has in its membership only those who have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit through faith in Christ.  We have proved from Scripture that only the regenerate should be admitted to church membership; hence to receive the unregenerate would pervert the very nature of a gospel church.  A church is the body of Christ, 1 Cor. 12 :12-21; it is a big composite body made up of individual believers who belong to it as organs and members.  Each member of this body must be alive, that is he must be converted; he must by the power of the Holy Spirit be competent to discharge the spiritual functions of a member of the spiritual body of a church.  The living Christ dwells in this body; through it he speaks, and in it he walks and works (1 Cor. 3:16; 2 Cor. 6:16).  Now, if through infant or sacramentarian baptism, or through probationary membership, the unconverted are brought into a church, then Christ’s body has become afflicted with dead members, and the very nature of that church is perverted and its work hindered.

The importance of this doctrine can hardly be overestimated.  There are many who honestly misconceive the nature and mission of the church.  A church is not a nursery for infants, nor an infirmary for the ungodly, nor a refuge for the unbelieving and the indifferent; it is a recruiting station for the soldiers of the cross, every one of whom is commanded to fight the good fight of faith.  To change the figure, “the church is a force not a field.”  The world is the field, and the church is the force to work the field.  The work is spiritual and the force must be spiritual.  It will not do to have in an army those who are not soldiers, or in this force those who are not workers.  Hence we see from its very nature that there is no place in a Christian church for the unconverted.  From an understanding of this doctrine we Baptists limit church membership to those who profess conversion.  We hold that scripture and reason support our position that a church is a pure spiritual body and that none but the regenerate are to be received into its membership.  Relying on this truth, we reject infant and sacramentarian baptism, we refuse probationary membership, and we require an intelligent profession of faith before baptism, and faith and baptism before church membership.  We contend that these requirements are the only true safe-guards for the spirituality of the churches; and being the only people who hold these doctrines in their purity and simplicity, we affirm that Baptist principles are the only tenets which will inevitably bring the churches to the New Testament standard of membership.  Only as churches are pure spiritual forces can they accomplish their true spiritual mission in this world.

This is a proud position which we occupy but we do not hold it proudly.  These doctrines beget humility, sympathy, and mighty dependence on God.  If we hold this high standard of church membership, then we assume a high standard of duty.  If we are all God’s children then we should all “do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God,” Mi. 6:8. In a peculiar sense we should “do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith,” (Gal. 6:10.)  We should be conspicuous in works of charity and love, and foremost of all in preaching the gospel to the world.  If in fact ours is the best doctrine, then we should be the best people and have the best churches.  And so the claims set forth in this paper do not exalt us, they humble us and fill us with love for all humanity.

Read Full Post »

Why Close Communion and Not Open Communion

Baptist Why and Why Not (1900)

Chapter 11:  Why Close Communion and Not Open Communion

By O. L. Hailey, D. D.
Editor Arkansas Baptist
Little Rock, Arkansas

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized; and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread and of prayers. – Acts 2:41-42.

Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. – 1 Cor. 1:2.

BY close communion we mean that practice among Baptists in which they limit the participation in the observance of the Lord’s Supper to those who are members in good standing in Baptist churches.  And by open communion the practice of other denominations in which they give and accept invitations from members of other churches.  I believe the practice of close communion as observed by the Baptists is right and proper, for several reasons.

1. BECAUSE IT IS SCRIPTURAL.

The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and can be properly observed only as a church ordinance.  And therefore those only who are members of a church can properly partake of it.  It is an ordinance given by the Lord Jesus Christ to be observed by his churches and in his churches.  And there is no instruction nor provision for extending the ordinance, or the observance of it to any other.  Leaving aside, for the moment, the question of time and method of its establishment and full equipment, the Savior organized his church and prescribed its characteristics, established its laws, gave its doctrines, outlined its mission.

To his churches he gave the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper, as a sacred trust, to be kept and observed till he shall return in personal presence to the earth again.  And he has clearly indicated his will as to the character and qualifications of the persons who shall partake of it.  I repeat he has indicated the character, thus showing that those without moral character, as for instance infants, were not prepared to partake of it; and qualifications, showing that certain experiences must precede the approach to the table.

The Bible summons all men to obey the Lord Jesus Christ.  And to those who give heed these commands are given.  “Repent, believe, be baptised, do this in remembrance of me.” These occur in the same unfailing order.  Where one is expressed alone, it presupposes all that go before it in this order.  And where two or more occur together, they always stand, I think, in the order of their precedence, repentance preceding faith, repentance and faith preceding baptism, and repentance, faith and baptism preceding the “do this in remembrance of me.”  So that no one can begin in the middle of the series and proceed to the end without first obeying those that go before.  No one could exercise faith unless preceded by repentance.  I speak with respect to nature rather than time.  Nor could one be Scripturally baptized until he has believed; nor properly approach the Lord’s table unless he had been previously baptized.  The first active step for the sinner is repentance.  The next is faith in the Lord Jesus as his Savior.  Then comes baptism, and all these before the table.  And since no one could be baptized without the assistance or cooperation of other parties, the Lord has provided for that.  And his provision excludes the provision on the part of any others.

A little careful and discriminating thought will discover to us the reason for the order of these commands, for they are given in harmony with the nature of things.  Let us examine these with reference to the last two, as just here there is some need of clear thinking.  We say that no one is prepared to approach the Lord’s table until he has been properly baptized.  The Savior’s commands make this true.  But I think we can discover why his commands had to be given in this order, if they were to have the significance he intended to attach to them.

In baptism, as designed by the Lord, we are baptized into his death.  This is symbolic of course.  But symbols must represent realities.  What is that reality?  It is the consciousness of the death of Christ for our sin which we appropriate by a living faith.  But there is at the same time another death, the death of the sinner to his old life of sin.  He now is “crucified with Christ.”  And henceforth the life he lives is no more unto himself, but unto the Lord.  He now for the first time has a vivid knowledge of the death of the Lord.  And it so lays hold on him that he dies with him.  And to represent this death, this first knowledge of his death, the man who died to sin, and died with Christ, is buried to sin, and is buried with Christ in baptism.  But this death of the old life is the beginning of a new life.  For he rises now with Christ to walk in a new life.  Hence the Scriptures say that we were buried with Christ in baptism, wherein we are risen with him.

Now, and never before, is the believer ready to approach the Lord’s table.  For at the Lord’s table he is to remember the Lord’s death, or if I may so express it, he is to reknow the Lord’s death.  Baptism represents the first knowledge of the Lord’s death, and the Supper the subsequent reknowing or remembrance of it.  It goes with the saying that a man could not remember what he had never known.  Both his first knowledge of the Lord’s death, and his subsequent remembrance of that death are to be symbolized; the first knowledge of it by baptism and the second by the emblems of his broken body and shed blood.  And it is appropriate that these symbols should have the same order of their realities.  It is just this way that the Greek represents it.  In English the prefix re means again, as recount means to count again.  Now in English we do not use the word ”member” in the sense of “know.” But “re-member” in the sense of “re know.” A* in the text “do this in remembrance of me.”

Or again.  Baptism symbolizes the beginning of the new spiritual life, or the new birth.  And the Lord’s Supper symbolizes the sustenance of that life.  And as we are born first and then nourished the ordinance which signifies birth ought to precede that which signifies nourishment.

2. BECAUSE IT PRESERVES DENOMINATIONAL INTEGRITY.

The Baptist denomination is held together by no ecclesiastical or episcopal organization.  We are so many units of the same kind and as a denomination we are what we are because we believe something definite and distinctive.  I might perhaps be allowed to say we hold a circle of views and convictions that differentiate us, from all the world, and so from all religious denominations.  Our conception of what the Lord intended us to be, and desires us to be now, requires practices which characterize us.  The very basic principle of our organic life is unfaltering obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ.  We believe that this is the truest and worthiest thing we can do; the wisest and best; the safest and most effective way to serve him, and to serve the world.  For Jesus said, “if ye love me keep my commandments.”  And he said also, “In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrine the commandments of men;” and again he asks, “Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?”

Let no one think that we are willfully perverse, or that we do care nothing for the opinions, feelings or good will of others.  We covet their highest good and their favorable opinion.  But our convictions are imperative and they limit us.  Are we charged with placing limitations on others?  We have first placed them on ourselves.  We ask nothing of anybody that each one of us has not personally performed.  The Lord’s table in Baptist churches is open to all the world.  But there is only one way to it.  And whomsoever you see at the table in a Baptist church has come the same way.  Try the Lord’s appointed way, repent, believe and be baptized and preserve an orderly walk, and you will find no bars across your way.

But we are asked to change our practice.  Were we to change our practice, we should be compelled first to change the contents of our faith.  But to change the contents of our faith, would be to change our very denominational nature, or constitution.  And to do that would be but to make another and a different denomination.  For our faith is a unit, which would be destroyed by a change.  And Baptists do not believe that the multiplication of denominations has ever been conducive to the best interests of the Lord’s cause, nor the salvation of the world.  Nor do we think such a change in our denomination would contribute to that end.  But to abandon the principles which require close communion as a Baptist practice would destroy our denomination as such.  And I do not think that even those who plead for open communion would ask it at that cost.

3. BECAUSE IT IS THE KINDEST AND MOST CHRISTIAN PROTEST WE CAN OFFER TO THOSE WHO DEPART FROM THE TRUTH.

It is remarkable that there should be occasion for saying that Baptists believe, and greatly rejoice in believing, that there are many, very many excellent Christians who are not Baptists.  We heartily wish they were Baptists.  And we are led to believe that many of them could become Baptists without any very great sacrifice of principles or convictions.  And we believe convictions ought to control men.

Now many of these dear people seem to desire Baptists to so far depart from their practices as to eat the Lord’s supper with them, and invite them to eat with us.  They have perfected an organization which they call a church and they are not satisfied until Baptists also recognize it as such.  And because of the intimate relation between baptism and the Lord’s Supper, they perceive that to acknowledge one is practically to acknowledge the other.  So they seek recognition at the table.  We believe that it was a departure from the truth to organize any one of these.  And that every one of these organizations hold and teach error.  But at the same time we hold another cherished doctrine, which is known among us as Liberty of Conscience.  We have always contended for this.  And we believe it to be as much a right of other men as Baptists.  So we can only enter our protest against their unscriptural organizations and the error which they teach.  And the practice of close communion is the kindest and most Christian way in which we can do so.  For by confining the Lord’s Supper to our own fellowship and refusing to accept their invitations we effectually manifest our dissent from their views and practices, and yet in no way interfere with their utmost freedom.  This is no railing accusation.  It is as mild as it can be made, and leaves them the utmost freedom of conscience.  This practice of close communion is not of our own choosing, while it is most agreeable to our ideas of right.  If there had been no other organizations started and asking to be recognized as churches, the terms would probably never have come into use.  But they must properly conclude that for us to recognize them at the Lord’s table would be to recognize them as churches.

But is it not worthy of remark that this complaint is always urged against the Baptists, as if Baptist recognition was of special value?  Who ever heard an open communionist complain about the close communion of any except Baptists?  And yet Baptists are not the only close comnunionists.  But they seem to feel especially the lack of recognition by the Baptists.  To the thoughtful student this is a very significant concession to the claims of Baptists to be the true churches of the Lord.

4. BECAUSE TO EAT WITH THOSE NOT PREPARED TO COME TO THE LORD’S TABLE WOULD BE TO ENCOURAGE INDIVIDUALS TO THEIR OWN CONDEMNATION.

For whosoever eats this bread and drinks this cup when he is not prepared to do so, brings condemnation upon himself.  The revised version of the New Testament puts it thus:

“Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.  For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body.”  One who is not regenerated could not possibly discern the body as broken for him, or the blood as shed for the remission of his sins.  One not baptized is not prepared to “do this in remembrance” of the Lord, as we have seen before.  Now if Baptists, by invitation, or by accepting the invitations of others should encourage such persons to partake of the emblems in this way, they would encourage such to bring condemnation upon themselves.  And in so far as they influenced them, would be parties to their sin.  There are other reasons why I believe that the practice of close communion is right rather than open communion.  But with these I submit the case.

Read Full Post »

Why Baptism As Symbol and Not a Saving Ordinance

Baptist Why and Why Not (1900)

Chapter 10:  Why Baptism As Symbol And Not A Saving Ordinance

By J. B. Moody, D. D.
Pastor First Baptist Church.
Tampa, Florida.

Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?  Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death:  that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. – Rom. 6:3-4.

If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. – Col. 3:1.

THE question as stated indicates the Baptist view, and the ”why” calls for the reasons.  It will be my aim to clearly express some of the reasons, and to compress them in the fewest words possible for me.

Baptists believe that baptism is symbolical, because it is an outward ordinance, “to be seen of men.”  There are spiritual qualifications for those seeking the ordinance, but these are preparations for the ordinance, and not the ordinance itself.  The visible features of the ordinance are to declare the spiritual features, not to procure them.  It expresses a saving faith, not procures it.  It expresses repentance not procures it.  And so of all other related doctrines.  If baptism is for the saved, it is not for the unsaved; if for the believer, it is not for the unbeliever; if for the justified, it is not for “the already condemned.”  Baptists believe that forgiveness, justification, and salvation are of Christ, through faith, and that this saving and justifying faith must precede baptism and hence the relation these sustain to baptism makes baptism symbolical.  Baptists are confirmed in this view from several considerations.  I will mention a few.

There is but one plan of salvation for all ages.  When the writers of the New Testament argue the plan of salvation by grace, and justification by faith, and other vital doctrines, they prove these doctrines by quotations and references to the Old Scriptures.  Take the Epistle to the Romans as sufficient proof of this position.  There, Paul goes over the whole ground covered by the gospel, beginning with the fall and ruin of man and proceeding step by step through all the – doctrines of the gospel, and he supports every argument by:  “Thus is it written” or “Thus saith the Scriptures;” showing that he was preaching the same gospel that the Old Scriptures contained.  So Peter in the house of the Gentile said:  “To him give all the prophets witness that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.”  Acts 10:43.  So Paul in Rom. 3:21-22.  Christ and the Apostles preached salvation according to the Scriptures and that meant always the Old Scriptures.  When the writer of the Hebrews said, “we are not of them that draw back unto perdition, but of them that believe to the saving of the soul;” he proceeded to define faith-the faith that is “unto the saving of the soul,” and then to illustrate it in the persons of the Ancients, beginning as far back as Abel, and Enoch, and when he was through with the exemplars of the olden times, he closed by joining “us” to the list.  “Wherefore seeing we (of this time) are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses (referred to in the previous chapter) let us (as they did) lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race set before us (as they did), looking (as they did) unto the author and finisher of faith.”  (Not our faith, but the faith defined and exemplified by them, and us, and which was “unto the saving of the soul.”)

If we are saved now as men were saved in the olden times, then salvation does not depend on baptism, and baptism like other outward ordinances becomes symbolic.  I use the word symbolic in its comprehensive sense, including “emblem,” “type,” “shadow,” “figure,” etc.  It is more correct to say that ordinances are typical when they declare prospectively, and symbolical when they declare retrospectively.  But is the province of outward ordinances to show or declare, or to procure?

Look first at the Passover, Ex. xiii :8-io “And thou shalt show thy Son in that day saying, this is done because of that which the Lord did unto me when I came forth out of Egypt.  And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that the Lord’s law may be in thy mouth; for with a strong hand hath the Lord brought you out of Egypt. Thou shalt therefore keep this ordinance in his season from year to year.”  The Passover was a “show” ordinance, a “sign,” a “memorial,” and it was “because of.”  Retrospectively it symbolized what was done in Egypt; prospectively it typified “Christ our passover who was to be slain for us.”  Thus we see the declarative nature and province of this ordinance.

So with the Sabbath, Ex. xxxi:i6-i7, “Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations for a perpetual covenant.  It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.”

Every time the Sabbath is kept in spirit and in truth, two things are declared; first, retrospectively that God made heaven and earth in six days, and rested on the seventh; and prospectively, as we learn elsewhere, that “there remains therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God” and that we must labor to enter it.  Sabbath-keeping does not procure these things, but declares them, in symbol, and type, and thus we learn the province of ordinances.

The ordinance for the ceremonial cleansing of lepers also confirms this view of ordinances.  In Lev. 14:2-20 we find that after the leper had been inspected by the priest, and found “the plague of leprosy healed in the leper,” which could only be clone by divine power, then the ordinance for ceremonial cleansing was in order.  Christ’s testimony on this point is unmistakable.  See Mark 1:40-45.  “And there came a leper to him beseeching him and kneeling down to him said, if thou wilt thou canst make me clean. And Jesus moved with compassion put forth his hand and touched him saying, I will, be thou clean.  And as soon as he had spoken the word, immediately the leprosy departed from him and he was cleansed.  And he straitly charged him, and forthwith sent him away, saying, see thou say nothing to any man; but go thy way, show thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded for a testimony unto them.”  This seems as though it were written especially for our sakes, that the right view of ordinances might plainly appear to all men.  The ordinance did not procure his cleansing, but declared it.

In Hebrews, chaps, ix and x, there is a summing up of these old ordinances, with such explanatory words as these:  “The Holy Spirit thus signifying,” (sign-i-fy-ing); “a figure for the time then present;” “the patterns of things in the heavens;” “a shadow of good things to come;” “a remembrance again made of sins every year,” etc. This is inspired testimony on ordinances, being declarative instead of procurative of what they expressed.  Pilate though a Roman had the right conception of ordinances.  In publicly washing his hands, he intended to declare his innocence.  He was far from confessing his guilt, and washing that he might be innocent.  “He took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person.”  Of course he was not literally washing blood from his hands, for his blood was not yet shed.  O, that our opponents knew as well about the nature of ordinances as this heathen governor!  Through this door has come about all the perversions of the gospel of grace and of the doctrines of Christ.  Instead of going to Christ for salvation, men have been directed to ordinances, and the elements and emblems of these ordinances have been “consecrated,” and deified, and thus the world is filled with idolatry in the guise of Christianity.  What a duty rests upon Baptists to contend for the ordinances “as symbolic and not necessary to salvation!”  Let us thank God, and take courage, as the Protestant denominations are coming more and more to our help.  They see our view is correct, when they look at it, not in their creeds, but in the Word of God.

But let us look particularly at the ordinances of the New Testament.  Were they ordained to show by symbol, emblem or type, the great fundamental doctrines of the gospel?  The Lord’s supper “shows” his death (in emblems) till he come.  While we do it eis remembrance of him, yet it is clear, that in doing it, we declare the fact that we hold him in affectionate remembrance.  The supper is not necessary to a remembrance of his death, but necessary to a proper declaration of it.  The memory must precede the declaration of it.

Is baptism an exceptional ordinance in this regard?  Evidently not; for baptism is called a “figure,” a “likeness,” a “washing away of sin,” which can not be literally done with literal water.  It is called a “clothing” a “putting on of Christ,” which can be done only symbolically, and not really in baptism, for the Romans were exhorted to put on Christ after they had been baptized (Rom. 12:14) but they were not exhorted to be baptized again; and hence Christ is really put on some other way, which fact can only be symbolized by baptism.  Now, since the other ordinances are not necessary to the reality of the things they set forth, so we concluded that baptism is not necessary to the reality of the things it sets forth.  We are baptized eis repentance, but so far from repentance depending on baptism, the very reverse is true.  We are baptized eis the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, eis Christ, eis the name of Christ, eis the death of Christ, etc.; but none of these depend on baptism, but baptism depends on them.  Only the really dead are to be baptized, hence we are baptized eis death symbolically.  If we are baptized eis one body, the one body really exists before our baptism, and our baptism is the formal declaration of it.  Then, is it not reasonable to conclude, that the same interpretation should be given to baptize eis remission of sins?  If baptize eis repentance denotes the previous repentance, then does not baptize eis remission denote the previous remission?  Christ blood was shed eis remission, but the shedding of that blood was not an outward ordinance.  If ordinances declare symbolically what has taken place, and typically what will take place, then the remission of sins is either before baptism, or after baptism, and can not be in baptism.

This view is powerfully confirmed, not only in the Province of Ordinances, but also in those many Scriptures which predicate salvation with all of its accompanying blessings to grace, “through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast.”  All efforts to make pre-baptism faith a dead faith, have resulted in failure, and resemble one cutting off the limb on which he sits; for it effectually makes his baptism a dead baptism.

The woman of whom Christ said:  “She loved much because she had been forgiven much,” and to whom he said:  “Thy faith hath saved thee, go in peace,” was a proper subject for baptism.  If she had not been baptized, then salvation was predicated of her pre-baptism faith, and her pre-baptism love evidenced her forgiveness.  If she had been baptized, then Christ overlooked her baptism, and predicated her salvation of a faith that was not expressed, or “perfected” in baptism, and proved her forgiveness by a love that expressed itself in other ways than baptism.  When Christ said:  He that believeth not is condemned, but he that believeth is not condemned, he was talking about faith necessary to baptism, for he was addressing an unbaptized man on the subject of salvation.  When he said:  “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life,” he was talking of the faith that is pre-requisite to baptism, for he was talking to unbelievers.  When Peter said:  “To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him should receive remission of sins,” he was addressing unbaptized Gentiles, who, hearing this, believed; and God who knows the heart, bore them witness giving them the Holy Spirit as he did to the Apostles, and put no difference between them, purifying their hearts by faith.  And when they spoke with tongues and magnified God, then answered Peter:  “Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we.”  When Paul spoke of “the righteousness of God by faith in Jesus Christ unto all and upon all that believe,” he was referring to a righteousness by faith- as “witnessed by the law and the prophets.”  This faith was expressly “without works,” and “without law,” and evidently without baptism.  So, all the scriptures that predicate salvation and its blessings of repentance, confession, love, etc.; and those promises to prayer, sacrifices and good works.  These could not be fulfilled to the unbaptized millions who have repented, believed, confessed, loved, prayed, sacrificed, and continued to the end in good works, if baptism was essential to salvation.  If space permitted I would add the testimony of our experience, and personal consciousness, to the obtaining of these blessings according to the promises, and by which we certainly know, that baptism is symbolical and in no sense a saving ordinance.

Read Full Post »