The Adventures of Maël & Cindy

Camillo Renato on Scripture

2011-11-03T01:37:00.000-05:00

... Scripture, which having survived until now by the providence of God and by the movement of the Holy Spirit and through the work of the apostles, is a weapon sufficient to save us and to inform us all the necessary things, useful and central and final things of the christian doctrine and customs. It is sufficient to defend ourselves from the bad doctrines of Satan and the Antichrist and does not need new voices, or new discourses, or deductions, or other curiosities, which give birth to contentions and schisms in the company of Christ. It is founded on the word and doctrine of its head and prince Jesus Christ our lord and does not try to extend beyond the designated terms so that, if lost, it would not be pulled into error by Satan.

This is my quick translation of a quote found in Camillo Renato, "Trattato del Battesimo e della Santa Cena," in Camillo Renato and Antonio Rotondò, Opere: Documenti e Testimonianze, Corpus Reformatorum Italicorum, edited by Luigi Firpo and Giorgio Spini (Firenze: G. C. Sansoni, 1968), 108.

While Renato is usually identified as a spiritualist, I thought this was a very good quote on Scripture.

Jerome and Baptism

2011-11-01T01:33:00.003-05:00

First they teach all nations. Then they baptize those they have taught with water, for the body is not able to receive the sacrament of baptism before the soul has received the truth of the faith.

found in Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 4.28.18-20, in Manlio Simonett, ed, Matthew 14-28, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, vol. NT 1b. Edited by Thomas M. Oden (Downers Grove: IVP, 2002), 313.

I personally found this very interesting, especially due to the fact that Jerome was 4th / 5th century and that there are traces of infant baptism as early as the 2nd century.

Fourth Trimester Abortion?

2011-10-05T21:20:00.003-05:00

I was shocked to read the BP article entitled "'4th-trimester abortion': Canadian woman strangles newborn but gets no prison time." In it, Michael Foust reports that a "Canadian woman who gave birth to a baby, strangled it with her underwear and then tossed the body over a fence outside her parents' house will not get any prison time in a decision that may be matched in shock only by the judge's logic." The judge that overruled the mother's conviction claimed that Canada's lack of legislation regulating abortion shows that "while many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support." As R. Albert Mohler Jr. points out: "we are now extending the murderous logic of abortion into a fourth trimester, which is to say, after the baby has been born." Unfortunately, I am not surprised that we are heading down that route ... may God help us all.

Determining the will of God and Newtonian Physics

2011-05-05T00:56:00.007-05:00

I was walking on SWBTS campus the other day thinking about what God is doing in our lives. For years now, Cindy and I have decided to wait and stay put, or to keep on going in the same direction, until we are sure that God is changing things. Then, it occurred to me that there is a parallel there with Newtonian physics (I am currently teaching Dynamics and Vibrations at TCU, so physics is on my mind). You see, according to Newton's first law of motion, an object at rest will remain at rest and an object in motion will remain in motion (with a given trajectory, etc.) unless acted upon by an external force.

We do not know what God has in store for us after SWBTS, but I know that I am supposed to be here, so we will wait here and continue on our trajectory, until He applies a force on us and moves us somewhere else. How about you? Are you rushing ahead of God, or are you waiting on Him?

Language distributions around the world.

2011-04-07T00:25:00.008-05:00

I recently ran into the following maps posted on Wikipedia. I found them interesting and useful, so I thought I'd share them with you.

The Anglophone world (original):

The Francophone world (original):

The Hispanophone world (original):

The Lusophone world (original):

Vlach. The Church as a Replacement of Israel - A short book review

2011-02-14T02:21:00.001-05:00

Vlach, Michael J. The Church as a Replacement of Israel: An Analysis of Supersessionism. Edition Israelogie (EDIS), vol. 2. New York: Peter Lang, 2009. Hardcover, $43.95.

The Church as a Replacement of Israel is the second volume (so far the only one in English) in Peter Lang's Edition Israelogie series. This series is a dogmatic Christian pursuit raising "the question as to how a systematic presentation of the relationship between Israel and/or Judaism and the Christian Church might enrich the development of Christian doctrine and even demand doctrinal modification" (11). Vlach's contribution is the publication of his doctoral thesis done at SEBTS. In it, he intends "to offer a systematic presentation and analysis of the doctrine of supersessionism," in which he will show that "supersessionism is not a 'one-size-fits-all' perspective." To do this, he proposes to define supersessionism and highlight the different types of replacement theology, to present the history of the doctrine, "and, most importantly, look at the major hermeneutical and theological issues involved in this debate" (13). The book follows exactly that pattern with the hermeneutical and theological investigation spanning three chapters.

Vlach defines supersessionism as "the view that the New Testament church is the new Israel that has forever superseded national Israel as the people of God" (27). He also identifies variations in supersessionism, which he subdivides into three main types: punitive, economic, and structural. The punitive view, as the name implies, believes that Israel has been replaced by the church due to its disobedience. The economic view focuses on "the Christ-event" as the reason for the replacement. Unlike the other two views, the structural view is more of a hermeneutical approach, which de-emphasizes the OT's value for "shaping Christian convictions" (31). Vlach also indentifies different intensities of supersessionism.

At the end of his historical presentation, Vlach concludes that "the doctrine of supersessionism has deep roots in church history" (80), and identifies factors which lead the church to those conclusions. He identifies Justin Martyr as "the first church father to explicitly identify the church as Israel" (81), and Origen as providing the hermeneutical foundation for supersessionism. In the middle ages, supersessionism often included the belief of a future conversion of the Jews. The reformation produced a mixed bag of supersessionist views, and it is not until the modern era that the church has seen a large scale rejection of supersessionism, partly motivated by the holocaust, the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, and the advent of dispensationalism.

In the last three chapters, Vlach evaluates the theology and hermeneutics of both supersessionism and non-supersessionism, its opposing view that "asserts that national Israel still has a special identity and role in the program of God" (38). He identifies the nucleus of their core difference as their hermeneutical assumptions: supersessionism seeing the OT mainly in terms of shadows and types, and non-supersessionism adopting a historical-grammatical approach to the text. Ultimately, Vlach concludes that "supersessionism is not consistent with the biblical witness" (13, 203). Vlach posits that the key biblical texts in the discussion (Gal 6:16; 1 Pet 2:4-10; Eph 2:11-22; Rom 11:17-24; and Heb 8:8-13), while compatible with supersessionism, do not require such an interpretation.

Vlach's scholarly work is well written and has a great bibliography and ample footnotes for expanded research, yet it is also written in very attainable language. Therefore, I would not hesitate to recommend it in scholarly and non-scholarly settings. By presenting the full picture of supersessionism, Vlach allows any reader to go from complete ignorance to a good working knowledge of, if not proficiency in, the topic of supersessionism.

Blaising. Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church - A short book review

2011-02-12T02:12:00.003-05:00

Blaising, Craig A., and Darrell L. Bock, eds. Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992. Softcover, $32.00.

As Stanley Gundry writes: "dispensationalism and its proponents have been and continue to be in process" (12). This is especially true about one of the sine quibus non of dispensationalism: the distinction between Israel and the church. Blaising, in his introductory historical overview concludes that there has been an abandonment of the "transcendental distinction" between Israel and the church in favor of a "historical distinction in the progressive revelation of the divine purpose" (33). Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church, edited by the authors of Progressing Dispensationalism, is therefore, as Blaising identifies it, "the hermeneutical reexamination of the relationship between Israel and the church, which in turn contributes to the process of self-definition currently underway in dispensationalism." In it, ten dispensational authors "examine aspects of the Israel-church relationship in New Testament theology," and three evangelical scholars "respond to these hermeneutical studies" (34).

For Bock, the reconstruction of New Testament eschatology must take into account that Jesus is the fulfillment of "promises and covenants made to Israel," as presented in Acts 2 and 3 (37-8). Ware believes that in the new covenant, Israel and the church are united people(s) of God, "yet distinct insofar as God will yet restore Israel as a nation to its land" (97). Hock states that the "ecclesiological one new man" is formed by "the remnant of Israel together with Gentiles" (125), which means that there is continuity and discontinuity between the testaments. Saucy focuses on understanding the mystery in Eph 3. Glenny argues for a typological-prophetic understanding of the use of the OT in 1 Pet, where OT Israel is a "pattern of the church's relationship with God" (186). Burns deals with "eschatology, ethnic Israel, and Romans 11" (188). Martin believes that the believer's ethic reiterated by Jesus, "although historically conditioned, is applicable to all ages" (263). Turner considers the New Jerusalem from the perspective of biblical theology. Finally, Barker argues for a 'both-and' approach to "certain potential dichotomous concepts" involving the church and Israel (328).

Three responses follow these ten chapters. VanGemeren, committed to Westminster (331), seems to think that dispensationalists have not gone far enough in his direction. Waltke, believes that this shift in dispensationalism "shakes the very foundations of dispensational hermeneutics" (348). Kaiser, is encouraged by the progress and applauds both the spirit, methodology, and many conclusions of this volume. Blaising and Bock conclude this book with a summary and a cursory presentation of progressive dispensationalism

Overall, I appreciate the progressive approach to dispensationalism presented in this volume, since it does attempt to smooth out some of the tensions that a clear dichotomy between Israel and the church creates. Bock's presentation of the kingdom existing in the church, as a "showcase of God's present reign through Messiah Jesus," for example, decreases the stark division that the classical dispensational view presents of a purely future kingdom. This allows the reader of Scripture to apply passages, like the sermon on the mount, where Jesus is talking about the kingdom. I recommend this volume for all who want to understand the history and current status of dispensationalism. Whether one agrees with the conclusions of the authors or not, there is much in this volume that will trigger fruitful thought about Israel and the church.

Baptism in the Theology of A. H. Strong - Conclusion

2011-01-31T16:22:00.003-05:00

After a short summary of Strong's ecclesiology, Strong's doctrine of baptism was presented. As with most of his ecclesiology, Strong presents a Christocentric doctrine of baptism. Overall, his doctrine of baptism is orthodox and congruent with Baptist theology and the Biblical text. Upon analysis, helped by the study of his contemporaries and the study of the Acts 18:24-19:7 pericope, it was determined that Strong's view of 're-baptism' betrayed a anthropocentric shift in Strong's thinking. This resulted in a flawed view of 're-baptism' and a theoretical exaggerated de-emphasis on the administrator of baptism. The latter was probably also partially generated in reaction to the landmarkist debate. In addition, point was taken with Strong's understanding of the baptism of John as Christian baptism. All of these, though, are minor details that do not invalidate the value of his doctrine of baptism.

I hope that this series has been beneficial for you. Personally, it forced me to think about some issues that I had not thought of much before.

Below are links to the entire series.

Intro

A Christocentric Church - Summary of Ecclesiology Part I
The Organization of the Church - Summary of Ecclesiology Part II
Relation Between Local Churches - Summary of Ecclesiology Part III
Baptism, Christocentric at its Core
Baptism, Not Primarily the Entrance into the Church
Baptism, Not for Regeneration
The Administrator of Baptism
The Baptism of John
Rebaptism
Looking at Strong's Contemporaries - Part I
Looking at Strong's Contemporaries - Part II
Looking at Strong's Contemporaries - Part III
Looking at Strong's Contemporaries - Part IV
An Analysis - Part I
An Analysis - Part II
An Analysis - Part III
An Analysis - Part IV

Baptism in the Theology of A. H. Strong - An Analysis - Part IV

2011-01-29T16:15:00.001-05:00

Rebaptism

When discussing 're-baptism,' one first needs to define what is meant by 're-baptism.' For example, were the Ephesian twelve 're-baptized' or was it their first baptism, the former one not being considered a baptism?[80] Re-baptism proper has to be defined as the repetition of baptism when the previous baptism was valid. This cannot be seen in Scripture, as was shown above, and does not make any theological sense. Baptism should be performed only once.[81] One can agree with Luther, Weston, and Strong that allowing the repetition of baptism (re-baptism proper) when one's faith is rekindled after a period of doubt can only lead to an infinite repetition of something that should be done once and for all.[82] So, the question is: if the baptism of someone is not found satisfactory, is there a warrant to baptize that person anew? Dargan sees precisely that in the Ephesian pericope: a "warrant for the rejection of an immersion not found satisfactory, and the performance of a true one in such case."[83] That being the situation, what renders someone's baptism not satisfactory or invalid, requiring it to be done anew for the first time? While, for the twelve, the question might be more complicated to answer, what about nowadays: what makes baptism invalid?

Since this is an analysis of Strong's view of baptism, his definition of baptism will be used: baptism is "the immersion of a believer in water, in token of his previous entrance into the communion of Christ's death and resurrection,– or, in other words, in token of his regeneration through union with Christ."[84] What invalidates this definition? Obviously, the lack of any component would invalidate it. Hence, the absence of immersion in water would render a baptism not valid. If the one who is being baptized is not a believer, one who has "entered into the communion of Christ's death and resurrection," then the baptism would not be valid.

This is where the tension is with Strong's view. The controversial scenario given by Strong is the case where a person is persuaded that he mistakenly thought himself regenerate at the time of his baptism. Here, Strong advises that, if the ordinance had been administered "with honest intent, as a profession of faith in Christ," it should not be administered again. The thrust of the argument is on the intent of the person being baptized, but intent is not in Strong's baptismal definition. Regeneration, though, is in his definition; accordingly then, in his scenario, regeneration was missing upon the first baptism, therefore rendering it equivalent to a public bath and requiring a proper baptism after regeneration does happen.

Strong argues for his position due to the fact that the intent of the person was correct, therefore placing intent and the person at the center of the issue. This anthropocentric approach is alien to the rest of his ecclesiology. Had he continued to be Christocentric, therefore placing Christ at the center of the issue, he would have correctly focused on the need for a regenerate candidate, instead of focusing on the candidate's intent, and would had to have come to a different conclusion.

[80] W. O. Carver, agreeing with Strong, states that in the case of the Ephesian twelve, "baptism–not re-baptism" was administered to them. See: Beth Allison Barr, The Acts of the Apostles: Four Centuries of Baptist Interpretation (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009), 690.

[81] Akin, ed. Theology for the Church, 785.

[82] Wilburn T. Stancil, "Rebaptisms in the Southern Baptist Convention: A Theological and Pastoral Dilemma," Perspectives in Religious Studies 21, no. 2 (1994): 136; Johnson and Weston, An Outline of Systematic Theology, 337; and Strong, Systematic Theology, 950.

[83] This is Dargan's conclusion from the Ephesian pericope discussed above. Dargan, Ecclesiology, 364.

[84] Strong, Systematic Theology, 931.

Baptism in the Theology of A. H. Strong - An Analysis - Part III

2011-01-27T15:54:00.002-05:00

The Baptism of John

The question of the relation of the baptism of John to Christian baptism is one that is still very much disputed and could be the topic of a paper of its own. As seen in the overview of a few of his contemporaries, some ignored the issue and some refused to discuss it. Therefore, due to the lack of uniformity of thought on the issue, it would be tempting to ignore it. Unfortunately, Strong's position on the matter is integral to his view on 're-baptism.' This makes its discussion necessary, but also allows it to be limited to what is necessary to analyze Strong's understanding of 're-baptism.'

Looking at the testimony of Scripture, some believe John himself differentiates his baptism from Jesus', and therefore have argued that the baptism of John was not a valid Christian baptism. This is why Paul baptized the twelve Ephesians (Acts 19:1-7).[65] But, if the words of John are taken at face value, Jesus' baptism is not with water, but with the Holy Spirit and fire (Matt 3:11; Luke 3:16), so would that mean that Christian baptism has nothing to do with water baptism? Also, is one to understand that Jesus' disciples, some of which were John's disciples before they became Jesus' disciples, were all re-baptized by Jesus in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? Central to this discussion, and to Strong's discussion of 're-baptism,' is the understanding of the Acts 18:24-19:7 pericope. In this pericope the reader is presented with two situations involving people who had received the baptism of John.

Acts 18:24-28 Sub-Pericope. The first situation involves Apollos, who is said to be eloquent, mighty in the Scriptures, having been instructed in the την οδον του κυριου, and ζεων τω πνευματι, "though he knew only the baptism of John."[66] One day, while he is boldly speaking in the synagogue, Aquila and Priscilla hear him, and subsequently take him aside to explain to him "the way of God more accurately." He is then sent on to Achaia with the blessing of the congregation there in Ephesus, with no mention of his being re-baptized with a Christian baptism.[67] The phrases την οδον του κυριου and ζεων τω πνευματι are central to the understanding of this first part of the pericope. First, Apollos had been instructed in the ways of the Lord, not just in the ways of God (Cf. Acts 18:26). Even if he seemed to have some minor deficiencies, he knew enough about the Lord to be able to teach "accurately" about the things of the Lord. Second, he was fervent in spirit.[68] The close verbal parallel with Rom 12:11 has led many commentators to assume that this meant he was probably a Christian,[69] even though he lacked Christian baptism.

Acts 19:1-7 Sub-Pericope. The second situation involves the Ephesian twelve. Unlike Apollos, these are described as μαθητας and as ignorant of the Holy Spirit; like Apollos they had only been baptized "into John's baptism." Paul's interaction with them is markedly different from Aquila and Priscilla's interaction with Apollos. He explains to them that "John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." At this, they "were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus," and then received the Holy Spirit. The two aspects central to the interpretation of this passage are the use of μαθητας and the twelve's apparent ignorance concerning the Spirit. The use of the appellation disciple has been interpreted in various ways,[70] but ultimately Marshall's interpretation makes the most sense. He notes that "Luke is not saying that the men are disciples but is describing how they appear to Paul."[71] As for their ignorance concerning the Spirit, most agree that this is not a total ignorance about the Spirit, because Jews, John's disciples, and Christians would all have heard of the Spirit. So, they must have been ignorant of the coming of the Spirit.[72] Therefore, due to their lack of knowledge about Christ and their lack of the Spirit, it can be concluded that these twelve were not Christians; consequently, they still required baptism when they believed after having heard about Christ Jesus.

From this pericope one can then conclude with Barrett that "it is probable that the two stories reflect different ways of receiving disciples of John the Baptist into the church."[73] John's baptism was "not inherently lacking" but "had as a primary purpose the leading of persons in a christological direction," and when "actualized in the Spirit-baptism of Jesus," it was considered valid, as in the case of Apollos.[74] This was similar to what would have happened to the apostles who were baptized before Pentecost, and then received the Spirit at Pentecost.[75] While in the case of the Ephesian twelve, the lack of any Christological understanding and the lack of the indwelling of the Spirit pointed to a lack of belief in the Messiah and a lack of regeneration.[76]

John's baptism, under the special circumstances described above, was apparently accepted by the early church as a valid substitute for Christian baptism,[77] but this does not make it equivalent to Christian baptism. Using Strong's own definition, John's baptism did not constitute a token of one's "previous entrance into the communion of Christ's death and resurrection."[78] So when he claims that Jesus' baptism pointed forward to his death and resurrection, and believer's baptism, wherever it is administered, "whether by John the Baptist, or the apostles, or by the later ministers of Christ's church," points backwards to the same, he is being inconsistent with his own definition.[79]

[65] Matt 3:11; Luke 3:16; John 1:24-27, 33; cf. Luke 3:3. See: Akin, ed. Theology for the Church, 785 n45; 616. In an attempt to weaken the Baptist arguments for immersion, some Methodists have historically taken an extreme position and denied any relation between John's baptism and Christian baptism. See "John's Baptism," Quarterly Review of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South 6, no. 4 (1852): 592-617.

[66] Scripture quotations throughout the paper will be from the NKJV.

[67] F. F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Rev. ed., New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 360; John B. Polhill, Acts, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 397; C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 898; Cf. Paton J. Gloag, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1870), 189.

[68] Cf. the NIV with "spoke with great fervor"; Alfred Firmin Loisy, Les Actes Des Apotres (Paris: E. Nourry, 1920), 712.

[69] Barrett, Acts of the Apostles, 888; Polhill, Acts, 396; Bruce, The Book of the Acts, 359; Gloag, Acts, 186-87. Gloag also states that "on account of the article before πνευματι, some, and especially the Fathers, suppose that the Holy Spirit is meant" (187).

[70] Some have understood this as referring to believers: Bruce, The Book of the Acts, 363; and Gloag, Acts, 194. Some have understood this as referring to them as disciples of John: Polhill, Acts, 398-99; and Christopher B. Kaiser, "Rebaptism of the Ephesian Twelve: Exegetical Study on Acts 19:1-7," Reformed Review 31, no. 1 (1977): 59.

[71] Quoted by Barrett in Barrett, Acts of the Apostles, 893.

[72] Gloag, Acts, 195-96; and Polhill, Acts, 399.

[73] Barrett, Acts of the Apostles, 898. Beasley-Murray, in George Raymond Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (London: Macmillan, 1962), 112, also concludes that "it would appear that the baptism of John was good enough in one case but not in another."

[74] J. B. Green, "From 'John's Baptism' to 'Baptism in the Name of the Lord Jesus': The Significance of Baptism in Luke-Acts," Journal for the study of the New Testament. Supplement Series, no. 171 (1999): 168.

[75] Beasley-Murray, in Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, 110, sees Apollos as "representative of an unknown number of disciples of John who passed quietly unto the sovereignty of the Messiah Jesus and who were graciously visited by the Spirit without any further ecclesiastical intervention."

[76] Similarly, Dargan states that "the invalidating defect in the immersion which these men had previously received was not that of an unauthorized administrator – that not being in question – but clearly that of ignorance on their part of fundamental truth which they should have known as necessary to an intelligent reception of baptism." See: Dargan, Ecclesiology, 364.

[77] Cf. Ben Witherington, Troubled Waters: Rethinking the Theology of Baptism (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2007), 77 [on-line]; accessed 10 October 2010; available from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/tculibrary/Doc?id=10190401&ppg=84; Internet. Here Witherington writes that "John’s baptism is no satisfactory substitute for the true Christian rite in view of the accomplished work of Jesus, which is the foundation and background to the Christian water rite."

[78] Strong, Systematic Theology, 931.

[79] Strong, "The Baptism of Jesus," 235.

Baptism in the Theology of A. H. Strong - An Analysis - Part II

2011-01-25T15:49:00.001-05:00

The Administrator

To be fair to Strong, his primary view of the administrator is in harmony with the one presented by his contemporaries and by modern Baptist theologians, for he sees baptism as committed "to the charge of the whole church to observe and guard."[62] For Strong, therefore, it is the church that appoints the administrator, and the de facto administrator is the pastor.[63] It is only in the section on the subject of baptism that Strong, probably reacting to the impact of Landmarkism,[64] apparently diminishes the qualifications of the administrator to nil. It is also in this section where one sees a shift from Strong's consistent Christocentric ecclesiology to a more anthropocentric ecclesiology.

[62] Strong, Systematic Theology, 905.

[63] See: Garrett, Systematic Theology, 531; Hammett, Foundations for Baptist Churches, 261; White, Duesing, and Yarnell, eds., Restoring Integrity, 116; as well as Weston and even Dargan's concept of "under authority" and Carroll's understanding of baptism being committed to the church. Cf. Carroll's emphasis on the officer and Dargan's characterization of Strong's view as the liberal view. After quoting Strong's view, Dargan states three objections to it: "The first objection is that it goes against the two inferences from Scripture; that the agent should be himself immersed, and act under authority. So far as these inferences are entitled to any weight, they make directly against the liberal theory. A second difficulty is that this theory is denominationally inconsistent. . . . The third, and perhaps strongest objection is that this theory of the agent does not sufficiently safeguard the proper observance of the ordinance. It is too sacred and important a matter to leave to the conscience of the candidate alone, so that if he is satisfied with his immersion by an unbaptized person the Baptist churches ought to be" (Dargan, Ecclesiology, 390-91). To be fair to Strong, here Dargan misrepresents Strong's position and ignores the other statements made by Strong about the administrator.

[64] See Garrett's discussion on the rise of the issue of proper administrator among Southern Baptists (Garrett, Systematic Theology, 531-32), in parallel with Strong's de-emphasis on the qualifications of the administrator and the lack of need for a Baptist apostolic succession (Strong, Systematic Theology, 948-49).

Baptism in the Theology of A. H. Strong - An Analysis - Part I

2011-01-23T15:45:00.001-05:00

Overall, Strong presents an orthodox doctrine of baptism, especially for a Baptist context, as can be seen by the uniformity with his contemporaries and by comparison with modern systematic theologies and ecclesiologies.[61] There are, however, some features where there was disagreement with his contemporaries. These will be the focus of this analysis.

[61] For a few examples see: Daniel L. Akin, ed. A Theology for the Church (Nashville: B&H, 2007), 785-89; James Leo Garrett, Systematic Theology: Biblical, Historical, and Evangelical, 2nd ed., 2 vols., vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 502-36; John S. Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005), 257-77; Thomas White, Jason G. Duesing, and Malcom B. Yarnell, eds., Restoring Integrity in Baptist Churches (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2008), 63-136.

Baptism in the Theology of A. H. Strong - Looking at Strong's Contemporaries - Part IV

2011-01-22T15:37:00.003-05:00

H. G. Weston (1820-1909)

Weston[58] also has a similar view of baptism. For him, baptism is "the believer's acceptance of the terms of salvation, his confession of repentance and faith: Godward, it is the declaration of forgiveness; manward, it is the declaration of faith in Christ." Therefore, "it commemorates the burial and resurrection of Christ" and "it symbolizes the death of the Christian to his old life, and his entrance on a new life." Baptism should be by "immersion in water in the name of the Trinity, on a confession of faith in Christ," therefore limiting it to only believers. As per the administrator, Weston, sees the ordinance as a church act, therefore it "may be administered by any one appointed by a church."[59]

Weston does not refer to the baptism of John, but does opine on 're-baptism'. Here, like Strong, Weston states that if someone has been baptized "on a credible confession of faith" but later "supposes he was not regenerated at that time," baptism should not be repeated. He offers three reasons for this: 1) by doing so the focus is taken off the church, whose ordinance baptism is, and placed on the individual; 2) "in the repetition there is only what there was in the first instance–a credible confession"; 3) if it's allowed to happen once, this process could go on at infinitum.[60]

Now, having looked at the 'data', I will proceed, in the next several posts with an analysis of Strong's doctrine of baptism.

[58] Weston, after having been a missionary for three years, served as a pastor for twenty two years before becoming the first president of Crozer Theological Seminary. There he also served as chair of preaching and pastoral duties and lecturer on New Testament writings. See: E. H. Johnson, "President Henry Griggs Weston, D.D.," Bibliotheca Sacra: A Religious and Sociological Quarterly 57 (1900): 785.

[59] E. H. Johnson and Henry G. Weston, An Outline of Systematic Theology, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1895), 331-33; 337. Weston's Ecclesiology was bound at the end of Johnson's Systematic, for Johnson saw the doctrines of the church as pertaining "to another department of instruction, that of Practical Theology" (iv), and accordingly did not himself have a section dedicated to ecclesiology.

[60] Ibid., 336-37.

Baptism in the Theology of A. H. Strong - Looking at Strong's Contemporaries - Part III

2011-01-20T14:17:00.003-05:00

E. C. Dargan (1852-1930)

Dargan,[53] similarly to Strong, comprehends the act of baptism as representing "the burial and resurrection of Christ, and our death to sin and resurrection to a new life," therefore it is "not spiritually efficacious in any sense, but is symbolical and declarative." It is the declaration of a faith that involves repentance, obedience, and consecration. It is for "believers and believers only" and has as its mode single immersion.[54]

As in the case of Carroll, Dargan and Strong do not totally agree on the question of the agent of baptism. Dargan believes that "the agent should be himself immersed, and act under authority." Therefore, he finds fault with Strong's emphasis on the recipient's intent to obey Christ's command to the point of possibly disregarding the status of the agent. Ultimately, though, while Dargan thinks that all the evidence lies "against the propriety of accepting any of these so-called 'alien immersions,'" in good Baptist form, he acknowledges that the individual churches "have an undoubted right to decide the doubtful question for themselves."[55]

As for John's baptism, Dargan, while refusing to opine on whether John's baptism was Christian baptism, sees it as having "only illustrative value . . . as it was only introductory to properly Christian baptism."[56] He also sees Paul's actions in the Acts 19 pericope as giving "warrant for the rejection of an immersion not found satisfactory, and the performance of a true one in such case."[57]

[54] Dargan, Ecclesiology, 466-67; 463; 467-68; 407; 329.

[55] Ibid., 390-392; 394.

[56] Ibid., 401; 361. Dargan states: "We do not here enter into the debated question whether John's baptism was Christian baptism, but so far as the act and recipients were concerned there is no reason to consider them essentially different" (361). Goodspeed, a conservative Canadian Baptist contemporary, in Calvin Goodspeed, Baptism: An Argument and a Reply, 3rd, rev. and enl. ed. (Toronto: Dudley & Burns, 1892), 91, expresses the same sentiment of not wanting to enter a debate comparing John's baptism and Christian baptism, making one conclude that this must have been a contemporary topic of discussion. Unfortunately, no record of such a dialogue has been found by the author.

[57] Dargan, Ecclesiology, 363-64.

Baptism in the Theology of A. H. Strong - Looking at Strong's Contemporaries - Part II

2011-01-18T14:05:00.005-05:00

B.H. Carroll (1843-1914)

For Carroll,[46] "baptism is a profession or declaration, public and visible, of our faith in Jesus, as the Sent of the Father and the Anointed of the Spirit, to be our Prophet, Priest, and King." As such, "it is a monument or memorial of [Christ's] resurrection, and a pledge and prophecy of our own."[47] For Carroll, as for Strong, baptism is the immersion of a child of God who has shown evidence of "personal discipleship–personal repentance and personal faith."[48] Also, like Strong, Carroll is "not surprised to find baptism so closely associated in time with the faith which it professes. In apostolic days there was nothing like the modern interval between them. Baptism was at the threshold of religious life. It preceded every other obligation enjoined on the converted." As Carroll continues, though, there begins to be a slight divergence from Strong's position, for this close association of profession and baptism leads him to conclude: "We can thus understand why some called it the 'initiatory' ordinance, and others 'the door' into the church, so interpreting 1 Cor. 12:13."[49]

The greatest difference between Carroll and Strong on the topic of baptism is seen in their view of the administrator of baptism and the intent of the recipient of baptism. For Carroll:

The law of baptism was committed to his church, to be administered by officers of its own appointment … An official act must be performed by an officer. An officer must have been put in office by the organization under which he holds office and to which he is responsible for the exercise of official function.[50]

Therefore "baptism is null and void unless administered by legal authority, no matter what the intent or act of the subject or administrator."[51]

Carroll did not elaborate on the baptism of John, with the exception of his use of it as an example of the correct mode and order of baptism. His view of the inception of the church, though, could be of interest to the discussion at hand. For Carroll, Jesus "instituted his ecclesia on earth. . . . But though the new house was built, it was empty until our Lord ascended into heaven, and fulfilled his promise to send the Holy Spirit as the indweller of this new habitation."[52] This is different from Strong's 'germ' idea that leaves room for John's baptism to be Christian baptism. Carroll also did not opine on 're-baptism'.

[46] During his life, B. H. Carroll was the pastor of First Baptist Church, Waco, organized Baylor Theological Seminary, and founded Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. At the latter, he served as the first president until his death in Fort Worth, on November 11, 1914. See: Carroll, Ecclesia, 171-73. McBeth, in McBeth, Baptist Heritage, 676, lists B. H. Carroll in the Pastor-Theologians section of his chapter on Southern Baptists, noting that he "proved one of the most influential thinkers, as well as doers, of his day."

[47] Carroll, Ecclesia, 93-94; 98.

[48] Ibid., 91; 87.

[49] Ibid., 94. Carroll also would claim that "the conditions of membership in the church on earth are regeneration and baptism. But for the church in glory the conditions of membership are justification, regeneration and sanctification of soul and glorification of body" (23). Cf. Strong, Systematic Theology, 949.

[50] Carroll, Ecclesia, 83. Carroll's use of a civil analogy here is not convincing.

[51] Ibid., 84.

[52] Ibid., 25.

Baptism in the Theology of A. H. Strong - Looking at Strong's Contemporaries - Part I

2011-01-16T13:48:00.003-05:00

Reading through Systematic Theology, one cannot ignore the fact that Strong was writing in conversation with and in reaction to a variety of groups. Just in the two chapters dedicated to his ecclesiology, one can see interactions with and reactions against Romanists (also referred to as papists), Presbyterians, Campbellites, the Salvation Army, and the Society of Friends. This helps the reader have some understanding of the historical context against which Strong reacts. For example, Strong, like many Baptist theologians of his time, elaborately discusses the disqualification of infant baptism in his doctrine of baptism due to the continued conversation with paedobaptist groups. Theology, even when not reactionary, is rarely formed in a vacuum. Therefore, also of interest to this analysis of his doctrine of baptism are the doctrines of his Baptist contemporaries, both Northern and Southern. For this purpose the doctrine of baptism for some of his contemporary Baptist theologians will be reviewed. The hope is to identify commonalities and oddities, with respect to his historical context, in his doctrine.

I will only look at three of his contemporaries: B.H. Carroll, E.C. Dargan, and H.G. Weston. B.H. Carroll was chosen as a representative of Southern Baptists who espoused a different view of the universal church than Strong did. E.C. Dargan was chosen as a representative of Southern Baptists who spoused a similar view of the universal church to Strong's. In addition, Dargan directly interacted with Strong's ecclesiological ideas in his work, Ecclesiology. H.G. Weston was chosen because, as a Northern Baptist, his path intersected Strong's in many ways. It could be argued that Pendleton, Hiscox, or others could have been better choices; maybe one day I will have time to look at these gentlemen. What are your thoughts? Who would you have picked?

[45] Küng, in Hans Küng, The Church (Garden City, NY: Image Books, 1976), 22-23, points out that concepts in ecclesiology are influenced by current forms that change throughout the ages. If one can identify the change, one can get to the constant "essence" that the temporal influences are masking. While not agreeing with Küng's ultimate conclusion that therefore only a glimpse of the essence of the church can be regained, based on his observation, one can see the value of looking at the historical context in which a particular ecclesiology is developed.

Baptism in the Theology of A. H. Strong - Rebaptism

2011-01-14T13:41:00.001-05:00

This brings up the second peculiarity of interest, viz. Strong's views on rebaptism. His views on the topic reflect the teaching of Brooks as found in "Rebaptism."[42] Strong believes that "since regeneration is a work accomplished once for all, the baptism which symbolizes this regeneration is not to be repeated." He also believes that there is no reference to a "second baptism" in the NT: the case of Acts 19:1-5 was not a rebaptism, "for the mere outward submersion in water to which they had previously submitted" was not a baptism.[43]

He expounds this concept in several scenarios. The first one is the case where a person is persuaded that he was mistakenly thinking himself regenerate at the time of his baptism. Strong advises that, if the ordinance had been administered "with honest intent, as a profession of faith in Christ," it should not be administered again. Here, Strong focuses on the intent of the person being baptized, as is made clearer by his second case. The second case is the one of someone who had previously experienced Campbellite immersion. If the person has "gone down into the water, not with the intent to profess a previously existing faith, but in order to be regenerated," then baptism should be administered to them when they eventually believe in Christ. But, if the person had been baptized with the intent to profess an existing faith, and therefore a previous regeneration, then baptism should not be re-administered, even though the original baptism was administered by the Campbellites for the purpose of regeneration. The third scenario is the case of a "fickle believer" who seeks rebaptism whenever his faith and joy have been rekindled. Here, since faith existed at the time of the original baptism, even though "much unbelief and many wanderings" followed it, the original baptism should be considered valid.[44]

Before I analyze and discuss Strong's doctrine of baptism, let's us take several post briefly looking at what some of his contemporaries believed.

[42] See: Kendall Brooks, "Rebaptism," The Baptist Quarterly 1 (April 1867): 129-42.

[43] Strong, Systematic Theology, 950.

[44] Ibid.

Baptism in the Theology of A. H. Strong - The Baptism of John

2011-01-12T13:16:00.001-05:00

During his defense of the institution of baptism by Christ, Strong presents the first of two peculiarities in his doctrine of baptism. While he claims that Christ instituted the ordinance of baptism, he also claims that "John's baptism was essentially Christian baptism, although the full significance of it was not understood until after Jesus' death and resurrection."[39] According to Strong, "the baptism of John was an application to Jews of an immersion which, before that time, was administered to proselytes from among the Gentiles," and therefore was an "adaptation of the rite to a new class of subjects and with a new meaning."[40] This new meaning included repentance of sins as well as "faith in the coming Savior." He does not see Acts 19:1-5 as the baptism of believers who had only been baptized according to the baptism of John, therefore invalidating it as Christian baptism. On the contrary, he believes this passage describes "the baptism for the first time of certain persons who had been wrongly taught with regard to the nature of John the Baptist's doctrine, and so had ignorantly submitted to an outward rite which had in it no reference to Jesus Christ and expressed no faith in him as a Savior." So, according to Strong, these had not known John's baptism and therefore, had not experienced "true baptism." Their immersion did not have the right intent, therefore invalidating it and explaining why Paul commands them to be baptized.[41]

We will analyze and discuss these ideas in a later post.

[39] Strong, Systematic Theology, 931-33.

[40] Ibid., 932.

[41] Ibid., 950.

Baptism in the Theology of A. H. Strong - The Administrator of Baptism

2011-01-10T12:09:00.000-05:00

As for the administrator, he "is simply the organ of the church."[34] Strong does claim that one of the "duties" of the pastor is to be the administrator of the ordinances, but curtails this statement when he writes that the church is not "absolutely dependent upon him in the matter. . . . In an emergency any other member appointed by the church may administer [the ordinances] with equal propriety, the church always determining who are fit subjects of the ordinances, and constituting him their organ in administering them."[35] Ultimately, for Strong,

baptism is primarily the act, not of the administrator, but of the person baptized. … Since baptism is primarily the act of the convert, no lack of qualification on the part of the administrator invalidates the baptism, so long as the proper outward act is performed, with intent on the part of the person baptized to express the fact of a preceding spiritual renewal.[36]

To which he adds that "nothing but the absence of immersion, or of an intent to profess faith in Christ, can invalidate the ordinance." Therefore, "we have no need to prove a Baptist apostolic succession. If we can derive our doctrine and practice from the New Testament, it is all we require."[36] This is why, in the context of the formation of a new church, Strong, pointing to the benefits of forming a council of churches for advisory purposes while insisting on the autonomy of this new church, states that if a group were "providentially precluded from access to existing churches, [they] might rightfully appoint one of their number to baptize the rest, and then might organize, de novo, a New Testament church."[37] It therefore comes as no surprise that Garrett claims that "Strong was not influenced by the Landmark rejection of 'alien' immersions."[38]

[34] Strong, Systematic Theology, 906.

[35] Ibid., 916-17.

[36] Ibid., 948-49.

[37] Ibid., 902.

[38] Garrett, Baptist Theology, 302.

Baptism in the Theology of A. H. Strong - Baptism, Not for Regeneration

2011-01-08T12:02:00.001-05:00

Since proper candidates for baptism are only those who have been regenerated, baptism itself is devoid of any regenerating power. For Strong, "baptism no more makes one a Christian, than putting a crown on one's head makes him a king." Even its sanctifying "efficacy is not in the outward act but in the spirit which accompanies it." Strong ties the concept of baptismal regeneration to the rise of infant baptism, which he rejects and reprehends. He also warns against the start of the new tradition of baby dedication, for sinful humanity will pervert any addition to the NT. Yet, Strong does allow children, even of "a tender age," to be baptized and granted church membership, when the church has evidence of conversion and Christian character.[33]

[33] Strong, Systematic Theology, 951-59. Of historical interest is this narration of what possibly is the start of baby dedication in America. "In Key West, Florida, a town of 22,000 inhabitants, infant baptism has a stronger hold than anywhere else at the South. Baptist parents had sometimes gone to the Methodist preacher to have their children baptized. To prevent this, the Baptist pastors established the custom of laying their hands upon the heads of infants in the congregation, and 'blessing' them, i.e., asking God's blessing to rest upon them. But this custom came to be confounded with christening, and was called such. Now the Baptist pastors are having a hard struggle to explain and limit the custom which they themselves have introduced. Perverse human nature will take advantage of even the slightest additions to N. T. prescriptions, and will bring out of the germs of false doctrine a fearful harvest of evil" (957).

Baptism in the Theology of A. H. Strong - Baptism, Not Primarily the Entrance into the Church

2011-01-06T11:59:00.001-05:00

The concept of baptism as the entrance into the individual church is not central to Strong, as evidenced by the fact that one does not find a section dedicated to the topic but only a few references to it scattered throughout the text. Due to his Christocentric stance, he finds a flaw in adopting this concept as the main meaning of baptism. He states:

Baptism is sometimes figuratively described as "the door into the church." The phrase is unfortunate, since if by the church is meant the spiritual kingdom of God, then Christ is its only door; if the local body of believers is meant, then the faith of the candidate, the credible evidence of regeneration which he gives, the vote of the church itself, are all, equally with baptism, the door through which he enters. The door in this sense, is a double door, one part of which is his confession of faith, and the other his baptism.[30]

In the same vein, Strong points out that his definition of the church is not "a body of 'baptized believers,' because baptism is but one of 'Christ's laws,' in accordance with which believers unite themselves."[31] So, baptism, as an outward representation of an inward regeneration, is a qualification for membership,[32] but to make this the central or only meaning of baptism probably would be too anthropocentric for Strong.

[30] Strong, Systematic Theology, 949.

[31] Ibid., 890.

[32] Ibid., 900. Regeneration and baptism: "i.e., spiritual new birth and ritual new birth; the surrender of the inward and of the outward life to Christ; the spiritual entrance into communion with Christ's death and resurrection, and the formal profession of this to the world by being buried with Christ and rising with him in baptism."

Baptism in the Theology of A. H. Strong - Baptism, Christocentric at its Core

2011-01-04T11:48:00.003-05:00

In "The Ordinances of the Church," Strong continues to be Christocentric. Ordinances, like the sacramentum oath taken by Roman soldiers to follow their commanders to the death, are sacraments, not in a Romanist sense of conferring grace, but "in the sense of vows of allegiance to Christ our Master."[20] Strong, therefore, defines Christian baptism specifically as "the immersion of a believer in water, in token of his previous entrance into the communion of Christ's death and resurrection,– or, in other words, in token of his regeneration through union with Christ."[21] Garrett summarizes Strong's doctrine of baptism as: "baptism has immersion as its mode, symbolism as its nature, and 'only persons giving evidence of being regenerated' as its proper subjects."[22]

Central to Strong's view of baptism is the defense of baptism as "an ordinance of Christ," for Christ instituted it and intended it "to be of universal and perpetual obligation." This ordinance has as its mode "immersion, and immersion only." Strong defends his position on immersion based on the Greek text, figurative references to the ordinance, and the historical testimony of the practices of the early church. He argues against any church's modifying "the method of administering the ordinance, because such a change vacates the ordinance of its essential meaning."[23] Since the subject and the mode are what is essential in baptism, "mere accessories are a matter of individual judgment." Nevertheless, the formula should be "into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," as prescribed by Jesus.[24] In addition, to relay better baptism's essential meaning, Strong advocates public baptisms and not relegating baptism to a private celebration.[25] He believes that baptisms "should follow regeneration with the least possible delay, after the candidate and the church have gained evidence that a spiritual change has been accomplished within him."[26] Strong also offers answers to common objections to immersion. It is in this section that one starts seeing Strong's focus on an individual's intent to obey Christ's command, over strict mechanistic obedience. It is also in the midst of this argument that Strong makes the first mention of baptism symbolizing the entrance into the church in addition to its primary meaning of symbolizing one's personal faith in Christ as Savior and Lord.[27]

Nevertheless, the believer's communion with Christ's death and resurrection constitutes the core of Strong's understanding of baptism.[28] Quoting Denney, in the Expositor's Greek Testament, Strong states: "baptism, inasmuch as one emerges from the water after immersed, is a similitude of resurrection as well as death." For Strong, though, baptism signifies more than just the death and resurrection of Christ. It also denotes the purpose of the death and resurrection of Christ, the accomplishment of that purpose and the method in which that purpose is accomplished in the believer, and the future death and resurrection of the body as a completion of the work of Christ in the believer. In addition, baptism, more aptly and accurately than the Lord's Supper, portrays Christian unity.[29]

[20] Strong, Systematic Theology, 930. Dargan in Edwin Charles Dargan, Ecclesiology: A Study of the Churches, 2d and carefully rev. ed. (Louisville: C.T. Dearing, 1905), also presents this etymology of the term sacrament.

[21] Strong, Systematic Theology, 931.

[22] Garrett, Baptist Theology, 301-02.

[23] Strong, Systematic Theology, 933-39.

[24] Ibid., 951. Here, Strong states his opinion that the use of natural, rather than artificial baptisteries, should not be "elevated into an essential."

[25] Ibid., 943.

[26] Ibid., 950.

[27] Ibid., 939-40. The objections to immersion tackled by Strong, and the summary of his answers are: 1) it is often impracticable - here the will to obey can be taken by Christ for the deed; 2) it is often dangerous - in this case it is no longer a duty, but it should not be replaced by something else, rather one should wait for a time when it is no longer dangerous; 3) it is indecent - therefore care should be taken to prevent exposure; 4) it is inconvenient - but Christians are not to consult convenience in matters of obedience; and 5) other methods have been blessed - only because God condescends to human ignorance.

[28] In Augustus Hopkins Strong, "The Baptism of Jesus," in Philosophy and Religion (New York: A. C. Armstrong and Son, 1888), 235, Strong, speaking of the baptism of Christ which he deems a picture for us, states: "I also must die to sin by having Jesus' death reproduced in me. I must rise to a new life by having Jesus' death reproduced in me. I must enter into communion with the death and resurrection of my Lord–yes, I must participate in both."

[29] Strong, Systematic Theology, 940-02. His comment on unity obviously refers to the unity argument for open communion. Strong subsequently lists his objections to open communion at the end of his section on the Lord's Supper (977-980).

Baptism in the Theology of A. H. Strong - Relation Between Local Churches - Summary of Ecclesiology Part III

2011-01-02T14:02:00.003-05:00

The last topic covered by Strong, before transitioning to a whole chapter on the ordinances, is on the relation between local churches. Strong postulates "the absolute equality of the churches," where churches fellowship, cooperate, and care for each other as should individual Christians. He continues this parallel between churches and believers, as he writes of taking and giving advice, and of a church's labor to reclaim a sister church that is erring.[17] He advocates the involvement of "other rightly constituted churches" in ordination councils so that if a pastor transfers from one church to another, ordination need not be repeated.[18] He also considers useful the calling of a "council of churches" to advise a group of believers on the "desirableness of constituting a new and distinct local body." This council, though, only has an advisory role, not a constitutive role, for each church is directly under the headship of Christ, and all are "on an equal footing." Not only that, but "all are independent of interference or control by the civil power."[19]

After this overview of Strong's ecclesiology, in the next post we will start to interact with Strong's doctrine of baptism.

[17] Strong, Systematic Theology, 926-29.

[18] Ibid., 922. In addition to the inclusion of other churches, Strong insists on the presence of non-ordained members in ordination councils, since "the whole church is to preserve the ordinances and to maintain sound doctrine, and [because] the unordained church member is often a more sagacious judge of a candidate's Christian experience than his own pastor would be" (920-21). In keeping with this logic, Strong advocates that "the candidate for ordination should be a member of the ordaining church" (920). Conversely, with regard to pastors of other denominations wanting to pastor a local Baptist church, he advocates their re-ordination (924).

[19] Ibid., 902; 898. With regard to the state, Strong also adds that "the church as an organized body should be ashamed to depend for revenue upon the state" (899).

Baptism in the Theology of A. H. Strong - The Organization of the Church - Summary of Ecclesiology Part II

2010-12-31T14:00:00.003-05:00

On the topic of organization and church government, Strong is convinced that a church as an organization will not only naturally happen, but is prescribed in Scripture. He believes that the NT depicts a developing organization, which existed only in germ before Christ's death, but which was "already complete in all essential particulars before the close of the inspired canon, so that the record of it may constitute a providential example of binding authority upon all subsequent ages." This organization should be properly populated with regenerate persons, but given his belief that Scripture depicts a visible church "comprehending some who are not true believers," Strong allows for the possibility that the organization might not.[12]

This institutional model is adaptable, according to Strong, but always follows a generic type that is democratic, and possesses only two orders of officials and only two ordinances.[13] Here Strong is again Christocentric, clarifying that this model is democratic insofar as the body is trying to interpret the will of Christ, its "sovereign and lawgiver," but with regard to its source of authority, Christ, it is an "absolute monarchy."[14] The two offices that Strong accepts as valid are: bishop, presbyter, or pastor; and deacon. Strong opposes Calvin's differentiation between teaching and ruling elders, since the same individual should be gifted with both the gifts of teaching and ruling.[15] This teaching / ruling pastor, when it comes to church discipline, does not have the role of "judge," but rather that of a "prosecuting attorney" of public offenses. Strong divides transgressions that require discipline into two categories: private and public. Each is to be dealt with according to different rules. Discipline needed for private matters is focused on the restoration of the erring believer, but discipline enacted for public sins seems to be primarily for the protection of the institution, and only secondarily for the restoration of the individual believer.[16]

[12] Strong considers that Ananias and Sapphira were not true believers. Strong, Systematic Theology, 894-97. One has to wonder if, by the use of his terminology, Strong is trying to constitute different categories. When he first introduces the concept of the invisible church and the individual church, he is very consistent in using the term individual and not visible. While here he refers to the "visible church as comprehending some who are not true believers" (emphasis mine), not the individual church. It could be that Strong allows for an invisible or universal church composed of true believers that takes form in an individual, but still invisible, church composed of true believers, that in turns organizes itself into a visible church, which ideally should be composed only of true believers, but practically is not.

[13] Ibid., 897. Later in the text, Strong equates democratic with congregational (904). To be noted is Strong's very Biblical understanding of congregationalism: "Should not the majority rule in a Baptist church? No, not a bare majority, when there are opposing convictions on the part of a large minority. What should rule is the mind of the Spirit. What indicates his mind is the gradual unification of conviction and opinion on the part of the whole body in support of some definite plan, so that the whole church moves together" (905).

[14] Ibid., 903. This is central to the understanding of Strong's view of the pastor. For Strong, "it should be the ambition of the pastor not 'to run the church,' but to teach the church intelligently and Scripturally to manage its own affairs. The word 'minister' means, not master, but servant. The true pastor inspires, but does not drive" (908). With Christ as the absolute head, the church does not need another head, instead, as Eph 4:11 states, it needs an equipper of the saints for the work of the ministry.

[15] Ibid., 914-15. The duties of the pastor, bishop, or elder are to be: 1) a spiritual teacher, 2) an administrator of the ordinances (to be discussed in more detail below), and 3) superintender of discipline and presiding officer at meetings. The duties of a deacon are to be: 1) a helper to the pastor by "forming a bond of union between pastor and people," 2) ministering to the sick and the poor, ministering in an "informal way" to the spiritual needs of the church, and tending to some "external duties" associated with the service of the sanctuary (see 916-18).

[16] Ibid., 924-26.

Baptism in the Theology of A. H. Strong - A Christocentric Church - Summary of Ecclesiology Part I

2010-12-29T13:28:00.009-05:00

Unlike his contemporary, B. H. Carroll,[5] Strong does not base his definition of the church on the understanding of the Greek term εκκλησια, but on several Scripture passages on the church.[6] From them Strong concludes that "the church of Christ, in its largest signification, is the whole company of regenerate persons in all times and ages, in heaven and on earth."[7] Yet, Strong believes that "the Scriptures, however, distinguish between this invisible or universal church, and the individual church," and while he begins his study discussing the church in its "largest sense," he eventually focuses on what he deems to be the prevailing usage of the term εκκλησια in the New Testament, that of the "individual church, in which the universal church takes local and temporal form, and in which the idea of the church as a whole is concretely exhibited."[8]

Strong offers at least two lists of principles around which believers can unite themselves as individual churches,[9] but for him the "primary and most essential element in ecclesiology" is the concept of "regeneration which comes about through union with Christ," viz. regenerate church membership. Strong elaborates by quoting Leighton Williams: "the essence of the gospel is a new life in Christ, of which Christian experience is the outworking . . . Christian life is as important as conversion. Faith must show itself by works."[10] Therefore, the foundation and outworking of the church has to be Christocentric, and not anthropocentric, allowing Strong to state that the church cannot be "a voluntary association of believers, united together for the purposes of worship and edification," but has to be "formed from within. Christ, present by the Holy Ghost, regenerating men by the sovereign action of the Spirit, and organizing them into himself as the living center." This, for Strong, is "the only principle that can explain the existence of the church." This understanding of the doctrine of regeneration also demands a voluntary church where "union with the church logically follows, not precedes, the soul's spiritual union with Christ," for "union with the church is but the outward expression of a proceeding union with Christ."[11]

What do you think about Strong's Christocentricity in his understanding of the church?

[5] For B. H. Carroll's view of the church see: B. H. Carroll, Ecclesia: The Church - Bible Class Lecture, February, 1903, The Baptist Distinctives Series, vol. 38 (Louisville: 1903; reprint, Paris, AR: The Baptist Standard Bearer, 2006). The "primary meaning" of ecclesia, according to Carroll, is "an organized assembly, whose members have been properly called out from private homes or business to attend to public affairs." This concept of assembly forces Carroll to create a dichotomy between the "particular assembly of Jesus Christ on earth" and "his general assembly in glory" (15-6). These, according to Carroll, are not and cannot be co-existent (critiquing the creeds, 24), for the nature of the membership of the general assembly forces it to be an assembly only "in prospect" (17). Nevertheless, "each particular assembly is a representation or type of the general assembly" (29). He accepts applying the "figures" for the church to both the particular and the general assembly, but he denies the use of them for the "particular assemblies collectively" (19). As will be seen later in this paper, this is not the only point of ecclesiological disagreement between Carroll and Strong. To be fair to Strong's position, it should be noted that he does not totally dismiss the assembling nature of the church, for he states concerning the individual churches, that they were never so large that they could not assemble (see Strong, Systematic Theology, 891). But, unlike Carroll, he does not see this assembling concept as an invalidation of the concept of the universal church, as is seen below.

[6] Matt 16:18; Eph 1:22, 23; 3:10; 5:24, 25; Col 1:18; Heb 12:23; see Strong, Systematic Theology, 887.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid., 889; 892. In his discussion of the invisible church, while Strong prefers the terminology of invisible church, the sources he presents oscillate between the use of the term invisible church, universal church, and the kingdom. Unfortunately, the terminology used in Strong's sources here obfuscates the understanding of Strong's beliefs. On p. 887, Strong first equates church and kingdom, and then cites Andrews's differences between the church and the kingdom, which Strong prefers to refer to as the visible and invisible church. Yet, two pages later, he cites A. J. Gordon in stating that the church and the kingdom are identical, if by the kingdom one does not refer to "the visible reign and government of Jesus Christ in earth" (889). While Strong's citing of other authors is beneficial in allowing the reader to see which theologians shaped his theology and which theologians he was reacting against, this is one of many examples where the reader is left with a feeling of uncertainty on exactly how Strong would have articulated his position on some issues.

[9] One such list is: 1) sufficiency and sole authority of Scripture; 2) regeneration as a pre-requisite of church membership; 3) immersion only; 4) the order of the ordinances; 5) congregational church government; 6) independent churches; 7) freedom of the individual conscience and independence of the church and state (Ibid., 890).

[10] Ibid. Strong quotes Leighton Williams (possibly the pastor of the Amity Baptist Church on West Fifty-Fourth Street in New York) twice in Systematic Theology, but does not offer any bibliographical information for him.

[11] Ibid., 893.

Baptism in the Theology of A. H. Strong - Intro

2010-12-27T13:14:00.007-05:00

When reading about Augustus Hopkins Strong, the discussion often revolves around his concept of "ethical monism," or his orthodoxy (especially in light of his hiring and retaining Walter Rauschenbusch as a faculty member at Rochester Seminary [1]), or his acceptance of theistic evolution and the "pictorial-summary" interpretation of Genesis 1:1. If his ecclesiology is mentioned, it is usually just mentioned briefly and at most summarized in a short paragraph.[2] Yet, Strong did dedicate two chapters of his Systematic Theology to the topic of "Ecclesiology, or the Doctrine of the Church."[3] Therefore, while ecclesiology is not what people remember him for, due to the longevity and the "formative influence" of his Systematic Theology on both Northern and Southern Baptists,[4] there are benefits to undertake an analysis of his ecclesiological views.

Here we will only look at a detailed analysis of one aspect of his ecclesiology: Strong's view of baptism. Maybe in the future I will have time to look at more. The approach that will be employed will be, first, to summarize succinctly his ecclesiology for the sake of providing a theological framework for the more detailed discussion on baptism. Second, his doctrine of baptism will be presented. Third, the doctrines of baptism of some of his contemporaries will be presented to give a historical context to this analysis. Finally, his doctrine of baptism will be evaluated. I hope to show that Strong's doctrine of baptism is orthodox, Baptist, and biblical and has a clear Christocentric framework. In addition, it will be seen that the oddities in Strong's doctrine of baptism can be tied to an anthropocentric shift.

I know this series will probably have a small following due to its topic, but let me encourage you to follow it. I think that we can learn much from history. So ... be looking for the next post that will present a summary of Strong's ecclesiology.

[1] According to McBeth, in H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage: Four Centuries of Baptist Witness (Nashville: Broadman, 1987), 598, Strong agonized about the Rauschenbusch situation, for he was committed both to keeping the seminary orthodox and to academic freedom, but ultimately favored his desire for academic freedom and "refused to silence or restrict" Rauschenbusch.

[2] See for example: Timothy George and David S. Dockery, Baptist Theologians (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1990), 299, and James Leo Garrett, Baptist Theology: A Four-Century Study, 1st ed. (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2009), 301-02. In addition, a brief review of theological journals did not produce any articles concerning Strong's ecclesiological views.

[3] These are found in Part VII of the 3rd Volume of Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology: A Compendium Designed for the Use of Theological Students (1903; reprint, Philadelphia: Judson Press, 1960), 887-980.

[4] Speaking to its longevity is the fact that this volume has recently been re-printed by Judson Press in 2010. This is one of many republications since the 1960 reprint by Judson, consulted for this paper, which was already the twenty-first reprint. Speaking to its influence, see McBeth, Baptist Heritage, 597-98, Garrett, Baptist Theology, 294, and George and Dockery, Baptist Theologians, 289.

Van Dam. The Elder - A Book Review

2010-12-20T13:33:00.003-05:00

Van Dam, Cornelis. The Elder: Today's Ministry Rooted in All of Scripture. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2009. 283 pp. Softcover, $17.99.

The Elder is one volume in P&R's new Explorations in Biblical Theology series that tries to find the middle ground between academic and semi-popular books. This "solidly reformed" series' target audience ranges from the seminarian to the "thoughtful lay reader." Van Dam does a good job at connecting with his target audience by writing a book that is easily read, full of Scripture references, and seasoned with a few footnotes and two bibliographies.

Van Dam's chief goal is to "enhance a biblical understanding and functioning of the office of elder" (xii). His central presupposition is that there is continuity between Old Testament (OT) elders and New Testament (NT) elders. This continuity "need not be doubted"; yet, his justification is not convincing. Add to this the presence of some contradictions and the blurring of some Biblical categories, and one gets the feeling that Van Dam's system, rather than the text of Scripture, is driving his theology. To use N. T. Wright's analogy, it would seem that the roaring lion of Scripture is here often turned into a tame pet made to stand on its hind legs and dance a jig.

A prime example is the discussion about the typically reformed division between ruling and teaching elders. Van Dam uses his presupposition of continuity with the OT to justify this division. While he claims that NT (ruling) elders are truly parallel with OT elders, Van Dam claims a different parallel for the "minister of the Gospel," who is analogous to the Levitical office of the priest as an administrator of the Word and official spokesmen for God. Yet, according to Van Dam, he is "in essence a specialized elder" (117). So, besides the obvious question of what Van Dam does with the concepts of the priesthood of all believers and Christ being our only mediator with God, one wonders: if the "minister of the Gospel" is indeed a specialized elder, why is he paralleled to the OT priests and not to the OT elders? It seems that his theological system forces this two-step. A similar suspicion arises when ruling and teaching are presented as separate gifts to justify separate offices. Yet, only ten pages later, the pastor is declared to need multiple gifts. So, since a pastor should have multiple gifts, why does the differentiation of gifting force two separate offices?

The discussion on church discipline, while initially encouraging, is similarly affected by his system and also harmed by inconsistencies. While the initial phases of church discipline are enacted by the congregation, in Van Dam's view, the elders are the only ones who can move forward with the final step of church discipline and with re-admittance to the body due to true repentance. They are the gatekeepers who can shut the doors of the kingdom and separate the excommunicated one from "blessings such as forgiveness of sins" (174). In light of these strong statements, one is confused to learn that the elders cannot condemn the excommunicated one to hell. What then does it mean to exclude one from "blessings such as forgiveness of sins," and to shut the doors of the kingdom? The need for church discipline is also unclear: at times, the focus, driven by the OT parallel, is on the purity of the body, and at times, the focus is on the repentance of the sinner.

In addition to major jigs, there are also several other smaller reels that continue to weaken this volume. Van Dam is not consistent with his understanding of the interrelation between office and authority. At times, Van Dam associates the authority of the elder with God or with the Word, but not with the office as such. At other times, he associates authority with the office itself. The distinction between spiritual gifts and church offices seems to be acknowledged when useful, but ignored when not. Passages teaching about apostles are applied to elders without justification, just to mention a one example.

On a positive note, Van Dam reveals his pastor's heart when he exhorts elders to know the Bible and to know their flock. For him, the role of an elder "is not about getting something," but about giving (201). These biblical exhortations are much appreciated in an age of pastor-as-CEO. Also much appreciated is his stance that women should participate in the church, but that they do not need to be an elder in order to use their gifts in the body.

While this volume had a few good points, it was overall very disappointing. I would still strongly recommend to all who wish to understand Presbyterian and Reformed theology with respect to the office of the elder. In a time when many Baptists are often more enamored with following systems of theology than the Bible itself, I hope that an attentive reading of this volume will douse their torrid love affair for manmade systems and bring them back to the careful study of the lion of Scripture.

Diddly-eye, what?

2010-11-28T15:26:00.005-05:00

One of our favorite new romantic comedies is Leap Year. In it, the male lead character, Declan, repeatedly uses the phrase "Diddly-eye". So, Cindy and I embarked on a search to determine what "Diddly-eye" means. Here are our preliminary results, listed in what we see as the most likely options (together with our sources).

1) In Scottish a Diddie (or Diddy) is a twit, confused person.[1] So, maybe this is an adjectival use of the term diddy, implying that she is a twit by the look in her eyes.

2) Apparently the Dublin eye is known, in true Dublinese, as the Diddly eye![2] So, maybe since she was focused on going to Dublin, she was Diddly-eyed.

3) In a variety of Scottish songs, the term diddly-eye appears in a series of what appears to be nonsensical terms.[3] In addition, this seems to be how it is used by Ned Flanders in an episode of the Simpsons.[4] So, maybe this is just a nonsensical expression.

4) Apparently there is such a things as Diddly-eye music.[5] But that use does not make much sense to me.

So, any thoughts? Any Irish people out there who can shed some light on this expression?

Wayland. Notes on the Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches - A Book Review

2010-11-12T00:33:00.001-05:00

Wayland, Francis. Notes on the Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches. New York: Sheldon, 1857. 336 pp. Free PDF on books.google.com or $20.00 used.

Wayland Academy in Beaver Dam, Wisconsin, and the town of Wayland, Massachusetts have one thing in common: they are both named after Francis Wayland. Wayland, born in 1796 to a Baptist preacher and his wife, after studying medicine for three years and receiving his license to practice, abandoned the study of medicine in 1816 to attend Andover Theological Seminary. His studies having been interrupted by financial hardship, he accepted a position as a tutor at Union College for four years. He then was called to be the pastor of First Baptist Church, Boston. After receiving an honorary D. D. from Brown (1822) and getting married (1825), he eventually resigned his pastorate and accepted a professorship at Union College, teaching mathematics and philosophy (1826). In 1827 he was elected as president of Brown University, where he stayed over twenty-eight years. Upon his retirement from Brown, he served as the pastor of First Baptist, Providence for two years.[1]

Summary

While Wayland is mostly known for his writings in moral philosophy, intellectual philosophy, and political economy, he did publish several volumes in theology and Christian studies. One of these is this collection of fifty-two papers that originally appeared, probably during his tenure at First Baptist, Providence, in The Examiner under the name of Roger Williams (preface). In the first essay, Wayland presents a case for the unity among Baptists due to a lack of creeds and a focus on God's Word. He then states that the following essays are "the simple record of the observation of an individual" concerning the "principles and practice . . . of Baptists in the northern States" (16). The remaining essays are the record of his conversations with his readership: Wayland writing on a regular basis and, not only opining, but also answering the requests of his readers (on several occasions Wayland noted that a topic or the expansion of a topic is due to the request of a reader).

The topics evolve as follows: Wayland first begins talking about the doctrinal beliefs of Baptists (II-III). This makes him start lamenting how Baptist practices have changed in the last 50 years (III-IX). Here he is led to defend the typically uneducated Baptist preacher of 50 years ago, pointing out the benefits of such a man to reach the uneducated masses and the reliance that such a man had to have on the Spirit of God. This starts a new series of articles on the Ministry (X-XIII). He is led to lament how seminaries are not being effective in the production of ministers and uses as evidence the 4,000 ministers that were currently needed. In turn, this leads him to discuss how to improve the Ministry (XIV-XV). The highlight of this series of articles, which he revisits later in the volume, is the push for local Baptists to be active in their churches, and for their churches and their pastors to train people in their own congregation. After having concluded, temporarily, his remarks on the Baptist Ministry, Wayland returns to a discussion of doctrine, specifically the doctrine of Baptism (XVI - XVII). As any writing of his time, Wayland discussed the mode and the subjects of baptism, and criticized infant baptism. He then realizes that he had not offered any "suggestions on the subject of licensure and ordination of ministries" (99), and therefore dedicates the next three essays to the topic (XVIII-XX). Here he focuses on the call of God, as recognized by the individual and the community, on an individual's life.

Having often alluded to the loss suffered by Baptists "by following the examples of other denominations," Wayland then proceeds to list and discuss points of difference and commonality between Baptists and other denominations (XXI-XXIV), including a section specifically comparing Baptists and Pedobaptists with regards to doctrines other than baptism, per the request of a reader. He follows this set of essays with a discussion of places where Baptists have erred in imitating others (XXV-XXVII), noting issues in music, architecture, and details in the weekly service and in marriage and funeral services. This leads into a discussion on church and congregation, societies, denominations, conventions, missionary unions, and other related topics (XXVIII-XXXII). Due to a reader's request, Wayland then returns to the concept of Christian ministry in Baptist denominations (XXXIII). This leads him to a discussion on the public worship of God and the problem of maintaining it in the West, which brings him back to the issue of the great need for Ministers of the Gospel (XXXIV). Believing that the furtherance of the gospel is the duty of all believers, Wayland begins to advise his brethren in the West: they should not forsake public worship and weekly gathering, but cultivate their own walk with God and pray for God to raise a leader from among them (XXXV-XXXIX). This brings him to opine on the responsibilities of the churches in the cities (XL), before writing an essay on seminaries, colleges, and academies and how they should be structured to facilitate the formation of ministers of all ages and abilities (XLI). Ultimately, Wayland returns to the theory that the minister should labor to train other ministers (XLII-XLIII). Being convicted by his own arguments, he dedicates his last essays (XLIV-LII) to offering advice to the aspiring minister. His topics range from how to expand one's mental abilities to the preparation and delivery of sermons, from the importance of visitation to the importance of week-day and Lord's day services.

Critical Evaluation

From the point of view of structure, this volume, due to its nature, is not inherently structured. There is a semblance of a flow as one would have in a free-flowing conversation, for this is a conversation between Wayland and his audience, but there does not seem to be a clear path and a clear target, with the exception of the target at large which is the recording and discussion of principles and practices of the Baptists. At times topics are revisited, as in a conversation, and most essays start with a reference to the essay that preceded it. Therefore, while full of great historical information and insight, this non-indexed text is not user friendly as a quick research tool, unless one downloads the text version and uses some software's search feature. Yet, the author is not to blame, for this was not his original intended purpose for this volume.

As for the content, it might be surprising that someone as educated as Wayland, college and seminary student and the professor and president of a university, would downplay the formal education of ministers as much as he does in this volume. A careful reading of his essays, though, reveals that Wayland is not opposed to formal education, for in numerous occasions he supports it. What he is opposed to is the requirement of a formal education. He justifies this historically, experientially, scripturally, and practically. Pointing to the uneducated preachers of the early 1800s, he suggests they were able to deliver sermons in such a manner that everybody understood them, for they were using the language of the masses to deliver to the masses. Religious character, which is more important than education or intelligence to Wayland, does not require an education. Ultimately, speaking of the one called to minister, Wayland states that: "if he be apt to teach, he will be neither an imbecile nor a pedant" (52).

An integral part of his argument is based on the recurring theme of dependence on the Holy Spirit (for a few examples see: 20, 47, 80, 108, 115, 120, 123, 132, 207, 219, 243, 304) and on the New Testament (for a few examples see: 47, 86, 138). In this volume, Baptist doctrine is considered to have been taught by the Spirit to, "for the most part, plain, unlearned men" who "looked up in humility to the Holy Spirit to teach them the meaning of the word of God" (123). In the same vein, Wayland exclaims twice: "Is there any Holy Ghost?" (47, 108) as an answer to objections raised by his readers. Therefore, the God who does not make mistakes will call and sustain his people, with or without the use of educational institutions.

Another integral part of his argument is the Christian responsibilities of believers, of local churches, and of ministers themselves. For Wayland, "the gospel requires, that a Christian should be not only a receiver, but a dispenser of spiritual benefits" (381). So, when advising the believers in the West, he tells them that "there are gifts for edification among you, if you will only look after them and employ them. Christ does not plant barren vines in his vineyard" (233-34). He, therefore, critiques the church's reliance "on voluntary associations to do what each one should do himself" (270). Finding and training people among the local church is presented as not only more practical, as shown by many examples and many situations presented by Wayland, but it has as one of its advantages the fact that, unlike seminaries, local pastors can impart practical knowledge to their would be ministers. In addition:

What could be more delightful than for a minister to have three or four brethren uniting with him in carrying forward the work of God, all animated by the same spirit, all aiming at the same object, and filling the whole district in which they live with the preaching of the word (268).

Vocational, bi-vocational, and non-vocational ministries are all advocated depending on the local situation and the working of God. Both his emphasis on the Spirit and the emphasis on in-house training and church participation are as applicable now as they were back then, and are very appreciated in today's Christian culture.

Given the emphasis just discussed, an area of confusion in the understanding of Wayland's theology, as seen in this volume, is his understanding of ministry. At one point he is very clear on his dislike for the clergy / laity division. He states:

The fact is, if we must speak the truth, almost all our denominations are sinking down into the belief that all the direct work for the conversion of the world is to be done by the ministry; thus making a broad distinction between the clergy and the laity (I use these terms, not because I approve of them, but because they are so much in vogue). We are coming to think the minister is to do the work of the Lord, and the business of the private brother is simply to pay him for it (80-81).

Throughout the volume, though, he continually uses the term 'the ministry' and differentiates the ones who are not in the ministry with the ones who are in the ministry, inadvertently creating this same clergy laity distinction that he despises. Overall, though, Wayland's writing on the topic of ministry captures in many ways the essence of the critique of the modern, simple church movement, while still being in a very structured environment. This is not the only place where this book engages contemporary topics.

In his critique of the change in church music due to the influence of other denominations (XXV), Wayland laments the decline of spontaneity and true worship he found in "congregational singing." Wayland argues that true worship should be planned, led, and sung, by the regenerate believers for the sole purpose of the worship of God. While he points out that instruments cannot worship God, and therefore seems to discount their appropriateness in worship, he does not dwell on this issue, but looks at what he saw as a bigger issue. The issue is the pattern he sees his contemporary Baptist churches adopting from the Congregationalists, who themselves adopted it from the Episcopalians: the pattern of the professionalization of the music, necessitating an organ and a choir. Here, he laments that true worship is replaced by the search for excellence which often results in "the congregation [listening] in silence to a mere musical performance, precisely as the audience at a concert or an opera" (151). This struggle is as current today as it was back then, causing the spilling of much ink and the splitting of many churches. May Baptists learn from history and be willing to say, like Wayland, that "artistic excellence" in not essential to blend "the whole audience in one consciousness of solemn worship" (150) and that "it is wicked to substitute a mere musical diversion for the solemn worship of God" (152).

Conclusion

Written one hundred and fifty years ago, this volume still speaks volumes to the issues our churches are faced with, while, at the same time, encouraging its readers that God, through His Spirit, is able. As Solomon so aptly said, "there is nothing new under the sun." Whether one wants to understand Baptist historic principles, get a glimpse of historic Baptist life and issues, be encouraged to preach without notes, or follow a series of personal training lessons, Notes on the Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches is a very pleasant, interesting, stimulating, and thought provoking read.

[1] See: Martha Mitchell, Encyclopedia Brunoniana (Providence: Brown University Library, 1993), s.v. "Wayland, Francis" [on-line]; accessed 23 October 2010; available from http://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/Databases/Encyclopedia/search.php?serial=W0110; Internet; Edited Appletons Encyclopedia (Virtualology, 2001), s.v. "Francis Wayland" [on-line]; accessed 23 October 2010; available from http://www.famousamericans.net/franciswayland/; Internet; and Answer Corp., Biographies (Farmington Hills, MI: The Gale Group, Inc. 2006), s.v. "Francis Wayland" [on-line]; accessed 23 October 2010; available from http://www.answers.com/topic/wayland-francis; Internet.

Dargan. Ecclesiology - a Book Review

2010-11-10T23:59:00.001-05:00

Dargan, Edwin Charles. Ecclesiology: A Study of the Churches, 2nd and carefully rev. ed. Louisville: C.T. Dearing, 1905. 692 pp. Free PDF on books.google.com or www.archives.org.

Edwin Charles Dargan, professor of homiletics and ecclesiology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, spent many years before and after his time at Southern pastoring. He was a pastor in Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia. He was also editorial secretary of the Sunday School Board, and as such was involved in deciding the advisability of issuing and in the writing of the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message. [1]

Summary

Originally prepared primarily as a text-book for Dargan's Ecclesiology classes (5), and therefore seemingly written primarily for Baptist pastors (35), Ecclesiology is Dargan's most famous volume published outside of his works concerning homiletics. It is considered by Garrett as "the second major monograph on ecclesiology by a Southern Baptist following Dagg." The volume reviewed here is the second edition, which according to Dargan was "most carefully revised, in fact almost rewritten," but not due to a change of "opinions on any essential points" (5).

Ecclesiology is divided into three parts: polity, ordinances, and work and worship. In the polity section, Dargan focuses on the NT evidence, history, and theology of church polity. Here he presents a view of a congregational church made up of regenerate believers, with two offices. In his two introductory chapters, Dargan is careful to define some ground rules and some terminology. In his chapters on church history, Dargan traces the development of church polity throughout the centuries. He concludes this part with chapters on councils, mutual relations between churches, Christian unions with other churches, and church and state relations.

In the ordinance section, Dargan, after an introduction of the topic of ordinances in general, discusses baptism and then the Lord's Supper. After an overview of the obligation of baptism, Dargan discusses the mode, the agent, the recipient, and the significance of baptism, and the problems with infant baptism. Dargan sees the act of baptism as "not spiritually efficacious in any sense, but is symbolical and declarative" (463). It is for "believers and believers only" (407). The mode must be that of single immersion and "the agent should be himself immersed, and act under authority" (390).

As for the Lord's Supper, he sees "the meaning of the ordinance [as] very clear and definite. It is distinctly and preeminently a memorial observance in regard to the great sacrifice of Christ, the atoning work of the Redeemer." He does admit that there are other subsidiary meanings, but focusing on them would be "to some extent . . . unworthy" (500). The Supper should be continually observed (491) exclusively by true believers (492). There are elements seen in the last supper, such as the use of un-leavened bread, wine, location, and the posture of the participants, which are not to be interpreted as commandments for the Lord's Supper (492). Dargan also points out that when Paul, in 1 Cor 11:27, mentions eating or drinking in an unworthy manner, this is not a reference to the state of the believer, but "in a manner out of keeping with the solemn and blessed meaning of the ordinance" (498).

In the last section on the work and worship of the church, he subdivides the church's relation to God as a charter relation, a personal relation, and an instrumental relation (540-41). Here he looks at worship, discipline, evangelism, missions, education, charity, and humanitarian work. For Dargan, "one of the most important works of the church is the edifying of itself. It owes duties to mankind and to God that it can by no means decline, but these do not require that it should be anything else than keenly alive to its own prosperity and growth" (551).

Critical Evaluation

Due to size limitations, this critique will focus on the reviewer's pet peeves and other items of special interest. This in no way constitutes an exhaustive list of positive and negative criticisms on such a massive volume.

Throughout the volume, the reader gets the impression that Dargan's main focus is on the externals of ecclesiology. For example, Dargan starts his volume with Part I - "Polity of the Churches," an entire section on polity, and while in this section he spends time discussing the meaning and usage of εκκλησια, Dargan does not devote any time developing his understanding of the essence of the church. All Dargan offers is a "Baptist" definition of the church based on church polity: the church "is a local body or society of baptized believers in Christ, where the true worship of God is observed, the word of God is preached and the ordinances of the New Testament are properly administered" (22). A similar weakness is found in his discussion of worship. Here there is no mention of passages like Rom 12:1-2 or Revelation 4, which deal with the essence of worship, but mainly a focus on the externals of the weekly service of the church. In the chapters dedicated to baptism, it also seems that Dargan again is mainly concerned with the externals, in this case it's the mode of baptism. This is evidenced in the forward placement, and in the larger number of chapters (four out of eleven) dedicated to the mode. On the other hand, the symbolism of baptism is relegated to the end of his discussion. While this possibly could be explained by the fact that some parts of the symbolism can better be illustrated and explained when the mode has been correctly ascertained, it would seem that the symbolism of baptism should be more important and therefore should be more central to the discussion.

Another general criticism is that, while in his discussion of the offices of the church Dargan begins with an admonition to be cognizant of one's own preconceptions, he seems to be plagued by his own preconceptions in several parts of his work. When looking at lists like Eph 4:11 and 1 Cor 12:28, he immediately assumes that appellations apostles, prophets, and teachers must be referring to offices (71), even if he later admits that the rest of the list in 1 Cor 12 is referring to gifts (81) and that Eph 4:11 is a list of gifts (86). Had he seen these as lists of spiritual gifts rather than lists of offices, as he finally concludes about prophets (79) and teachers (80), it would have helped his understanding and explanation of these gifts and the officers who possess these gifts. This understanding, though, is possibly present when he explains why the Baptist churches of his time were not exact replicas of the NT model (177ff). Realizing that the Spirit of God gives gifts according to His good pleasure, Dargan states that some of these gifts existed by direct divine appointment and not by the church authority. If ever in the good providence of God these gifts are again bestowed upon the churches, together with such undoubted divine credentials as to disallow every trace of fanaticism, we must accept them; but as things are, the churches have no more right now than they had then to decree and appoint these manifestations of divine grace and power (177).

Here he lumps the apostolic office with a listing of gifts he sees as no longer extant. Similarly, when discussing worship, the reader gets the impression that Dargan is entrapped in his concept of institutional worship where worship is a ritual and not a presentation of our bodies as living sacrifices, holy, acceptable to God, as our act of reasonable service.
There are a few instances where Dargan is inconsistent with his logic behind the use of terminology. Having shown that the etymology of the English word "church" comes from κυριακον, referring to the place of gathering as of the Lord's, Dargan upholds the propriety of calling the building and the congregation "the church." He readily admits that there is some ambiguity in the terminology, but here in a way dissimilar to his treatment of the terms bishop (86), communion, and Eucharist (485), he does not show the presence of mind to suggest a change of terminology. Here a change of the non-biblical terminology would have been beneficial to keep young, immature believers from misunderstanding what the term "church" in the NT refers to, therefore helping them correctly to understand the Biblical teachings on the church. As for the use of the terms bishop, communion, and Eucharist, appropriate teaching concerning the biblical meaning of the terms seems more appropriate than abandoning their usage.
As for the understanding of the meaning of εκκλησια, after a long survey of its different uses, Dargan concludes that "there is no need of the common appellations 'universal,' 'invisible,' 'visible,' 'militant,' 'triumphant,'" for "the church, in the New Testament senses of the word, is a local body of believers in Christ, and then more generally, the collective number of professing Christians, and then most generally of all, the sum total of all true believers everywhere, and in all times" (51).

Dargan's discussion on mutual relations in Baptist churches (Part I - Chapter XII) is somewhat dated, for it is not as much a treatise of the Biblical reasons why there should be cooperation (this is just briefly mentioned at the beginning of the chapter) as it is a description of the different ways Baptist churches cooperate. It has inherent historical value, but its practical value in our day and age is questionable. On the other hand, his chapter on church union with non-Baptist churches, denominations, and institutions is welcomed and something that is not as commonly found in volumes on ecclesiology. Dargan subdivides church union into four levels: doctrinal, organic, co-operative, and spiritual. With the intent to cooperate while remaining pure to one's understanding of the mandates of Scripture, Dargan considers the first two as difficult to achieve and historically lead to the centralization of power, the third one as easier, but historically unsuccessful, and the last one as not difficult. Dargan here issues an encouragement and a warning: "Baptists must love their brethren of other denominations, but must not partake in their errors" (247). May today's Baptists heed this warning!

In his discussion of the symbolism of baptism, Dargan's view of baptism as a declaration not just of repentance, but of obedience and of consecration (469f) is refreshing and should be heeded by today's Baptists. Also of interest is the fact that, while there are some allusions to baptism being the entrance into the church, there is no systematic treatment of this in the eleven chapters dedicated to baptism.

In his discussion on the supper, Dargan discusses a variety of passages that are possible allusions to the Lord's Supper (493ff). His treatment of these passages is welcomed, since these are not commonly discussed in books on ecclesiology. Unfortunately, the reader is left feeling that some of his decisions, as to whether these are genuine allusions or doubtful allusions, are arbitrary and not well supported. Dargan does note that the 1 Cor 11 passage indicates that the Lord's supper was observed as or in connection with a meal, but does so in a disapproving tone, wrongly seeing this practice, rather than the sinfulness of the Corinthians, as "virtually destroying the ordinance" (496). This explains why later on, he is in favor of a celebration connected with a "simple service of prayer and praise and reading of Scripture." He also disfavors the celebration of the Supper at the end of the morning service because often "the performance of this solemn rite is hurried through without sufficient solemnity or impressiveness" (531).

In the last part, Dargan presents a very institutionalized church. Yet, he does encourage community: "It is of the utmost importance that the members in the different walks of life should not only become acquainted with each other, but should feel a real personal interest in each other's welfare" (545). He also encourages older people to look out for other people's children (552-53). He also rightly warns that too much machinery will undoubtedly keep up a lively rattle, but it may not be a very effective working force after all. In fact the multiplication of agencies will easily interfere with real spiritual power; and merely humanitarian and social activity is sure to obscure too much the proper spiritual work of the churches (548).

Conclusion

Ecclesiology is a classic work in Baptist ecclesiology, and for that reason alone it is a recommended read for all serious students of the church. It is also a good resource of lists of issues to consider when studying ecclesiology, and a good summary of the historical and denominational trends in church polity, the ordinances, and the worship of the church.

[1] James Leo Garrett, Baptist Theology: A Four-Century Study, 1st ed. (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2009), 245-46, 442.

[2] Ibid., 245.

Pastor as examples, even in shepherding

2010-11-08T00:55:00.002-05:00

I have often argued that one of the main roles of a pastor is to be an example.

... As I was reading Ecclesiology by Dargan (book review forthcoming), I got to thinking about the fact that most "shepherd" terminology in Scripture refers to Christ, not pastors (see for example John 10:11, Heb 13:20, 1 Pet 2:25). And then it hit me ... as an example, pastors need to imitate Christ and be Christlike. If He is a shepherd, then, obviously, they need to be shepherds, not only because that is part of their gifting, but also to set an example of shepherding, so that all believers can be shepherds at some level or other. Like any other gift, here also there seems to be the general mandate and focused mandate (i.e. - we are all called to evangelize, but some are gifted as evangelists; we are all called to teach, but some are gifted as teachers; etc.). In this case, if you think about it, we are all called to shepherd (really most of the "one another" sayings in Scripture), even if some are specially gifted as shepherds.

So, to my pastor friends out there, don't forget to model shepherding to the people that Gos has put in your life. And along those lines, don't forget to model all that God has called you to do as a pastor. It's not enough to just live our "Christian life" in front of people, we have to be actively imitating Christ so that we can tell people to imitate us, as we imitate Him.

Those "one another"s

2010-11-06T02:54:00.002-05:00

As followers of Christ and brothers and sisters in Christ we are called to help one another grow toward Christian maturity by:

bearing one another's burdens (Gal 6:2)
encouraging one another (1 Th 4:18; Heb 10:25)
exhorting one another (Heb 3:13)
praying for one another
confessing our sins to one another (Jm 5:16)
speaking the truth in love to one another (Eph 4:15)
admonishing one another (Col 3:16)
building up one another (1 Th 5:11)
teaching one another (Col 3:16)
comforting one another (1 Cor 13:11)
submitting to one another (Eph 5:21)
serving one another (Mt 20:27-8)
patiently bearing one another (Eph 4:2)
regarding one another as more important than ourselves (Rom 12:10)
caring for one another (1 Pt 4:10)
exercising our spiritual gifts to serve one another (1 Pt 4:10)
being kind and tenderhearted to one another (Eph 4:32)
forgiving one another (Eph 4:32)
loving one another (Jn 13:34-5)

So, the question is: are doing these "one another"s?

Church Buildings - Francis Wayland

2010-11-05T00:03:00.007-05:00

We assemble to offer spiritual sacrifice. We meet to hear the word of God explained and brought home to our consciences and our hearts, and to bring under the sound of the gospel as many as we are able. Christ came to preach the gospel to the poor, and to the end of time, the evidence of the truth of his religion is, that "to the poor the gospel is preached." Hence we need a neat, convenient audience-room, well ventilated, well warmed, and also perfectly adapted to the wants of both speaker and hearer. We want this to be provided at as small expense as possible, for two reasons: first, we wish to bring the gospel within the reach of the poor, and of those of moderate means; and, secondly, we need a great many such houses, because, if we are faithful to Christ, we expect an abundant increase.

found in Francis Wayland, Notes on the Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches (New York: Sheldon, 1857), 155-56.

Wayland is more institutional than I am, but I think that he has the right emphasis: not on the building, not on the cult of personalities, but on the people. Would that more churches honestly look at where their efforts and finances are spent and say like Wayland: "We want this to be provided at as small expense as possible."

Carroll. Inspiration of the Bible - A Book Review

2010-10-17T11:42:00.002-05:00

Carroll, B. H. Inspiration of the Bible. Edited by J. B. Cranfill. Nashville: T. Nelson, 1980. 137 pp. $6.50.

A self described infidel, until he found the Lord in 1865, Carroll, after having read Voltaire, Epicurus, Zeno, Huxley, and Darwin, just to name a few, and having found "nothing under the whole heaven; absolutely nothing" worth having in them, was taken hold of by the Bible's "unearthly power" (132-4). Knowing that his calling was to preach, Carroll was ordained in 1866, preached to small churches in Burleson County, and then became the pastor, in 1870, of First Baptist Church, Waco. After two years at the Texas Baptist Education Commission, he taught theology and Bible at Baylor, organized Baylor Theological Seminary, and was central to the founding of Southwestern Theological Seminary, serving as its first president. His preaching and his ministry were centered on the Word of God, whose inspiration is the focus of the present volume.

Summary

A candidate for the World's Guinness Book of Records for the number of forwards in its 1980 edition (one each by W. A. Criswell, J. B. Cranfill, George W. Truett, and L. R. Scarborough, in addition to an introduction by Paige Patterson), Inspiration of the Bible (a delayed volume edited and first published posthumously, in 1930, by J. B. Cranfill) is bracketed by the statement on Scripture of the 1833 New Hampshire Baptist Confession. This statement was not only a litmus test for the faculty of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary under Carroll's tenure (35), but more relevant to this review, sets the tone for Carroll's view of Scripture and of this entire volume. This volume was clearly written to countervail the effort of higher critics to undermine the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture. Carroll achieves this by presenting evidence from Scripture and history that this doctrine had been believed "from time immemorial" (111), by presenting examples of inspiration in Scripture (even dedicating a whole chapter on defending the contested book of Daniel), and by apologetically tackling a myriad of difficulties and objections.

Critical Evaluation

Throughout this book, Carroll shows himself to be a visionary, answering the debates of the day with answers that are still pertinent today. For example, Carroll dismisses the responsibility of science in the questioning of inspiration, for science cannot discuss the supernatural, only the natural (28-9). As a matter of fact, according to Carroll, true science "is and has ever been in harmony with the Scriptures" (117). He therefore points out that the "disturber is speculative philosophy" (29), which dishonestly calls unproven, undemonstrated theories science (40). These same accusations are echoed in the current intelligent design debate. In another section, unapologetically believing that the Bible is the word of God, and unknowingly anticipating the turn of the century conservative resurgence, Carroll answered his contemporary, who espoused that the Bible only contained the Word of God, that the level of inspiration required to identify which parts were the word of God and which were not, was much greater than the kind of inspiration he was talking about (54). The illumination of a man "may go up and down," but the inspiration of the Book has no degrees (83).

In addition, Carroll should be commended for being careful not to say more than was needed to be said. For example, since Paul in 2 Cor 12 was not clear on the method of inspiration, Carroll did not include in his definition the method of inspiration (66). Ultimately Carroll defines "inspiration, in its Scriptural meaning, [as] that communication from God of a supernatural power invariably and adequately and perfectly accomplishing the end desired, whatever that end may be, and which no inherent force that is resident in nature, and no development of, or combination of inherent forces would in any length of time or under any environment bring about." This definition was so important to Carroll that he wished for people to write it "in letters of fire upon the tablet of [their] memory," and to facilitate the process he repeated it twice in the span of two consecutive paragraphs (37).

Conclusion

In this volume the reader is presented with the work and beliefs of a man who in his lifetime had answered clearly the thousands of Biblical contradictions of his youthful infidelity, save half a dozen (121), and was faithful to inspired Scripture. Beyond its apologetic benefits, this volume is an important historical treasure of what Baptists used to believe and will hopefully continue to believe in the years to come.

Criswell. Why I Preach That the Bible Is Literally True - A Book Review

2010-10-15T11:47:00.003-05:00

Criswell, W. A. Why I Preach That the Bible Is Literally True. Nashville: B&H, 1969. 160 pp. $18.50.

Most known for his pastoring of First Baptist, Dallas, and his denominational involvement in the SBC, Criswell, a graduate of Baylor University and Southern Baptist Seminary, was influential in the lives of well known believers such as Billy Graham, Paige and Dorothy Patterson, and Rick Warren, just to name a few, as well as a myriad of other not as well known believers. His commitment to Scripture was legendary, demonstrated by his involvement in the conservative resurgence; his dedication to preach through the entire Bible literally, grammatically, historically at First Baptist; and books like Why I Preach the Bible is Literally True, one of his fifty plus publications.[1]

Summary

This self-described "testimony" from Criswell's heart was not written as a textbook, but as an encouragement for "minister to preach the Bible as the literal, inspired, God-breathed truth of heaven" (7). Criswell structured this in three parts: Why I Believe That the Bible is Literally True; What I Preach, Believing That the Bible is Literally True; and An Appeal to My Brethren to Preach That the Bible is Literally True. In the first part, Criswell offers arguments from experience, Scripture, archeology, history, comparative religions, and logic to convince his audience that the text they have in their hands is literally true. In the second part, he encourages the preacher, using logic and his personal experience, to preach through the Bible and to preach the Bible and the gospel as literal. He also encourages them to trust in the Bible when it comes to counseling and dealing with human problems. In the midst of this part, he dedicates two more chapters to apologetic arguments for the veracity of Scripture: one dealing with the book of Genesis and the other dealing with the theory of evolution. In two other chapters he deals with the veracity of Christ and of his atonement and the effects of a non-literal Bible on the Gospel, encouraging the preacher to preach a real incarnation, a literal atonement, a physical resurrection, and a living Lord who will come back physically. In the last part, he appeals to his brothers in Christ to stand on the authority of Scripture. Here his appeal is to logic, experience, history, Baptist heritage, and to the flaws of the liberal position.

Critical Evaluation

The greatest critical assessment of this book is its "preachy" nature. With little to no value as a research or academic tool, due to its lack of all but one footnote (several people are quoted throughout the book, including: B. H. Carroll, R. A. Torrey, and Winston Churchill, but none, except for Churchill are referenced), this book was truly written for the sole purpose of being an encouragement. This results in some benefits, but also in some flaws.

The first benefit is that the book is an easy, uplifting read that leaves the reader encouraged about the veracity of Scripture. As in a good sermon, Criswell seasons his writing with illustrations, making this book a depository of illustrations. This depository should be appreciated by preachers preparing to preach on passages that deal with the subject of the veracity of Scripture (even if one has to trust Criswell at face value on their accuracy and veracity due to the lack of referencing). A good example is his illustration of how the oneness of the Bible illustrates its miraculous nature (72): it is vivid, well articulated, and well makes his point. This volume in not only a depository of illustrations, but also a depository of single sentence quotes and logical arguments, each well phrased and right to the point.

Another benefit is embodied in the last two parts of the book, where Criswell pleas with his audience to follow in his footsteps and describes practically what that means. Again, as with a good sermon, the reader is presented with practical applications and exhorted to follow their examples. Central to these is his testimony of preaching through the entire Bible, a feat that took him eighteen years to accomplish. His insistence on preaching "literally, grammatically, historically" is welcomed and only slightly tarnished by his toleration of spiritualizing, the poorest method of preaching according to Criswell, as at times effective (142-43). In addition, in an era where our churches abdicate their duty to train young men to use their gifts in the body of Christ, and relegate the formation of pastors to professional institutions, his suggestion that a pastor should have several understudies around him and allow them to take turns preaching is refreshing (87). This sends a clear message that it is not about the cult of personality, but the centrality of the Word of God.

Unfortunately, the tone of this book also leads to some oversimplifications, generalizations, and at times, inaccuracies. A good example is Criswell's presentation of textual criticism and the certitude of the original Biblical text in his section on the "Certainty of the Exact Scriptural Text." It is simplistic and misguided. His comment that "we have a certain and final answer regarding the original and ultimate text" is debated by many conservative, Bible believing Greek scholars. His following statement that "for all practical purposes, the original text is settled," while toned down, is still not accurate (67-8). While one might excuse this crude oversimplification due to the nature of the book, one should never forget that the job of a pastor is to encourage and teach. Therefore, we are to push people to excel, not furnish them with simplistic information that will cause them to make erroneous statements from the pulpit. Criswell's attitude does not come as a total surprise when one realizes that he wrote in an era when, according to him, modern critical theology had left the church in a "modern sea of conflicting storms and currents" (153). This fact is probably the germ of his belief that that "a large portion of our much-vaunted critical study of the Bible is a laborious and empty investigation of supposed flyspecks" (46), and what made him consider the areas of the New Testament and Old Testament still investigated and discussed by scholars as flyspecks not worthy of discussion. Nevertheless, while their existence does not invalidate the message of Scripture, it does invalidate the assurance of certainty of the form of the final text and points to the fact that they should not be ignored.

Besides its "preachy" nature, this book has several other areas that are to be critiqued. In his chapter entitled "Is the Bible Full of Errors and Contradictions?", Criswell correctly states that one has "to distinguish between a difficulty not yet solved and an error," and then rightly implies that Scripture has no errors; all perceived errors are just difficulties (45). To make his point, he presents various difficulties along with plausible solutions. Most of these are well presented and beneficial in answering skeptics. One of these, unfortunately, is not beneficial. The explanation that follows the objections to the celestial events that happened during the battle of Gibeon, in Joshua 10:12-14, reads like a capitulation from Criswell's stance of a literal reading of Scripture. Here he takes an apologetic approach, explaining that the Bible was written in a language "of simple observation, not scientific empiricism" (49), instead of insisting that a miracle does not follow natural laws. He gets close to this latter approach a few pages later, while discussing miracles in the Bible. Here he is less apologetic about the lengthening of the day and even notes that there are historical records, outside of the Bible, of a similar event (52-3). Why not present this evidence earlier? On a side note, one does wonder what Criswell's definition of a miracle is. If a miracle is the temporary suspension of natural law, then "gravity" and the "resurrection in the spring" are not miracles, as Criswell states they are (111).

While researching Criswell, one is quickly confronted with the black cloud of accusations of racism surrounding his pre 1968 comments, to the South Carolina legislature, against integration. In 1968, he publically advocated desegregation,[2] but there are several passages in this volume which, knowing the above history, could unfortunately be read with a racist tint. The first one is found in his caricature of the narrative of missionaries that land on a savage island where the natives are "more like beasts than human beings" (12). The second is in his insistence on the regression of the human race, stating that it has descended "in some instances to the level of the Australian aborigine" (104). While the heart of the first comment can be understood as a rhetoric device, the implications that a culture that is not as developed as our western culture is a proof of human regression seems misplaced, and the reference to Australian aborigine is un-necessary. Western culture, with its putrid ethics and its sophisticated sins, is much more a proof of the regression of the human race and the lostness of the human heart.

Conclusion

Overall, Criswell does achieve his goal of encouraging the preachers out there, penning a book that echoes his preaching fame, and that explains the popularity of this volume. Given the climate in which it was written and Criswell's role in the conservative resurgence, it makes sense that Criswell desired to lead by example through this volume, and his effort is appreciated and commendable. While there are a couple of sections which could use some adjustments, this book can be a mine of illustrations and quotes for any preacher preparing a sermon on a passage that deals with the veracity of Scripture.

[1] "W. A. Criswell, a Baptist Leader, Dies at 92," The New York Times, 12 January 2002 [on-line]; accessed 22 September 2010; available from http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/12/us/w-a-criswell-a-baptist-leader-dies-at-92.html; Internet. "W. A. Criswell," Wikipedia [on-line]; accessed 22 September 2010; available from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._A._Criswell; Internet. W. A. Criswell, Why I Preach That the Bible Is Literally True (Nashville: B&H, 1969), dust jacket's back flap.

[2] For an example, see "W. A. Criswell, a Baptist Leader, Dies at 92" and "W. A. Criswell."

Carroll. Ecclesia: The Church - A Book Review

2010-10-13T11:34:00.009-05:00

Carroll, B. H. Ecclesia: The Church - Bible Class Lecture, February, 1903. The Baptist Distinctives Series, vol. 38. Louisville: 1903. Reprint, Paris, AR: The Baptist Standard Bearer, 2006. 174 pp. $17.19.

A Texas native and a Civil War soldier, at first with the Texas Rangers and then in the regular army, B. H. Carroll is better known for his pastoring of First Baptist Church, Waco, his organizing of Baylor Theological Seminary in 1904, and the founding of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in 1908. At the latter, he served as the first president until his death in Fort Worth, on November 11, 1914. Carroll published thirty-three volumes during his life, including, among others: a thirteen volume commentary, several books of sermons, and this collection of class notes on the church (171-73).

Summary

This Baptist Distinctives Series re-publication of Ecclesia - The Church is comprised of the transcription of two of B. H. Carroll's 1903 lectures on the topic, three appendices, and a small biographical sketch of B. H. Carroll. In the first lecture, Carroll sets out six important divisive questions about the church which he intends to discuss, however he answers only one: what is the church? While he intends to answer the other five in the second lecture (32), he finds himself answering questions that arose from the first lecture in lecture two and relegating the answers to the other five questions to future class periods (72), which were not recorded in this volume. Since his answer to "What is the church?" is centered on the etymological meaning of the Greek word ecclesia, in between the two lectures, this volume produces Appendix No. 1, which contains examples, given by Carroll to his students, of the classical Greek usage of the word ecclesia, and the complete list of the Septuagint usage, Apochryphal usage, and New Testament usage of the word. Carroll's remarks on all these usages are also included in this appendix. Two other appendices follow these two lectures. Appendix No. 2 includes three sermons about Baptist distinctives: "Baptism in Water," "A Discussion of the Lord's Supper," and "Distinctive Baptist Principles." Appendix No. 3 is a short, one-page exhortation by John A. Broadus on why Baptists should win over protestants to Baptist Views.

Critical Evaluation

The heart of Carroll's argument is the etymological meaning of ecclesia. He denies that ecclesia could be used "in a new and sacred sense" and claims, therefore, that it must retain its ordinary meaning (34). He also warns his reader that, while illustrating by synonyms can be useful, defining by synonyms is dangerous (56). The "primary meaning" of ecclesia, according to Carroll, is "an organized assembly, whose members have been properly called out from private homes or business to attend to public affairs." This concept of assembly forces Carroll to create a dichotomy between the "particular assembly of Jesus Christ on earth" and "his general assembly in glory" (15-6). These, according to Carroll, are not and cannot be co-existent (critiquing the creeds, 24), for the nature of the membership of the general assembly forces it to be an assembly only "in prospect" (17). Nevertheless, "each particular assembly is a representation or type of the general assembly" (29). He accepts applying the "figures" for the church to both the particular and the general assembly, but he denies the use of them for the "particular assemblies collectively" (19).

It is commendable that Carroll included Appendix No. 1 "to enable the country preacher with few books, and who knows nothing of Greek, to form his own conclusion as to the meaning of ecclesia" (33). This speaks, not only of a heart who cares for learned and non-learned people alike, but also to his belief in the overwhelming evidence found in the usage of the word and in a lack of any attempt to hide any contrary evidence. Case in point of this last remark is his candid admission that the use of ecclesia in Acts 9:31 is difficult to explain (62). There are a few arguments from logic or from government which are not very convincing (i.e. argument from confusion, 30), but overall Carroll's argument is pretty tight and convincing if his primary assumption is valid.

As for Appendix No. 2, Carroll presents a very Baptist view of baptism, starting with the great commission and moving forward, systematically explaining the proper subject, the meaning, and the design of baptism. His only weakness here is his argumentation for baptism having to be performed by an officer, based on a parallel with secular government (83). Throughout this section of the appendix, one can tell that he was clearly dealing with many Presbyterian objections, answering them by: presenting a great parallel with the purification of priests (96-7), dealing with pedo-baptism and the baptism of unbelievers using John as an example (85), and addressing the wrong parallel of baptism and circumcision (99). Very appreciated is his reminder that baptism should not be approached lightly, as many apparently did then (95), and still do today. His section on the Lord's Supper is the transcription of a sermon dedicated to "truth-loving Pedo-Baptists," as a loving appeal to "their reason and love of justice" (107). For this reason, the majority of the section is directed toward the "Trojan horse" (136) of open communion. His arguments are well formulated, impassioned, but never get pugnacious or hostile in tone. A good summary of his main points is found on p. 139. The last section is a reprint of a sermon printed in Baptists and Their Doctrines and originally presented at the Pastor's conference in Dallas, TX, in 1903. Here he disclaims that Baptist are characterized by two doctrines (immersion is baptism and baptism is essential to salvation), and, after having corrected the misconceptions associated with these, he presents five areas of distinctive Baptist principles. These are presented in a logical flow: starting with Scripture, with a focus on the New Testament, moving on to the individual's responsibility with respect to God and his freedom of conscience, which is then followed by the understanding of salvation, and finally the understanding of the church. His well known imagery of circles and the river of baptism summarizes this whole concept, but overall is not very helpful.

Conclusion

In a fashion appreciated by an engineer, Carroll presents the data and his analysis of it as he teaches on the church. Unlike many who spend all their time discussing only the distinctives of the church, Carroll starts by seeking to understand the essence of the church and then deals with her distinctives. Any serious student of ecclesiology should read and be engaged with the ideas presented in this volume. In addition, Carroll's understanding of the church is crucial to understanding the view of the church held by some modern Baptist theologians who seek to be consistent with their Baptist traditions. If for no other reason, the reading of this book has great historical value, especially in an era when many Baptists seem to be enamored with Presbyterian ecclesiology.

Majority rule in the church? - A. H. Strong

2010-10-07T16:27:00.003-05:00

Should not the majority rule in a Baptist church? No, not a bare majority, when there are opposing convictions on the part of a large minority. What should rule is the mind of the Spirit. What indicates his mind is the gradual unification of conviction and opinion on the part of the whole body in support of some definite plan, so that the whole church moves together.

found in Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology: A Compendium Designed for the Use of Theological Students (1903. repr., Philadelphia: Judson Press, 1960), 905.

It reminds me of the numerous NT passages where we are told that the disciples were all in one accord. May we all take this attitude in our churches!

Possible roots of Baptist Baby Dedication - A. H. Strong

2010-10-01T16:04:00.004-05:00

In Key West, Florida, a town of 22,000 inhabitants, infant baptism has a stronger hold than anywhere else at the South. Baptist parents had sometimes gone to the Methodist preacher to have their children baptized. To prevent this, the Baptist pastors established the custom of laying their hands upon the heads of infants in the congregation, and 'blessing' them, i.e., asking God's blessing to rest upon them. But this custom came to be confounded with christening, and was called such. Now the Baptist pastors are having a hard struggle to explain and limit the custom which they themselves have introduced. Perverse human nature will take advantage of even the slightest additions to N. T. prescriptions, and will bring out of the germs of false doctrine a fearful harvest of evil.

found in Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology: A Compendium Designed for the Use of Theological Students (1903. repr., Philadelphia: Judson Press, 1960), 957.

I have often wondered where the concept of Baptist baby dedication came from ... could this be it?

Here we go again ...

2010-09-01T00:04:00.003-05:00

Well, another semester is here for me and my fellow classmates at SWBTS. This semester I am taking two writing seminars (Eschatology & Baptist Theologians) and Theological German. On the schedule are 12 book reviews and two 30 page papers ... so, you know what that means for this blog: not much time to do much independent writing, with the exception of a few "quote" posts here and there, and the future publication of 12 book reviews and two series. One series will be on AH Strong's ecclesiological views (they are quite interesting) and the other will have something to do with Anabaptists and eschatology.

I hope all of you are doing well, and I look forward to future interactions.

The Tripartite Law - N. T. Wright

2010-07-22T13:00:00.001-05:00

Precisely because of the emphasis on the unique accomplishments of Jesus Christ, the Old Testament could not continue to have exactly the same role within the Christian community that it had had before. . . . From the start, in the ministry of Jesus and the work of Paul, we find constant reference to the fact that with the fulfillment comes a new moment in the story, a new act in the play. Heavy-handed schemes such as those of Marcion and the theologically cognate ones of some Reformers do no justice to the sophisticated early Christian sense of continuing to live under the whole scripture, albeit in this multi-layered manner. Nor, for that matter, do the pragmatic, rule-of-thumb conclusions of some other writers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, who saw the "civil" and "ceremonial" laws being abolished while the "moral" ones remained, ignoring the fact that most ancient Jews would not have recognized such a distinction.

found in N. T. Wright, The Last Word (New York: HarperOne, 2005), 56-7.

As I have been reading N. T. Wright, I came upon this quote and it reminded me of a series I did back in 2008. Here is a link to the "Final thoughts" post which has links to all the posts in the series. Hope it is helpful.

Systems Enslaving Scripture - N. T. Wright

2010-07-20T13:00:00.005-05:00

"Once you can make scripture stand on its hind legs and dance a jig, it becomes a tame pet rather than a roaring lion. It is no longer "authoritative" in any strict sense; that is, it may be cited as though in "proof" of some point or other, but it is not leading the way, energizing the church with the fresh breath of God himself. The question must always be asked, whether scripture is being used to serve an existing theology or vice versa."

found in N. T. Wright, The Last Word (New York: HarperOne, 2005), 70.

Unfortunately he describes here a phenomenon which has been far too common for far too long. There are many cherished systems out there, and too many people holding on to their system more tightly than they hold on to Scripture. What if we pledged not to allow our systems to "tame" Scripture, but for our understanding of Scripture to be system free? What if we questioned everything and looked at Scripture with a fresh eye, allowing it to shape our theology, instead of trying to use it to prove our theology? Then we would allow Scripture to energize "the church with the fresh breath of God himself." Will you be the vessel for that breath of fresh air?

Authority: Scripture vs. System - N. T. Wright

2010-07-19T12:59:00.001-05:00

I have been reading N. T. Wright's book to prepare for my PhD comprehensive exams (which I will take in 2012 or so), and have been really enjoying it. In Chapter 5, The First Sixteen Centuries, Wright looks at how the use and understanding of Scripture changed over the centuries. Starting with allegory, he sees a tension developing: a tension "between authority and interpretation." Here he asks a very good question:

At what point in this process are we forced to conclude that what is really "authoritative" within such an operation is the system of theology or devotion already believed or embraced on other grounds, which is then "discovered" in the text by the interpretative method being used?

found in N. T. Wright, The Last Word (New York: HarperOne, 2005), 66.

So what do you think? How often have I committed that same mistake? How often have you? What can we do, as Wes asked in the comments to another post, do guard ourselves from that mistake?

Waffle House Systems

2010-07-18T13:00:00.003-05:00

My friend and advisor is know for describing what some systematic theologians do with a Waffle House analogy. If you have ever been to a Waffle House restaurant and have ever observed the waffle making process, you might have noticed that while the waffle is cooking some dough tends to spill out and down the sides of the waffle iron. This renegade dough cooks just like the rest and I am sure that it is as tasty as the rest, but just before the waffle is removed from the iron the expert waffle maker takes a knife and cuts this unsightly waffle dough so as to produce a perfectly round waffle. Often, theologians, as they try to produce a perfect system, also take their knife and cut the renegade information that does not quite fit their system. This information is ignored, downplayed, or re-interpreted.

I am currently pursuing a Ph. D. in Systematic Theology at SWBTS (with a minor Baptist and Free church studies). Because of how the program is set up at SWBTS, last year I took reading seminars in systematic theology. During my readings I was often frustrated by how philosophical based and not Scriptural based systematic theology can be (I guess that I am a Biblical theologian at heart, not a systematic theologian). But, what frustrated me the most is that, for some people, their system became more important than Scripture itself. To be fair, when one puts anything in any kind of a system, there are bound to be some pieces that do not fit perfectly, but this is a flaw of the system, not of the raw information.

So here is my challenge: let us commit to not allow systems to define our theology. Let us commit to only allow Scripture to define our theology. Let us not pull out our theological knife and trim what does not fit. Let us make sure that we do not ignore, downplay, or re-interpret anything that does not fit our theology. Instead let us be challenged by what does not fit. Will you join me? Be forewarned, it's harder than you think ...

A thought that ran through my mind about Abortion, Slavery, Pornography, Evolution, ...

2010-06-22T13:00:00.003-05:00

The other day I was thinking about the value of human life, and I had this thought about abortion, slavery, pornography, and evolution: all of them distort our view of how special God's creation is and of how precious life is. Think about it ... slavery reduces humans to a piece of property, abortion reduces humans to an unwanted ball of chemicals, pornography reduces humans to an object to satisfy lust, and evolution reduces humans to a big chemical mistake. None of these consider how special humans are or how precious life is. People just become objects and not the beloved creatures for whom Christ came to die. It would be easy for me to blame the first three on evolution, but the reality is that the first three existed way before Darwin. Ultimately, we have to blame it all on unbelief: not believing what God has taught us about His creation and not believing that God loves us (humans). If only we believed Him and His Word ...

What are your thoughts on the topic?

Ordination - Conclusion

2010-06-20T21:00:00.003-05:00

In this series, an attempt was made to ascertain if the New Testament supported the concept of ordination. After looking at terminology and practice in the Old Testament, rabbinic Judaism, and the New Testament, two constants were identified in the Biblical data: there is a clear pattern of commissioning, but there is little agreement on the concept of ordination. The pattern of commissioning was summarized as the appointing of someone, who is gifted, to a specific task. It should happen through the laying on of hands, motivated by the call of God, and imbibed in prayer. S/he is to be from within a congregation and will be a representative of the congregation doing the commissioning. This does not imply an impartation of authority on the individual being commissioned. The understanding of ordination was then determined to be affected by one’s definition of ordination. Finally a sketch of what a theology of ordination and commissioning could look like was offered, and a few of its practical advantages were offered. Ultimately, no matter what we decide Scripture teaches on ordination, it behooves us all to be able to articulate our beliefs about it and to teach others so that all may be edified. Thanks for coming along with me on this journey. I pray we were both drawn closer to Christ and His Word through it.

Here is the summary of the posts in this series:

Introduction
Quick Lexical Investigation
Evidence in the Pre New Testament Context - Old Testament Part I, Part II, and Part III
Evidence in the Pre New Testament Context - Rabbinic Judaism
Evidence from the New Testament - Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, and Part 6
Analysis and Discussion of the Biblical Data - Intro, Commissioning Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3, and Ordination
So What of Ordination?
Proposal - Part 1 and Part 2

Excursus 1 - The NT Concept of Ministry
Excursus 2 - Hierarchy in the Body of Christ

Ordination - a Proposal - Part 2 of 2

2010-06-19T09:00:00.002-05:00

So, if ordination is for all beleivers at baptism, what of special callings? Commissioning would then be the norm for those. The Scriptural record presents us with examples of believers who were ministering when the Spirit of God presented them with a special calling. To this, the response of the church was to commission said individuals. So, since it would seem that commissioning is the way they are recognized in Scripture, we should follow the same pattern.[1] Room does not suffice here to tackle the distinction between function and gifting, but one must understand that while some functions in the body of Christ require a certain gifting, being gifted does not require the individual to be in a certain function, only the call of God does that. It should also be noted that in the last excursus, while studying 1 Corinthians 12, a Scriptural tension was identified: all gifts are important and necessary, yet some seem to be more important. It is my belief that this view of ordination and commissioning best resolves that tension, because it honors all gifts, yet when necessary, commissioning allows some gifts to be specially recognized.

The argument could be made that this is just a changing of terminology and that it does not substantially change anything, but that misses two crucial points. First, baptism as ordination would not only continuously teach that all believers are supposed to minister, it also would create a basis of accountability and a marker in time to which brothers and sisters in Christ could point when exhorting a believer who has abdicated his responsibility to minister (à la Anabaptist).[2] Second, commissioning is a very focused approach to appointing people. If done well, it requires the involvement of God and of the community. Since commissioning is task centered, unlike ordination, it has limited scope and no transferability. Since it also does not implicitly impart authority, besides the representation of the commissioning body or the authority associated with a specific task or role, commissioning deals with some of the tensions with the issue of women’s ordination. Commissioning of elders would be limited to men, but commissioning of other sorts could be open to women. This would free NAMB to commission a called, qualified woman as a chaplain, for example, with no reservations, for, once her task is done, her commission expires, therefore not risking a blurring or categories.[3]

Now, lest I be accused of naïveté, I do realize that such a Copernican change would not come without its issues, but a theology of ordination / commissioning developed along these lines seems to be more faithful to the New Testament and to have the potential of alleviating some current problems. What do you think? Could this be implemented? How would churches react to such a change?

[1] White, in White, “So You Have Been Called to the Ministry,” 5, notes that “even Spurgeon, the most famous preacher never to be ordained agreed that confirmation of the church was a needed element for the call to ministry.” Commissioning would be such a confirmation.

[2] During church discipline, Anabaptists were known to remind the person being disciplined of their baptismal vows.

[3] In Ann Miller, “The Ordination of Women Among Texas Baptists,” Perspective in Religious Studies 29.3 (Fall 2002): 269-70, Miller expresses frustration with NAMB’s policy of endorsing, but not ordaining. While commissioning would not solve the heart of the issue, a theology of ordination and commissioning developed along these lines seems to have the potential of alleviating the current issues that surround ordination, or if nothing else, it would force people to deal with the real issue, instead of getting stuck on the side issue of ordination.

Ordination - a Proposal - Part 1 of 2

2010-06-18T21:00:00.001-05:00

Based on the conclusion that since all believers are ministers, all believers should be ordained, one might ask: when? When they are admitted to the ministry of the church: that is when they are saved. And when could this be proclaimed publically? When they publically proclaim their faith in Christ: that is at baptism. The concept of baptism as ordination is not novel. Yarnell suggests that in the Roman church, there was a clear tie between baptism and entrance into the Royal priesthood.[1] Eastwood also presents and documents this view more thoroughly. In addition, Eastwood also presents evidence of this concept in the Orthodox church.[2] Brown implies that baptism as ordination was part of the Anabaptist teachings on baptism and the practice of the early Brethren.[3] As Yarnell’s warns, “there is no biblical evidence for the medieval assumption that baptism is ordination into the royal priesthood.”[4] Yet, while no Scripture passage directly ties baptism with ordination, some philosophical ties can be drawn. First, if baptism is seen as the entrance into the church,[5] it is therefore the entrance into a community of ministers. It follows logically that to enter this community, one needs to be admitted to the ministry of the church. Second, one could look at Jesus' baptism as an example. Granted that, according to Scripture, Jesus’ baptism had a different theological importance than just the initiation of his ministry, yet, his baptism is often described as his “inauguration to public ministry.”[6] Could the parallel be made that our baptism, while it has a different theological importance, could also be described as our “inauguration to public ministry”?[7]

This view of baptism as ordination would have the benefit of emphasizing the call into ministry of all believers. It would re-emphasize that all gifts are necessary in the body of Christ (as seen in the previous excursus post), and that all are required by their Lord to use their gifts. What of special callings? We'll talk about those in the next post.

[1] Malcolm B. Yarnell III, “The Priesthood of Believers: Rediscovering the Biblical Doctrine of Royal Priesthood,” in Restoring Integrity in Baptist Churches, eds. Thomas White, Jason G. Duesing, and Malcolm B. Yarnell III (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2008), 240.

[2] Cyril Eastwood, The Royal Priesthood of the Faithful (London: Epworth Press, 1963), 47, 94-95, 159, 148-150, 239-240.

[3] Dale W. Brown, “A Baptismal Theology with Implications for Evangelism, Conversion, and Church Growth,” Brethren Life and Thought 28, no.3 (Sum 1983): 154, 159-160. Kreider in Alan Kreider, “Abolishing the Laity – An Anabaptist Perspective,” in Paul Beasley-Murray, ed. Anyone for Ordination? (Tunbridge, Wells: MARC, 1993), 84-111, advocates this position also, but admits that the goals that he suggests, “although in keeping with much Mennonite thinking, by no means represent a cross-section of Mennonite practice in any country” (97).

[4] Yarnell, “The Priesthood of Believers,” 240.

[5] This is an accepted doctrine in Baptist circles for which there is also a lack of biblical evidence.

[6] See for example Daniel Akin, "The Meaning of Baptism," in Restoring Integrity in Baptist Churches, eds. Thomas White, Jason G. Duesing, and Malcolm B. Yarnell III (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2008), 63.

[7] See Brown, “A Baptismal Theology,” 154, for a similar, more extensive argument.

Hierarchy in the Body of Christ - another small excursus

2010-06-17T12:00:00.000-05:00

The concept of hierarchy in the church is one that unfortunately has been warped by a lack of understanding of the concept of ministry and the concept of ordination. Thus it might be beneficial to look briefly at 1 Corinthians 12, for it deals with hierarchy and contains a connection between ministering and gifting. In the Trinitarian formulation of vv. 4-6, Paul presents a clear and distinct picture of variety in gifting (charisma), ministries (diakonia), and activities, and of unity through the God who bestows them. Thiselton describes it as follows:

charisma implies a monopoly of the Spirit, since the same Spirit apportions out gifts in variety and degree in accordance with divine purposes, even so no one type of ways of serving signifies some special claim to extol Christ’s Lordship, since the same Lord commissioned varieties of ways of serving.[1]

Paul then proceeds to present a vivid image of unity in diversity and of the necessity of all the members in the body of Christ (vv. 12-26). Specifically, in v. 22 he states that “those members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary.” Thiselton argues that ‘weaker’ is not the best translation here and proposes “less endowed with power or status,”[2] but, regardless of how this idea of weakness is fleshed out, the central message is that those members are necessary. Paul flips the Corinthians’ assumed hierarchy on its head and continues to do so in the next several verses by focusing on honor given to less honorable members. While discussing these verses, Patterson comments, “God has so prepared our bodies that those portions of it which might otherwise have been despised are subjects upon which the most abundant honor is actually given.”[3] Paul’s reference here could be to less aesthetically pleasing organs which need to be covered by clothing, but “in addition to this thought there must be certain recognition of the intrinsic value of the internal organs which we carefully protect because life depends upon their proper functioning.”[4] So here Paul claims “that the normally conceived body hierarchy is actually only an apparent, surface hierarchy.”[5] This concept is central to the heartbeat of this passage, which is a message of unity: we need others and others need us.

Yet, in the midst of this chapter on unity, necessity, and apparent lack of hierarchy, Paul, in v. 28, makes the following statement: “God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that . . .” (emphasis mine). This enumeration cannot be dismissed as just a simple list, and it is unlikely to be chronological, but does it imply ranking? Most commentators see this as a ranking of importance,[6] and while some suggest that this is mainly Paul continuing to turn things upside down for the Corinthians,[7] the presence of a hierarchy of importance cannot be totally ignored.[8] Here, as is often found in Scripture, there is a tension: all gifts are important and necessary, yet some seem to be more important. Contrary to the similar Animal Farm saying,[9] this tension is eased with the understanding that “one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually [gift(s)] as He wills” (v. 11). Believers, therefore, should understand that there are no second class citizens caused by a variety of spiritual gifts, for it is God who has determined each one’s gifting. Furthermore, as followers of Christ, humility and the love of others, keeps said hierarchy from becoming a matter of pride or contention. Finally, one should not confuse these three gifts with roles or positions in the church. After all, all believers are commanded to make disciples, and therefore all believers are asked to be teachers. We should therefore, as Paul says in v. 31, truly desire the best gifts, including the gift of teaching, and supremely the gift of love.

[1] Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistles to the Corinthians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 931-2.

[2] Ibid., 1007.

[3] Paige Patterson, The Troubled Triumphant Church (Dallas: Criswell Publications, 1983), 223.

[4] Ibid.

[5] D.B. Martin, The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 94.

[6] See Patterson, The Troubled Triumphant Church, 225; Thiselton, in Thiselton, The First Epistles to the Corinthians, 1013-15, claims that Bruce, Grosheide, Robertson and Plummer, Dunn, Lang, and others also take this stand.

[7] Martin sees this list as “also participating in [Paul’s] status reversing strategy” (Martin, The Corinthian Body, 102). According to Thiselton, in Thiselton, The First Epistles to the Corinthians, 1014-15, Barret suggests that Paul is making a direct juxtaposition with the list found in 12:8-10, which he sees as “the Corinthian definition of ‘pneumatics’ traits;” and Chrysostom claims that Paul purposely lists the gift of tongues last everywhere.

[8] Given the nature of the gifts listed after these first three (but not enumerated), and the parallel nature and order of these three gifts with the gifts listed in Eph 4:11-12, the importance of these three gifts is probably due to their equipping role and is most probably associated with their proclaiming nature.

[9] In George Orwell’s novel, the once egalitarian pigs, after having been corrupted by absolute power, replace the last law “all animals are equal,” with “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

Ordination - So What of Ordination?

2010-06-15T21:00:00.003-05:00

Based on the variety of definitions for the term ordination,[1] a definition of ordination needs to be adopted before further discussion can ensue. For the sake of this discussion, we will consider two aspects presented by two different definitions: “to appoint or admit to the ministry of the Church,” and “to invest officially (as by the laying on of hands) with ministerial or priestly authority.” Both of these contain the concept of ministry. A brief look at the lexicography and the use of the term ministry in the New Testament (see the The NT Concept of Ministry excursus) results in the understanding that ministry is grounded in service and is required of all believers personally, not by proxy. This would seem to indicate that if ordination is defined as “to appoint or admit to the ministry of the Church,” then, since all believers should be ministers, all believers should be ordained.

As for the second definition, it additionally includes the concept of authority. We have seen, in the previous analysis, that the commissioning observed in Scripture does not display a pattern of imparting authority. Could ordination then be understood as a special commissioning which imparts authority? After all, as Patterson correctly points out in his chapter “The Meaning of Authority in the Local Church,” the current struggle over the ordination of women is not a struggle over ordination, but a struggle over authority in the local church.[2] It is my conclusion from the Scriptural data presented above that the “imparting authority” understanding of ordination is not supported by the biblical text, thus the primitivist idealist in me would have to disregard it as irrelevant to a New Testament church.

What do you think? In the next post(s) I will present a proposal based on all that we have discussed so far.

[1] See note 3 in Ordination - quick lexical investigation.

[2] See Patterson, “The Meaning of Authority in the Local Church,” 260-61.

Ordination - Analysis - The Concept of Ordination

2010-06-14T21:00:00.000-05:00

While there is an emerging pattern of commissioning, consensus is absolutely lacking among the commentators as to whether any of the New Testament passages discussed above refers to ordination or not. This is primarily due to each commentator’s understanding of the meaning of ordination, and, in some commentators, is secondarily due to a desire not to be anachronistic. Case in point is Pelikan’s commentary on Acts. He sees the laying on of hands in Acts 6 as clearly implying ordination, but he does not see the laying on of hands in Acts 13 as the rite of ordination. This is not a conclusion deduced by any textual clue, but surmised because of his assumption that Paul and Barnabas would have to have been ordained already.[1] A similar stance is taken by Culpepper while discussing Acts 13. He states that “this passage is undoubtedly significant for the development of the church’s practice of ordination, but it can hardly be said that Paul and Barnabas were ordained in this occasion.”[2] Many more examples could be given from commentaries, systematic theologies, journal articles, and books on the topic of ordination, but the bottom line is that the identification of some passages in the New Testament as ordination boils down to one’s understanding of the meaning of ordination.

[1] Pelikan, Acts, 95.

[2] Culpepper, “The Biblical Basis for Ordination,” 479.

Ordination - Analysis - A Clear Pattern of Commissioning - Part 3 of 3

2010-06-13T21:00:00.000-05:00

To summarize, the commissioning pattern is the appointing of someone, who is gifted, to a specific task. It should happen through the laying on of hands, motivated by the call of God, and imbibed in prayer. S/he is to be from within a congregation and will be a representative of the congregation doing the commissioning. This does not imply an impartation of authority on the individual being commissioned.

Ordination - Analysis - A Clear Pattern of Commissioning - Part 2 of 3

2010-06-12T21:00:00.001-05:00

The next two patterns that could transpire from the Biblical data are: (1) the concept of creating representatives and (2) the lack of imparting authority. (1) The implications in 1 Timothy 5:22 discussed above seem to allow for such an interpretation. It could also be argued that this is what the apostles did when they appointed the seven in Acts 6, what the church of Antioch did in Acts 13, and what the churches did when they sent traveling companions in 2 Corinthians 8:19 and Acts 15:25-27. In addition, this seems to be the pattern in Numbers 8:10. A similar argument could be made about the appointing of leaders in general (Heb 13:7) and elders in particular (1 Pet 5:3) due to their nature as examples to the body and to the community. Yet, this pattern should be adopted with caution, lest we commit the same mistake the Israelites did when they sent Moses up the mountain by himself as their representative or lest we perpetuate the clergy/laity division (as seen in the previous excursus post) and assume that those who have been commissioned are to minister in our stead. Very a propos is the warning of Thomas White, who reminds us that “it is important to note that ordination does not create a separate class of Christians or a separate class of clergy who must intercede for believers.”[1] We have only one high priest (Heb 3:1) and mediator (1 Tim 2:5) and his name is Jesus Christ. So, if we are to accept the pattern of creating a representative, we need to understand that these representatives are for men, either as examples or as messengers on our behalf; but they do not fulfill our duties as believers. Interestingly enough, the passages relating to the installation of Joshua (Num 27:18, 23; Deut 34:9) do not seem to fit this pattern. They are also the only passages which indicate a transfer of authority during the laying on of hands. Since these are Old Testament passages that occurred during a time when not all were indwelled by the Spirit, and since their pattern does not seem to be repeated in the New Testament, the simple solution is to disregard them, as they are not applicable to the task at hand. (2) Ultimately, there seems to be little to no evidence in the passages presented above, that commissioning imparts authority. While some of Daube’s insights are beneficial, his understanding of samakh should not be forced onto the New Testament text.

While commissioning does affirm giftedness, for there is a link in the commissioning passages between the presence of gifting and the ministry for which people were commissioned,[2] the pattern seems to indicate that people were commissioned from within the body for a specific task and not just a simple recognition of gifting.[3] The pattern of commissioning individuals from within the body makes common sense, if the people commissioned are to represent the ones commissioning them and if the people doing the commissioning are to be able to ascertain that the people whom they are commissioning possess the gifts necessary to perform the task at hand. Gill, who combines call and ordination,[4] was a big proponent of this stance, for he stated that “he must be a member of a church, to whom he is to be ordained as a pastor. . . . one that is not a member of the church, cannot be a pastor of it.”[5]

[1] Thomas White, “So You Have Been Called to the Ministry,” Calling Out the Called (Fort Worth: Seminary Hill Press), 8.

[2] The seven were to be “full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom” (Acts 6:3); Paul and Barnabas were listed in the list of prophets and teachers (Acts 13:1); 1 Tim 4:14 and 2 Tim 1:6 directly refer to the charisma of Timothy as an encouragement to keep on doing what he needed to do in Ephesus; 1 Tim 5:22, since it refers to elders, it is referring to people who have been gifted to perform said role in the local church.

[3] This pattern is evidenced in the historical practice of not ordaining an individual until he was called by a church to an official ministry position.

[4] For he states that “the election and call of them, with their acceptance, is ordination. The essence of ordination lies in the voluntary choice and call of the people, and in the voluntary acceptance of that call by the person chosen and called; for this affair must be by mutual consent and agreement, which joins them together as pastor and people. And this is done among themselves; and public ordination, so called, is no other than a declaration of that. Election and ordination are spoken of as the same; the latter is expressed and explained by the former.” Gill, A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, 580.

[5] Ibid., 597.

The NT Concept of Ministry - a small excursus

2010-06-11T15:00:00.000-05:00

We now need to take a small excursus from our topic of ordination so that you can understand where I am coming from in the next post in our ordination series. This excursus on the concept of ministry, as I see it in the New Testament, is by not way exhaustive. It's just a short intro to a larger and longer conversation.

Like many Biblical terms, the term ministry is often misunderstood due to inappropriate use of language. Terminology like “the call into the ministry” and “the minister of ______” often unintentionally create a clergy/laity division: the clergy are the ministers in the congregation and need to be set aside by means of ordination, while, even if some members of the laity might receive the appellation of lay ministers, the laity often see themselves as something less than ministers. But what does Scripture teach about ministry?

A quick lexical search in the New King James translation of the New Testament reveals that, as in the case of ‘ordain’, the ‘minister’ family of terms actually translates ten Greek terms which represent five families of terms. Unlike ‘ordain’ though, there is much more cohesion, since approximately 80% of the time the ‘minister’ family of terms is translated by the diakonos family of terms.[1] Eduard Schweizer, in Church Order in the New Testament, while discussing the concept of ‘office’, looks at all the terms used in Koine Greek which convey the idea of office or ruler: archē, “office in the sense of precedence, being at the head, ruling;” archôn, “ruler;” timē, “office in the sense of a position of dignity;” telos, used outside the NT to define “the complete power of office;” leitourgia, “service undertaken by the citizens for the community, and by the worshippers for the gods, and in the Septuagint (about 100 times) the ceremonial service performed by the priest;” and leitourgos, one performing leitourgia. He concludes that outside of their use for Judaism, pagan religions, and the political system of the time, these terms are primarily used (with the exception of Paul’s being called leitourgos in Romans 15:16) to refer solely to Christ Himself.[2] To be complete, there are three more exceptions to this pattern not mentioned by Schweizer: in Philippians 2:25 Epaphroditus is described as one who ministered (leitourgos) to the needs of Paul; in Acts 13:2 the verb leitourgeô is used of the ministering to the Lord going on in Antioch; and in Romans 15:27 the same verb is used of the churches in Macedonia and Achaia ministering to the church in Jerusalem in material things. Considering the limited number of exceptions, Schweizer then proceeds to point out the overwhelming use of diakons and opines on the appropriateness of its use. He concludes that:

In view of the large number of terms available, the evidence of the choice of words is unmistakable. … all the New Testament witnesses are sure of one decisive fact: official priesthood, which exists to conciliate and mediate between God and community, is found in Judaism and paganism; but since Jesus Christ there has been only one such office - that of Jesus himself. It is shared by the whole Church, and never by one church member as distinct from others. Here therefore there is without exception the common priesthood, with no laity.[3]

Lexically, an understanding of the concept of ministry must come from an understanding of the diakons family of terms and how they are used in the New Testament. This family of terms includes the noun diakonos, the adjective diakonia, and the verb diakoneô and in a variety of different ways embodies the idea of service. Since a study of the understanding of diakonos could constitute an entire paper in itself, we will here only look at a few selected illustrative examples of its usage in the New Testament. In Ephesians 4:11-12 we are told that Christ “Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry (diakonia), for the edifying of the body of Christ.” Christ, therefore, has given certain gifts[4] to His body for the purpose of equipping the body to be able to serve Him.[5] Obviously then, the work of the ministry of the church is the work of the entire body, not of a select few. In 1 Peter 4:10, Peter encourages believers by exhorting them: “as each one has received a gift, minister (diakoneô) it to one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.” Here we see that every member of the body of Christ possesses at least one gift and is exhorted to use it in service to others.[6] Again, the work of the ministry of the church is the work of the entire body, not of a select few. So, one can conclude that the ministry of the church is a ministry grounded in service and is required of all believers personally, not by proxy.

What do you think about this understanding of ministry and how it impacts the concept of ordination?

[1] The next closest is the λειτουργός family of terms with approximately 15%. The other three terms are ὑπηρέτης, “helper, assistant,” used by Jesus to describe to Paul the works that Jesus had for him to do in Acts 26:16; ἐργάζομαι, “practice, perform, officiate at,” the temple by the pagan ministers in 1 Cor 9:13; ἱερουργέω, “to act in some cultic or sacred capacity,” used of Paul ministering the Gospel to the gentiles in Rom 15:16. Definitions from BDAG.

[2] Eduard Schweizer, Church Order in the New Testament, trans. Frank Clarke (Naperville, IL: Alec R. Allenson, 1961), 171-176. Definitions from Schweizer.

[3] Ibid., 176.

[4] For a discussion of the understanding of this passage as a list of gifts, see my article: “Ephesians 4:11 - Spiritual gifts or positions?”

[5] For this understanding see F.F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 349; and Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians – An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 550-51.

[6] See Paige Patterson, A Pilgrim Priesthood – An Exposition of First Peter (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), 159.

Ordination - Analysis - A Clear Pattern of Commissioning - Part 1 of 3

2010-06-10T21:00:00.000-05:00

The terminology of laying on of hands seems to be the thread that ties these commissioning passages together from the Old Testament to the New Testament. There is no pattern when it comes to who is supposed to physically do the laying on of hands, but there seems to be a strong indication that even if the whole congregation is not involved, the ones involved are representatives of the congregation. There is much evidence that the Lord is the one who needs to initiate and direct such commissioning, hence the repeated association of prophecy. This is not surprising, for as servants of the Lord, our duty is to do what He commands us: nothing more, nothing less. There is also much evidence for the centrality of prayer in said commissioning. Again, this is not surprising, for prayer should be central to the life of a believer.

Some might argue that the New Testament passages also show a pattern that commissioning should only be done for deacons and elders, but that would not be doing the data justice. In Acts 13, we do not see a commissioning of elders, but of traveling evangelists or missionaries. It is often assumed that Timothy was an elder at Ephesus, but it is much more natural to see him as an apostolic aid.[1] Just from these two comments, we are left with only one passage describing the commissioning of elders (1 Tim 5:22) and, depending on one’s understanding of deacons and Acts 6, possibly one passage describing the commissioning of deacons (Acts 6:1-6). Yet, one last argument will be entertained; it rests with the variety of terms used for the appointing/calling/choosing of people in the New Testament. Two terms are used for the appointing of elders. Paul uses kathistēmi when referring to Titus’ job to “appoint elders in every city” (Titus 1:5). Incidentally, this is the same term used by Luke in Acts 6:3, when the apostles ask for seven men whom they “may appoint.” Unlike Paul, Luke uses cheirotoneô to refer to the appointment of elders by Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:23). The same term, cheirotoneô, is used by Paul for the appointment of traveling companions in 2 Corinthians 8:19. One could easily hypothesize that due to the use of similar appointing terminology, the traveling companions were also probably similarly commissioned for this task. Such a conjecture is given further validity from the Latin Vulgate’s use of ordino, ordinare to translate cheirotoneô in 2 Corinthians 8:19, and from the etymology of cheirotoneô which ties it to the stretching or raising of hands.[2] This therefore opens the door for any number of other commissioning scenarios besides the commissioning of elders and deacons.

[1] See for example: Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 187, 263; Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 772n82; Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 323.

[2] See DELG, s.v. “χείρ;” BDAG, s.v. “χειροτονέω.”

Ordination - Analysis and Discussion of the Biblical Data - Intro

2010-06-09T21:50:00.004-05:00

As mentioned in the introduction, I tried to approach this series in a scientific method. After all I learned how to do research in the Combustion Laboratory of the School of Aerospace Engineering at Georgia Tech. Therefore, now that I have presented the Biblical data, with a minimum of analysis, I can now analyze and discuss it, and then, finally, present a proposal based on this summary.

So ... looking at the Biblical data there are two constants which can be seen: there is a clear pattern of commissioning, but there is little agreement on the concept of ordination. Let us discuss them one at a time. In the next post we will start discussing the clear pattern of commissioning. Then we will discuss the lack of pattern of the concept of ordination. In the mean time, be thinking of what patterns do you see from the data.

Ordination - Evidence from the New Testament - 1 Timothy 4:14 & 2 Timothy 1:6 - Part last (6) of many

2010-06-08T20:36:00.003-05:00

Due to their interconnection, 1 Timothy 4:14 and 2 Timothy 1:6 will be discussed together. Both passages contain a reference to the laying on of hands on Timothy. Both passages use the noun epithesis" instead of the verb epitithēmi used in the three New Testament passages mentioned above. Yet, to stipulate that these therefore refer to a different kind of laying on of hands would ignore that a common etymological root between epitithēmi and epithesis" corroborates the interchangeability of the two terms.[1] Both refer to a gift, charisma, that is in Timothy and which he needs not to neglect (1 Tim 4:14) and to stir up (2 Tim 1:6). One passage identifies the agency of the eldership in the laying on of hands, while the other the agency of Paul. One adds that the gift was given by prophecy, while the other that it is the gift of God.

Regardless of the differences, due to their apparent parallelism, the two passages have often been assumed to refer to a single event,[2] to which it may be believed that 1 Timothy 1:8 also refers. This event is often seen as Timothy’s “ordination into service in general (assuming such was the practice of the early church) or [his] commission for a special task such as his ministry to Ephesus.”[3] Due to the differences in the passages, Fee offers a different perspective. He postulates that 1 Timothy 1:8 and 1 Timothy 4:14 refer to the same incident, that is a confirming or commissioning of Timothy’s giftedness, a special equipping for his next divinely appointed task of ministry, but that 2 Timothy 1:6 refers to a separate incident, that of the impartation of the Holy Spirit on Timothy.[4] The topic of the impartation of the Spirit through the laying on of hands is obviously outside the scope of this paper. Suffice it to say at this time that while the laying on of hands does not seem to be a necessary practice for the reception of the Spirit, there are three incidents in the book of Acts which describe said practice.[5] Towner, while agreeing with Fee, adds that “it is not impossible that Timothy received his commission as Paul’s coworker at the same time.”[6]

In these passages there is therefore clear evidence of the laying on of hands on Timothy. Prophecy is associated with this laying on of hands, probably as an accompanying activity, “a reference to words of the Spirit spoken by a prophet(s) that confirm and identify Timothy’s giftedness.”[7] This giftedness could refer to the gift(s) given to Timothy by God to enable him to perform the good works that God had prepared beforehand that he should walk in them, but more probably it refers more specifically to the gift(s) given to Timothy to enable him to perform the tasks that he needed to perform as an apostolic aid. It does not necessarily refer to an office, especially the office of elder at Ephesus.[8] Yet again, there is not a consensus on who is doing the laying on of hands, but it is likely that the hands were the elders’, representing the community’s recognition.[9] While in 1 Timothy 4, Paul reminds Timothy of these laying on of hands to encourage him, he does not point to them as having imparted power or authority to Timothy to enable him to perform the task at hand. To help him on his task, Timothy is encouraged to focus on the Word and his response to it. Those things will allow him to save himself and those who hear him. There is also nothing in this text that would point to the laying on of hands as creating a representative. Likewise, in 2 Timothy 1:6, there is no concept of creating a representative or of imparting authority, unless the rite itself ontologically demands such an understanding.[10]

[1] Pierre Chantraine, Dictionnaire Étymologique de la Langue Grecque [DELG] (Paris: Éditions Klincksieck, 1968), s.v. τίθημι. Chantraine lists θεσις", and ἐπίθεσις", as a sub voce of τίθημι, and ἐπιτίθημι, and deems them to be part of a coherent system. In the commentaries, the terminological difference is neither mentioned nor are any assumptions made from it.

[2] See Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 209; Mounce, Pastoral Epistles,70, 261-63, 476; C. Spicq, Les Épitres Pastorales, vol. 2, 4th ed. Études Bibliques (Paris, France: J. Gabalda et Cie, 1969), 708, 728; Culpepper, “The Biblical Basis for Ordination,” 480. Often the differences are explained by the assumed differing nature of the two letters: 2 Timothy is a more personal letter, therefore Paul only mentions himself.

[3] Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 71.

[4] Gordon D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994), 774, 786-88; cf. Culpepper, “The Biblical Basis for Ordination,” 480.

[5] For the reception of the Spirit through the laying on of hands see: Acts 8:17-19; 9:12-17; 19:6. Ellingworth, in Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 316, believes that this is what Paul refers to in the letter to the Hebrews when he mentions the laying on of hands (Heb 6:2) in his list of “elementary principles.” Ellingworth comes to this conclusion due to: the proximity in the list of the principles of baptism and the laying on of hands; what he sees as the supporting text in v. 4; and the lack of support for a “transmission of office” view in that context. He does also add that “the reference is so brief and general that it is impossible to be certain.” When thinking about this topic, it is important to consider that at Pentecost (Acts 2) and at what some call the gentile Pentecost (Acts 10:44-48), the Spirit clearly descended on believers without the laying on of hands. In addition, ignoring Ellingworth’s proposal for Heb 6:2 and Fee’s proposal for 2 Tim 1:6, there is no teaching in the epistles of said practice. This lack of pattern and clear teaching does not invalidate the use of the practice in the book of Acts, but, it does seem to make it non-prescriptive.

[6] Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 459. Towner sees 1 Tim 4:14 as a separate congregational commissioning by the church in Ephesus (324-25, 459-60).

[7] Ibid., 323. Similarly see the following for a slight variation on the same theme: Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 71; Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 208; Quinn and Wacker, The first and second letters to Timothy, 386. C. Spicq, Les Épitres Pastorales, vol. 1, 4th ed. Études Bibliques (Paris, France: J. Gabalda et Cie, 1969), 517, understands prophecy, not as a word from God, but as a consecrating prayer which is an integral part of the sacramental action of the laying on of hands.

[8] This is the consensus of Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 322n40; Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 263; John Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005), 205; Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 772n82. Fee goes as far as saying that “only the most biased reading of this letter sees Timothy as ‘holding office’ in Ephesus.” Cf. Jeremias (Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 209) and Calvin (Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 775n97) propose that πρεσβυτερίου should be read as “to the presbyterate.”

[9] Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 323-4; Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 775.

[10] This seems to be the understanding of samakh in Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism, 245, who understands these two passages as being the “earliest reference to apostolic succession.” Quinn and Wacker, The First and Second Letters to Timothy, 396, present the understanding of the generic symbolism of the human hand in the ancient world to suggest that power, authority, and responsibility might be implicitly involved.

A surge of interest in Bible study and private devotion - Craig Blaising

2010-04-07T16:00:00.006-05:00

"The Brethren Movement ... rejected the special role of an ordained clergy, which perpetuated such ecclesiastical divisions, and stressed instead the spiritual giftedness of ordinary believers and their freedom, under the Spirit's guidance, to teach and admonish each other from the Scripture.
By enhancing the integrity and responsibility of the laity, Brethrenism witnessed a surge of interest in Bible study and private devotion."

found in Craig A. Blaising, and Darrell L. Bock. Progressive Dispensationalism: An up-to-Date Handbook of Contemporary Dispensational Thought (Wheaton: BridgePoint, 1993), 10.

Obviously, this is not the topic of the book. Blaising mentions the Brethren movement because he sees that "dispensationalism first took shape in the Brethren Movement in early nineteenth century Britain." Yet, it is an interesting thought ... could the concept of clergy be hindering Bible study and private devotion?

Ordination - Evidence from the New Testament - 1 Timothy 5:22 - Part 5 of many

2010-02-16T13:00:00.000-05:00

While lacking any terminology referring to the appointing/calling/choosing of elders, this passage is often assumed to refer to elder commissioning. The understanding of commissioning derives from the assumptions made about the other two passages in the personal letters of Paul containing laying on of hands terminology (as will be seen below), combined with the general use of the laying on of hands terminology (as seen in the discussion above). The context of the passage seems to indicate that the people being commissioned are elders.[1] Whether this passage refers to the commissioning of elders in general or to the commissioning of replacement elders in particular cannot be ascertained by the text.[2] Towner further comments that the second person singular of epitithēmi “envisions Timothy as taking the lead in the procedures (though it is not necessary to rule out participation by others in leadership).”[3] The personal note of the letter does diminish the certainty of this conclusion, though, and there is nothing in this passage that warrants the limiting of participation to only the leadership. Regardless of who is performing the commissioning, the text does furnish another important insight into the laying on of hands. This laying on of hands must not be done “hastily” for it might result in sharing “in other people’s sins.” [4] We do not see here a pouring of one’s personality into the person on whom one is laying his hands (contrary to some of the understanding of Daube’s samakh concept), but the reverse process might be seen where the sin of the one receiving the imposition of hands affects the one imposing his hands. This could point to a pattern of “creating a representative or substitute,” for the sin of a representative reflects on the one he represents. Again, this passage does not deal with transference or impartation of authority.

[1] Verses 17-20 clearly refer to elders, and since the consensus from commentators is that v. 21 refers to vv. 19-20, and not to the whole chapter, it logically follows that v. 22 has to continue the train of thought about elders. See Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 372; William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 46 (Nashville: Nelson, 2000), 316; and George W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 237. The fact that the concept of sin flows throughout this entire section (vv. 20, 22, 24) also serves to confirm this tie.

[2] It does seem unlikely that this passage refers “to the later church ritual of reinstating a penitent sinner” (Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 317; see also Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 374n72).

[3] Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 374. One has to wonder if Towner’s limiting the action of laying on of hands to the leadership is anachronistic or due to his perceived understanding of 1 Tim 4:14.

[4] For this causal interpretation, see the discussion on μηδὲ in Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 317-18 or Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 374n73.

Community Mentoring - David Nelson

2010-02-15T13:00:00.000-05:00

". . .[I] note that it was a variety of members of God’s church who formed my life as a disciple of Jesus. And among those examples, some of them influenced me concurrently – the body of Christ was used by the Spirit to shape my life. . . . life in the community of faith, the cultivation of a liturgical life, and the enactment of faith as a way of life is the stuff of real discipleship. And the church should be diligent and intentional about shaping the life of the community to allow for relationships that form mature disciples. . . .And I’ll note that this is what happened to me the past month while joined together to learn with my friends from overseas. We together, in community – studying together, arguing together, eating together, living together – helped to form one another in Christ."

These are but a few sentences from David Nelson's blog post entitled I Was Never “Mentored”: A Report from the Field, Part 3, where he opines on the appropriateness of community mentoring versus one-on-one mentoring, or the Paul/Timothy model, as some would call it. It is nice to see yet another great theologian (for another example see Community of Theologians - Malcom B. Yarnell III) point believers to the importance of the community. Now, what are we going to do about it?

Ordination - Evidence from the New Testament - Acts 13:3 - Part 4 of many

2010-02-14T13:00:00.000-05:00

Acts 13:3 uses the same terminology for the laying on of hands as Acts 6:6. Preceding this practice, the Holy Spirit had instructed the believers at Antioch to aphorizô, “set apart, appoint,” Paul and Barnabas for the work to which He had called them. Therefore the first element to note in this passage is that there was a prophetic word from the Holy Spirit (v. 2). The second is that prayer and fasting was central to the event (v. 3). Third, as in the Acts 6 passage, there is ambiguity as to who laid hands on them: the prophets and teachers or the congregation.[1] Fourth, as in the passage above, the commissioning in this passage does not seem to denote any transfer of power, but could be interpreted as the creation of representatives of the church in Antioch. The return to Antioch of Paul and Barnabas to give a report to the church about the work that God had been doing through them (Acts 14:26-27) could give credence to a representative understanding of their commissioning.

[1] Culpepper, “The Biblical Basis for Ordination,” 479. For example, note that Culpepper leans toward the whole congregation while Bruce believes it is their “colleagues” who laid their hands on them (F.F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, 246).

Global Warming 2010

2010-02-12T17:18:00.002-05:00

Fort Worth, TX, just received 12.6" (32cm) in a 24 hour period.

The dogs really enjoyed frolicking in the snow.

We enjoyed paying tribute to our favorite Calvin and Hobbes series:

Hobbes: "Snow Sharks?" Calvin: "That guy's a goner."

Ordination - Evidence from the New Testament - Acts 6:1-7 - Part 3 of many

2010-02-12T13:25:00.003-05:00

Acts 6:1-7 recounts the appointing, kathistēmi, “to assign someone a position of authority” (v. 4), of the seven over the business of daily food distribution. Associated with this appointing, the New Testament records the action of the church and of the apostles in their commissioning of the seven. There are multiple elements to be noted in this passage. First, those chosen were to be from among the church in Jerusalem, and they were to be “of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom” (v. 3). Second, prayer was central to the event (v. 6). Third, hands were laid on the seven (v. 6). The laying on of hands terminology used here is epitithēmi, “to lay/put upon,” used in conjunction with the term for hand, cheir, cheiros. This terminology is repeated in Acts 13:1-3, 1 Timothy 5:22, and with a slight variation in 1 Timothy 4:14 and 2 Timothy 1:6, that is with the use of epithesis, “laying on,” instead of epitithēmi. Fourth, this text does have some ambiguity about whose hands it is referring to: the apostles’ or the congregation’s.[1] Many commentators believe the hands in question to be the apostles’. Out of those, some see this as a congregational decision, but not a congregational laying on of hands,[2] and some seem to focus mainly on the apostles’ role.[3] On the other hand, the text does allow for the antecedent to be the ones who set them in front of the apostles, making this a congregational practice.[4] Fifth, while Culpepper sees a clear parallel in the structure of this passage with the structure of the Numbers 27:16-23 inauguration of Joshua by Moses,[5] this passage does not indicate that any power was transferred from the apostles to the seven. Sixth, Culpepper also notes a topical parallel with the Numbers 8:10 dedication of the Levites. [6] An argument could be made here that the apostles or the people were creating representatives to take care of a specific issue on their behalf.

[1] See Beverly Roberts Gaventa, The Acts of the Apostles, Abingdon New Testament Commentaries (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2003), 115.

[2] See for example F.F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 122, who states that “it was the community as a whole that selected these seven men and presented them to the apostles for their approbation; it was the apostles who installed them in office”; Culpepper, “The Biblical Basis for Ordination,” 478, states that “the insertion of Codex Bezae makes it clear that only the apostles laid hands on the seven, but the sense of the text is that the whole congregation performed this rite”.

[3] See for examples: Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinical Judaism, 237, believes that this is samakh performed by the apostles; Ammonius Catena on the Acts of the Apostles 6.6 in Francis Martin, ed., Acts, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, NT V (Downers Grove: IVP, 2006), 71; Jaroslav Pelikan, Acts, Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2005), 94-5.

[4] Jerome D. Quinn and William C. Wacker, The First and Second Letters to Timothy, The Eerdmans Critical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 398, suggest that “the text as it stands probably means that the whole assembly, including the Twelve, prayed and performed the rite.” Cf. Harrison, in Everett Falconer Harrison, Acts: The Expanding Church (Chicago: Moody, 1975), 106-7, is among many commentators who point this out as a possibility, but then argues against it. Harrison’s argument centers on the apostle’s statement in v. 3: “whom we may appoint over this business” (emphasis mine).

[5] Culpepper, “The Biblical Basis for Ordination,” 478.

[6] Ibid.

Ordination - Evidence from the New Testament - χειροτονεω - Part 2 of many

2010-02-09T12:00:00.005-05:00

A few words should be said about one of these terms: χειροτονεω (cheirotoneô), “to elect or choose someone for definite offices or tasks.” The nineteenth century Baptist theologian John Gill, based on comments made by Beza, Erasmus, Vatablus, and H. Stephanus,[1] states:

ordinary officers, as elders and pastors of churches, were chosen and ordained by the votes of the people, expressed by stretching of their hands; thus it is said of the apostles, Acts xiv. 23, When they had ordained them elders in every church, χειροτονησαντες, by taking the suffrages and votes of members of the churches, shown by the stretching out of their hands, as the word signifies; and which they directed them to and upon it declared the elders duly elected and ordained.[2]

While this understanding of cheirotoneô is supported by BDAG, which states that it is “lit[erally] ‘stretch out the hand’ in voting,” and agrees with this understanding as used in 2 Corinthians 8:19, BDAG does suggest that the text of Acts 14:23 “does not involve a choice by the group; here the word means appoint, install, w[ith] the apostles as subj[ects].”[3] Based on the rest of the writings of Gill in this section of his work, it is evident that he was very careful not to allow anything that could open the door for hierarchical-archbishopcy. This could be the reason for his insistence on a congregational use of cheirotoneô in a passage that does not support it.[4] Nevertheless, this corporate understanding of cheirotoneô and its tie to hand raising should be kept in mind when thinking about the topic at hand.

More central to the present discussion are two passages in that list found in the book of Acts: Acts 6:1-7 and Acts 13:1-3, where the church commissions[5] some believers for a specific task. In the next post we will begin looking at New Testament passages starting with these two.

[1] Gill, in John Gill, Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, new ed., vol. 2 (London: Bradbury and Evans, 1839), 581nx, states that “Χειροτονησαντες, per suffragia delegissent, creassent: so Beza, Erasmus, Vatablus, H. Stephanus. Ortum est hoc verbum ex Græcorum consuetudine, qui porrectis manibus suffragia ferebant – Beza in Act 14,23.”

[2] Ibid., 581.

[3] BDAG, s.v. χειροτονεω.

[4] Gill further states that “though there was χειροτονια, a stretching out of the hands; yet there was no χειροθεσια, imposition of hands, used at the ordination; neither of extraordinary officers, as apostles; nor of ordinary pastors or elders of churches, in the times of Christ and his apostles” (Gill, Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, 581). While Gill’s comment is technically correct, for χειροθεσια is not found in the Greek New Testament or in the LXX, here again, it seems that Gill is pressing his point by apparently ignoring the possible parallel use of επιθεσις in conjunction with χειρ in 1 Tim 4:14 and 2 Tim 1:6, so as not to allow for the ordination practices of the Roman church.

[5] For the time being, the term ‘commission’ will be used instead of ‘ordain’, so as not to confuse or bias the discussion.

Ordination - Evidence from the New Testament - Part 1 of many

2010-02-08T00:39:00.006-05:00

If you are thinking that things are not very clear so far, you might be looking forward to looking at the New Testament evidence for some clarity. Sorry, things are not much clearer in the New Testament record. As mentioned earlier, a lexical investigation of the English word ‘ordain’ in the NKJV reveals that it is used to translate seven different Hebrew and Greek terms, and in none of the New Testament passages in which ‘ordain’ appears is it used with the meaning of “to appoint or admit to the ministry of the Church.” A New Testament understanding of ordination will therefore have to be gleaned from passages which seem to offer a pattern of appointing or setting aside and their associated Greek terms. Passages in the New Testament dealing with appointing/calling/choosing for a specific task include: the appointing of the twelve (Mark 3:14; Luke 6:12-13), the appointing of the seventy (Luke 10:1), the choosing/appointing of the seven (Acts 6:1-7), the setting aside/appointing of Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:1-3), the appointing of elders (Acts 14:23, Titus 1:5), the choosing of emissaries by the churches (such as Acts 15:22; 2 Cor 8:19), and the appointing of Paul (1 Tim 2:7; 2 Tim 1:11). In addition, as indicated earlier, if there are any parallels between the New Testament practices and the Old Testament practices of ordination, they may be found in the practice of laying on of hands.[1] Attention, therefore, traditionally has been placed on additional passages that refer to the laying on of hands also, even though these passages might not explicitly relate to appointing practices (1 Tim 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim 1:6).

In the above list of Scripture passages, one discerns a clear grouping of passages that affirm the concept of appointing/calling/choosing, but which furnish no information as to praxis.[2] These passages are not totally void of benefits for the present discussion. They provide insight as to who did the choosing and who was chosen and for what purpose: Jesus appointed the apostles, the seventy others, and Paul in some of the above passages; in other passages, the apostles, the elders, and/or the whole church chose messengers, helpers, and traveling companions; Paul and Barnabas, as well as Titus, appointed elders. In addition, these passages also provide a list of terms associated with appointing/calling/choosing, whose lexical variety demonstrates the lack of a single unifying term used for this concept of appointing/ calling/choosing.

In the next several days/weeks we will look at these terms and these passages to try to make some sense of the New Testament evidence.

[1] Culpepper goes as far as seeing the laying on of hands as “central in ceremonies of Christian ordination” (Culpepper, “The Biblical Basis for Ordination,” 471).

[2] These passages include Jesus’ appointing of the twelve in Mark 3:14, which uses ποιεω, “make, do, or cause,” but which BDAG suggests could be translated “appoint” as in Hebrews 3:2; and Jesus’ choosing of the twelve in Luke 6:13, which uses εκλεγομαι, “to choose (for oneself).” This latter term is also used in Acts 15:22 for the choosing of the men who were supposed to travel to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas and report the advice given by the church of Jerusalem by word of mouth. Likewise, Luke 10:1, just states that Jesus also appointed seventy others; here αναδεικνυμι, “to assign to a task or position,” is used. In both 1 Tim 2:7 and 2 Tim 1:11, Paul speaks of his appointing as a preacher, etc. and uses the term τιθημι, “to assign to some task or function.” The choosing of traveling companions is described by χειροτονεω, “to elect or choose someone for definite offices or tasks,” in 2 Cor 8:19. The same term is used of Paul’s and Barnabas’ appointing elders in every church. Καθιστημι, “to assign someone a position of authority,” is used in Titus 1:5 for Titus’ responsibility to appoint elders in every city. All definitions are from Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, ed. and trans. William F. Arndt, F. Wilber Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker [BDAG], 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000).

Ordination - Evidence in the Pre New Testament Context - Rabbinic Judaism

2010-02-05T13:33:00.006-05:00

Some have suggested that the New Testament practice of ordination has its roots in rabbinic Judaism’s practices;[1] therefore, while heeding Culpepper’s warning to take “special care,” pre 70 A.D. Jewish practices will be briefly examined. According to Stancil, Löhse argues for a connection between the rabbinic practice and the New Testament practice stemming from the similar practice of laying on of hands.[2] Daube concurs and emphasizes that in rabbinic times samakh was “restricted to two uses,” one of which was “the ordination of a Rabbi.”[3] Daube thus proceeds to imply that the New Testament practices were based on the rabbinical practices. Culpepper disagrees, stating that “evidence for the laying on of hands prior to A.D. 70 as a ceremony in which individual teachers authorized their students to teach is lacking, and whether it was practiced at this time is debated.”[4] Due to the uncertain historicity of the practice of laying on of hands at the time of the writing of the New Testament, and due to the clearer evidence found in Old Testament practices, it would seem wise to disregard rabbinic evidence about the laying on of hands for the research at hand. This does not imply ignoring all rabbinic tradition, since other practices and traditions might be enlightening for one’s understanding of the New Testament.

Stancil highlights that there existed other similarities and some significant differences between ordination in rabbinic Judaism and in the New Testament, besides the laying on of hands. The similarities he points to are the New Testament existence of the office of elder, which he believes “was a direct borrowing from Judaism,” and that the ordination of a rabbi made a rabbi’s ministry universally valid in any synagogue, as he assumes was the case with the ordination of an elder.[5] If historically valid, the first similarity might point to some validity in using rabbinic tradition to inform the New Testament tradition. As for the second similarity, it is only beneficial if a direct relationship between the rabbinic and New Testament practices is found. With regard to differences, Stancil identifies the following: the rabbinic ceremony granted new authority to the new rabbi, the want-to-be rabbis were required to complete a course of study before their ordination, rabbinic practices lacked the accompaniment of prayer, and there was a lack of focus on the impartation of the Spirit in the rabbinic rite.[6] While his comments are thought provoking, the presence of differences coupled with the lack of concrete evidence for similarities suggests that the best approach is not to focus on rabbinic tradition for the research at hand.

There are other initiation ceremonies that existed in pre 70 A.D. rabbinical practices. Culpepper describes the “elevation to the chair” rite of appointment to the Sanhedrin and lesser courts, which, while interesting, finds no parallel in the New Testament and therefore is of no interest to the research at hand, even if this were, according to Philo, the type of ordination associated with the seventy elders (zāqēn, presbyteros) of Numbers 11:16ff.[7] Moreover, Daube mentions that he sees a tie between the seven chosen in Acts 6 and the ‘Seven of a City’: seven dignitaries chosen to look after the affairs of a Palestinian city who had power of administration, so much so that “the Seven of a City are as if they were the city itself.” Daube unfortunately does not give any specifics of the ceremony associated with the inauguration of the seven, except for the fact that he categorically states that it did not include the rite of samakh.[8] The absence of the rite of samakh renders the inauguration of the seven unhelpful for this research. At the end of the day, the arguments for the rabbinic roots of New Testament ordination lack substance.

In the next several posts we will look at New Testament "data" and then we will finally put it all together.

[1] This is the main hypothesis of the work of Daube in Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinical Judaism. Stancil also refers to the work of Edward Löhse in Edward Löhse, Die Ordination im Spätjudentum und im Neuen Testament (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1951). In regard to the word of Löhse, Culpepper suggests that Löhse’s “anachronism and over-generalization in this area, . . . provoked vigorous discussion since the publication of” his work in 1951. “In particular, Lohse’s conclusion that ‘Christian ordination was modeled on the pattern of that of Jewish scholars, although early Christianity filled it with a new covenant’ has been sharply challenged” (Culpepper, “The Biblical Basis for Ordination,” 474).

[2] Stancil, “The Practice of Ministerial Ordination among Southern Baptists,” 18.

[3] Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinical Judaism, 229.

[4] Culpepper, “The Biblical Basis for Ordination,” 475. Culpepper asserts that “most evidence dates from A.D. 200 or later and at points tendentiously attempts to root prevailing practices in the past” (Ibid., 474). He also concludes his section on “Jewish Procedures” by calling for more research to sort out and clarify the evidence and stating that “until the origins of various traditions are determined more accurately, one cannot be dogmatic” (Ibid., 476).

[5] Stancil, “The Practice of Ministerial Ordination among Southern Baptists,” 22. One has to wonder if Stancil is not being anachronistic when he makes a parallel to present practice when dealing with ordination “extending beyond the confines of the ordaining congregation.” There is no evidence in his writing that he is here pointing to New Testament or early church evidences for such a practice.

[6] Ibid., 22-4.

[7] Culpepper, “The Biblical Basis for Ordination,” 474-5. Culpepper is more comfortable with this ordination evidence because it is drawn from a tradition described in the Assumption of Moses which “dates from the opening decades of the first century A.D. or earlier and is the only evidence for ordination in pre-Christian Judaism.” Here, interestingly, “no laying on of hands is mentioned.”

[8] Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinical Judaism, 237.

Ordination - Evidence in the Pre New Testament Context - Old Testament Part III

2010-02-01T12:00:00.000-05:00

As mentioned in the last post we will now look at four interesting uses of samakh in conjunction with yad as found in Numbers 8:10; 27:18, 23; and Deuteronomy 34:9.

The Numbers 8:10 passage deals with the cleansing and dedication of the Levites, where we read that “the children of Israel shall lay their hands on the Levites” (Num 8:10).[1] The first relevant feature to be observed is that this is a congregational laying on of hands. The second feature has to do with the purpose of the laying on of hands, which the rest of the chapter explains. God had taken the Levites, instead of the first born of Israel, and had “given the Levites as a gift to Aaron and his sons from among the children of Israel, to do the work for the children of Israel in the tabernacle of meeting, and to make atonement for the children of Israel” (Num 8:19). One therefore could possibly see this ceremony as “creating a representative or substitute” for the children of Israel (to use Daube’s category), and the laying on of hands could be a symbolical representation of this transference.[2] Third, while one could argue that, due to their newfound position, the Levites had power over the Israelites, there is nothing in this ceremony or in their new position which implies that this dedication imparted authority to them.

The other three passages (Num 27:18, 23; Deut 34:9) deal with the inauguration of Joshua. Here we find that Moses was to take Joshua son of Nun, a man filled by the Spirit, and lay his hands on him to inaugurate him and give some of his authority to him. That being the case, the pattern seen in this passage is different. First, this is an individual laying on of hands, not a congregational one. Second, the laying on of hands is central to the ceremony.[3] Third, the purpose of this inauguration is a transfer of authority. This is evidenced in Deuteronomy 34:9 where it is implied that the children of Israel heeded Joshua, because Moses had laid his hands on him. Mattingly further suggests that Moses’ “hand became a visible representation of YHWH’s communication and of YHWH’s power,” and therefore his “act of laying his hands on Joshua became a visible enactment of the ‘word’ of YHWH with all of its attendant concepts of power.”[4] Some suggest that Deuteronomy 34:9 supports the idea that the Spirit that filled Joshua was there as a result of Moses’ laying on of hands; to this notion, Stancil rightly argues that the Numbers passage clearly stated that Joshua already had the Spirit in him before Moses’ laying on of hands.[5] In any case, this is not, as Daube would understand it, a “pouring of one’s personality into another being.”

Later on we will come back to this "data" combined with "data" from Rabbinic Judaism (which we will tackle in the next post), and "data" from the New Testament, and analyze what Scripture has to say. For the time being, can you think of any other Old Testament "data" that I should have considered?

[1] Scripture quotations are from the New King James Version (NKJV) of the Bible.

[2] In any case, there is definitely no indication in the text that this is an act of the children of Israel “pouring of one’s personality” into the Levites, the other definition for Daube’s samakh category.

[3] Mattingly, in Keith Mattingly, “The Significance of Joshua’s Reception of the Laying on of Hands in Numbers 27:12-23,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 39.2 (Autumn 2001): 198, through a careful textual and structural analysis, makes a convincing argument that “YHWH appears to be stating that all the other actions depend on” hand-laying.

[4] Ibid., 207-8.

[5] Wilburn Thomas Stancil, “The Practice of Ministerial Ordination among Southern Baptists: a Theological Analysis” (Ph.D. diss., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1979), 17.

Ordination - Evidence in the Pre New Testament Context - Old Testament Part II

2010-01-30T01:49:00.004-05:00

As we mentioned last time, we determined that only one Old Testament practice could possibly have had some impact on the New Testament community as a setting apart custom: the laying on of hands. A lexical analysis for this practice in the Old Testament results in the identification of three terms that, when associated with the term for hand, yad, or with the term for right hand, yamin, come into play in this discussion. The terms are: samakh,[1] sim,[2] and shith.[3] In his classic chapter on the laying on of hands, Daube lumps sim and shith into the same category, due to their synonymous use in the narration of Jacob’s blessing of Joseph’s sons,[4] and contrasts them with samakh. His rationale is based on lexical differences, where he emphasizes a perceived physical difference; his understanding of samakh involves “leaning one’s hands upon someboyad or something,”[5] versus the placing of one’s hands as understood in the use of the other two terms. For Daube, the difference between the samakh terminology and the sim / shith terminology is substantial and can be summarized as follows:

The first kind of imposition is applied to certain offerings, to Levites at their consecration (which was in the nature of an offering by the people), to Joshua at his ordination by Moses and to a criminal convicted of a capital offence. It indicates, we suggest, the pouring of one’s personality into another being, the creation of a representative or substitute. . . . The second kind of imposition is applied in blessing and, to some extent, in healing. It indicates the transference of something other than, or less than, the personality; it means the employment of a special, supernatural faculty of one’s hands.[6]

The validity of Daube’s conclusions on this terminology will be discussed later. The current task is to take a closer look at their Old Testament usage due to its possible connections with the New Testament practices. Let us therefore briefly deal with each term, one at a time. Out of the eighteen appropriate constructions of sim and yad or yamin, and the four appropriate constructions of shith and yad or yamin, none are of interest to the present discussion, for even though we see the laying on of hands in Genesis 47:17-18 as a symbol of blessing, it is not related to a setting aside, installation, consecration, dedication, commissioning, or ordination. On the other hand, out of the twenty-five appropriate constructions of samakh and yad, there are four uses of interest to this research: Numbers 8:10; 27:18, 23; and Deuteronomy 34:9. In the next post we will look these passages and their use of samakh.

Go to Part III

[1] Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon [BDB] (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004), s.v. samakh. BDB simply defines it as “lean, lay, rest, support, uphold, sustain.” It is used 47 times in the Old Testament, 25 of which are associated in some way with dy, the term for hand. The majority (18) of these 25 uses deal with the sacrificial system and the laying on of hands on an animal offering. One use is the laying on of hands on the blasphemer about to be stoned (Lev 24:14).

[2] BDB defines sim as “put, place, set.” It is used 552 times in the Old Testament, 18 of which are associated in some way with dy, the term for hand, or with yamin, the term for right hand.

[3] BDB defines shith as put, set. It is used 80 times in the Old Testament, 4 of which are associated in some way with dy, the term for hand, or with yamin, the term for right hand.

[4] David Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinical Judaism (London: Athlone Press, 1956; reprint, Salem: Ayer Company, 1992), 225. Daube’s argument is based on the fact that in Genesis 48:17 Jacob laid (shith) his right hand on the head of Ephraim, but in Genesis 48:18 Joseph complains and tells his father to put (sim) his right hand on the head of Manasseh.

[5] Ibid.; emphasis mine. Here he states that “the rite of ‘leaning one’s hands upon somebody or something’ involves the exercise of some force and the force is concentrated at the base of the hand, near the joint.”

[6] Ibid. Daube, from this point on, looks at Rabbinic Literature and the New Testament witness and proceeds to categorize all the cases of imposition of hands into these two categories he has created from what he gleaned from his Old Testament lexical study. Daube never makes a strong case for limiting the field to these two categories, and I believe he errs in importing his understanding associated with these two categories into the New Testament, and he especially errs in forcing New Testament passages into these two categories which the terminology and context of the New Testament do not support.

PDF-XChange Viewer

2010-01-29T12:00:00.001-05:00

In my doctoral work I have to do a large amount of reading. While I read, I usually underline and make notes on the documents I am reading (I never the learned the lesson that my dad tried so hard to inculcate in me of not writing in books). Since the documents in questions are often PDFs, I was in the habit of printing said documents so I could mark them up. When you have documents like Gill's A complete body of doctrinal and practical divinity or David Benedict's Fifty Years Among the Baptists. that is a lot of printing. So, I set on a journey to find good tool I could use to mark up the PDF itself.

There is of course the full version of Adobe Acrobat, but it is quite costly. So, if like me, you would prefer a free alternative, let me suggest PDF-XChange Viewer. This great piece of software allows you to underline, make notes, etc., rotate pages, and much more, and then save the PDF with these notes. It also allows you to search your notes or go through them sequentially, making research and discussion very efficient.

So, if you are looking for a good, FREE, PDF mark up software, give PDF-XChange Viewer a shot.

EndNote & Palm

2010-01-27T10:52:00.005-05:00

SWBTS recently signed a contract with EndNote to distribute this reference / bibliographical software to its students. I promptly installed it on my machine and have been playing with it for a few weeks now. I like the software and will use it to continue cataloging my library, therefore, as you can imagine, I will probably write posts on it from time to time.

As for today's post, it has to do with syncing my EndNote library from my computer to my Palm handheld. Yes, that is a neat feature that comes with EndNote X3: you get the Palm version of the software which gives you the ability of having your library on your Palm. Unfortunately, every time I synced my Palm I got the following error:

EndNote: Unable to find selected library to sync, or no library selected.

I had correctly configured it in EndNote (under Tools/Configure Handheld Sync . . .), but somehow it still could not find my library. I found a clue to a possible solution here. For some reason, pointing to my library file (.enl) in its My Documents location did not work. To solve my syncing problem, I had to copy my library file to the Program Files/Palm/Add-on directory and then configure EndNote to sync with that file. While that is mighty inconvenient, for the time being I have a solution to my problem. Hopefully in the future I will find a better solution; if so, I'll let you know. If you know a better solution, let me know.

Things we learned about Texas - Agave Nectar

2010-01-25T12:46:00.000-05:00

Well, I'm not sure this is a Texas thing, since this product is made in Mexico and the company that packages it is headquartered in Onsted, Michigan, but we did discover it in Texas, so it fits in this series.

Agave Nectar is, according to its manufacturer, an "organic nectar from the Agave Plant [which] is great for those who are looking for low glycemic index foods. . . . Natural sweetening properties and blending characteristics make Agave Nectar perfect for coffee, tea, smoothies, and other beverages. It is also a delicious topping for breads, toast, pancakes, and waffles."

We use it as syrup on pain perdu and waffles. It has the same consistency and color as regular store-bought pancake syrup. It is healthier than those fake maple syrups out there (full of corn syrup and all) and, although it is expensive, it is less than half the price of real maple syrup. We give it two thumbs up and the Disseau housekeeping seal of approval!

Ordination - Evidence in the Pre New Testament Context - Old Testament Part I

2010-01-24T14:45:00.005-05:00

While Israel is not the church, Old Testament practices have the potential of not only giving insight into God’s desire for His people, but also of giving an understanding of the kinds of practices and concepts with which the early, mainly Jewish, church would have been conversant. A lexical and topical study of Old Testament passages dealing with the inauguration of people into specific positions within the nation of Israel, such as leaders, elders, kings, prophets, priests, Levites, etc., could provide much needed insight into the practice of ordination. Unfortunately, there is a paucity of passages describing such practices. As Culpepper notes, for example: “little is known about the ‘ordination’ of prophets, when there was some such ceremony.” [1] Indeed, all that is known of the anointing of Elisha (1 Kgs 19:16) is that he was to be anointed, and there is no description of consecration, dedication, or installation of Samuel (there is only a description of his divine call) or of Elijah, for example. Nevertheless, this scarcity of passages on the topic does not constitute divine silence on the issue. Passages such as the consecration of Aaron and his sons (Exod 29:1-37, Lev 8), the dedication of the Levites (Num 8:5-26), the installation of the seventy elders to share Moses’ burden (Num 11:16-30), the inauguration of Joshua (Num 27:12-23), the anointing of Saul (1 Sam 9:27-10:25), the anointing of David (1 Sam 16:1-13; 2 Sam 2:1-7; 5:1-5), and the anointing of Solomon (1 Kgs 1:31-40; 1 Chr 29:21-25), do give us some insight into Old Testament practices.

In these passages, one can discern four main trends in practices: the ceremonial washing or purification of those being consecrated or dedicated, the offering of animal sacrifices to the Lord, the anointing with oil, and the laying on of hands. [2] Of interest to this paper are only the trends which find parallels in the pages of the New Testament. Therefore, no matter what one’s view of the tripartite nature of the law and its application to New Testament believers, [3] one will quickly agree that the first two trends, since they find no attestation in any of the practices of the New Testament church, are of no value to our discussion. [4] As for the anointing with oil, the New Testament describes various anointments of Christ with oil and the anointing of the sick with oil. Obviously, the anointing of the sick with oil is not pertinent to our discussion. As for the anointing of Christ, it is directly related to His death in Matthew 26:12, Mark 14:8, and John 12:7. This is not an anointing associated with a setting apart for a specific role or function, but a symbolic preparation for the Messiah’s substitutionary death. Therefore, the anointing with oil is irrelevant to the discussion in this paper.

This leaves only one practice that could have had some impact on the New Testament community as a setting apart custom: the laying on of hands. We will discuss this practice next time.

Go to Part II

[1] R. Alan Culpepper, “The Biblical Basis for Ordination,” Review and Expositor 74, no. 4 (Fall 1981): 473.

[2] The practice of ceremonial washing or purification is found in the consecration of Aaron and his sons and in the dedication of the Levites. The practice of sacrificing an offering is found in the consecration of Aaron and his sons, the dedication of the Levites, and the anointing of Solomon. Also of interest here is the fact that the Levites themselves were presented as an offering to the Lord. The practice of anointing with oil is found in the consecration of Aaron and his sons, the anointing of Saul, the anointing of David, and the anointing of Solomon. The practice of laying on of hands is found in the dedication of the Levites and the inauguration of Joshua.

[3] For a discussion on the topic see Stanley N. Gundry, ed., Five Views on Law and Gospel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), and Maël Disseau, “Is the Mosaic law tripartite? (Some final thoughts)” [on-line]; available from http://maelandcindy.blogspot.com/2008/08/is-mosaic-law-tripartite-some-final.html; Internet.

[4] One could hypothesize that these practices are no longer needed, because the work of Christ on the cross has cleansed believers from their sins by paying the required sacrifice, and, while interesting, this line of inquiry is outside the scope of this paper.

SWBTS - received a donation of Dead Sea Scroll fragments

2010-01-21T02:21:00.005-05:00

Recently SWBTS received a donation of some fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls from Exodus 23, Leviticus 18, and Daniel 6.

Things we learned about Texas - recycling

2010-01-18T19:56:00.004-05:00

This is not the first city we have lived in that recycles, but I must say that Fort Worth is probably the first city we have lived in where the recycling can (blue in the picture) is two to three times larger than the normal trash can (brown in the picture). You can actually ask for a larger trash can, but this is their incentive: "Recycle more, pay less. The more you recycle, the less garbage you have. The less garbage you have, the smaller cart you need. The smaller the garbage cart, the less you pay per month."

In addition, the list of recycling items is also very extensive:

Paper (Paper clips and staples are OK.)

Advertising circulars
Carbonless paper
Cardboard – corrugated cardboard. Large boxes must be broken down or cut to fit inside the cart.
Catalogs
Envelopes – with or without windows
Junk mail
Magazines
Newspapers – all sections
Office paper – file folders, letterhead, sticky notes, printer paper, calendars, school papers
Paperback books
Paperboard – cereal boxes (liners removed), soda and beer carry cartons, dry goods packaging, paper towel and toilet paper cores.
Paper bags
Phone books

Metal Containers (Please rinse. Labels can be left on.)

Aluminum drink cans – do not flatten
Aluminum baking tins – durable; not disposable
Steel or tin food cans and lids
Empty aerosol cans – with spray nozzle; remove plastic lid unless part of the can
Empty steel paint cans – must be empty and dry; a thin skin of dry paint on bottom and sides is OK; remove lid and recycle

Glass Containers (Please rinse. Labels can be left on. All colors accepted.)

Bottles and jars – remove metal and plastic lids and recycle
Ceramics
China
Dishes
Mirrors – must fit inside cart with lid closed
Windowpanes – no auto glass

Plastic Containers (Please rinse. All colors accepted. Must be hard plastics.)

Bottles, cups and jars – with #1 through #7 recycling symbols on bottom of container; remove caps and lids and recycle
Food trays, tubs and bowls – with #1 through #7 recycling symbols on bottom of container
Plastic eating utensils

See: http://www.fortworthgov.org/dem/info/default.aspx?id=8434

Ordination - quick lexical investigation

2010-01-16T12:00:00.000-05:00

As mentioned in the last post, there seems to be little cohesion among different traditions as to the purpose and meaning of ordination [1], and even in the Free Church tradition, different groups historically have understood ordination in different ways. This might be due to the fact that even a lexical investigation of the English word ‘ordain’, as Patterson points out, “provides limited assistance on the subject of ordination.” In the King James Version ‘ordain’ is the “translation of more than twenty Hebrew and Greek terms,”[2] but this wide use of the word was apparently reconsidered in the more modern New King James Version where it is only used to translate seven of those Hebrew and Greek terms. The etymology of the term is also not very helpful in the matter. The term surfaced in the English language in the late thirteenth century with the meaning “to appoint or admit to the ministry of the Church.” It is held to have come from the Latin ordino, ordinare, through the Old French ordener.[3] Following the trail, investigating the verb ordino reveals that it comes from the noun ordo, “order,” and besides its traditional meaning of “to order, set in order, adjust, dispose, regulate,” there are a few secular first century attestations of its use as “to ordain, appoint to office.” Its ecclesiastical meaning of “to ordain as a priest or pastor, to admit to clerical office,” finds attestations as early as the fourth century, as in Lampridius’ history of the third century Roman emperor Alexander Severus, but, surprisingly, its fifth century use in the Vulgate is mostly not ecclesiastical, rather it is used with the plain meaning of “to order, set in order, adjust, dispose, regulate.”[4]

All of this sheds little to no light on the practice of ordination as seen in the New Testament. Therefore in the next post I will start looking at the Biblical data on ordination, starting with the Old Testament.

[1] In the 1993 book Anyone for Ordination?, editor Paul Beasley-Murray presents eight different traditions representing: Anglican, Independent, Methodist, ‘New Church’, Anabaptist, Roman Catholic, United Reformed, and Baptist. In these traditions, the range of understanding goes from sacramental to only recognizing the work of the Holy Spirit and from for clergy only to for all believers.

[2] Paige Patterson, “The Meaning of Authority in the Local Church,” 251.

[3] Douglas Harper, Online Etymology Dictionary, s.v. “ordain,” [on-line]; accessed 15 November 2009; available from http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ordain; Internet. Here is a sample of other modern definitions: Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, s.v. “ordain:” “to invest officially (as by the laying on of hands) with ministerial or priestly authority;” Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, s.v. “ordain:” “to invest with ministerial or sacerdotal functions; to introduce into the office of the Christian ministry, by the laying on of hands, or other forms; to set apart by the ceremony of ordination; to set apart for an office;” or Concise Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “ordain:” “confer holy orders on.”

[4] Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1879), s.v. “ordĭno,” [on-line]; accessed 15 November 2009; available from http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry%3Dordino; Internet. The only possible ecclesiastical use of ordino in the Vulgate might be found in 2 Cor 8:19. This verse is to be discussed below.

Things we learned about Texas - Driver Licences

2010-01-14T12:00:00.002-05:00

When we first arrived, we went to get our TX driver licences. We showed up at the Department of Public Safety (DPS) office and were first of all pleasantly surprised that their hours of operation for that day were 8:00 AM to 7:00 PM (now, that is only on Thursdays, but still, that is better than the office in NC which closes at 5:00 PM everyday). We then waited in a short line to be informed that since we own a vehicle, we needed to get our vehicle registered BEFORE we could get our driver licences (I'm not sure what you do if you do not have a vehicle). THEN we could come back, and provided we brought our old driver licences, social security cards, and birth certificates or passports (in my case my green card), we could get a new licence without having to take a written or practice test (and the people rejoiced greatly, for I hate to study for those written tests).

So, we headed to the Tarrant County Tax Assessor Office to get our vehicle registered. After waiting a few minutes for our number to be to called, the lady kindly informed us that we needed to have our vehicle inspected BEFORE we could register our vehicle. When we mentioned that it would have been nice if the lady at DPS had told us that, the lady at the Tax Office answered that unfortunately the DPS always tells people to go see them first.

We then headed to get our car inspected. It passed, praise God, but by the time they were done, it was too late to get any of the rest done.

Here is the lesson: when you move to TX, FIRST get your car inspected, SECOND get your car registered, and THIRD get your driver licence.

Ordination - Intro

2010-01-13T12:00:00.003-05:00

It is a clear Fall Sunday afternoon in the parking lot of the facility for First Baptist Nowhere, several cars are pulling in. Distinguished men dressed in suits exit their cars, Bible in hand. One, two, three, ... it seems that most of the pastors of the local association have answered the invitation. After a couple of handshakes and a few greetings, they enter the building and all gather in a room. The door is shut swiftly. A few hours later, the door opens again and the pastors emerge through it, smiling and leading a young gentleman to the sanctuary. There, a service is soon to take place: an ordination service. After some songs and a commissioning sermon, the ordination council will present the young man as a candidate for ordination. They will proceed to lay their hands on this young man, and they will congratulate him. The excitement in the crowd will be mixed. Many will see this as a happy occasion, God has called yet another believer to “the ministry,” but several will not really understand what just happened before their very eyes.

Rarely explained, often controversial, the concept of ordination is one which, in this day and age, has resulted in much ink being spilt [1]. Yet, not withstanding all the books and articles which have been written, there still seems to be little cohesion among different traditions as to the purpose and meaning of ordination, and even in the Free Church tradition, different groups historically have understood ordination in different ways. Since the term ordination is not found in Scripture, our task cannot be to see how the term is used in Scripture, but has to be to answer the following question: does the New Testament support the concept of ordination? In light of the answer to this first question, a second question will also be addressed: what is ordination and what are its characteristics? To accomplish this, this series of posts will use the following approach: the data will be presented with a minimum of analysis; next, the data will be analyzed and the analysis summarized; finally, a proposal will be presented based on this summary.

[1] The number of volumes written on ordination is great and their approach and scope varied. As if the topic were not unsettled enough, recently the topic of ordaining women has caused many to examine the concept of ordination yet again, resulting in at least three entire journal issues dedicated to the topic in the last three decades: see Review and Expositor 78.4 (Fall 1981), Contents 23.3 (July 1988), and Perspective in Religious Studies 29.3 (Fall 2002); in addition to other articles in journals and books: see Paige Patterson, “The Meaning of Authority in the Local Church,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton: Crossway, 1991), 251-264, or Vera Sinton, “Called, Gifted, and Authorized – An Anglican Woman’s Perspective,” in Anyone for Ordination?, ed. Paul Beasley-Murray (Tunbridge Wells, Kent, England: MARC, 1993), 137-156, for just two examples among a plethora.

Things we learned about Texas - Intro

2010-01-12T12:21:00.005-05:00

We have now been in Texas for over three months. In a limited time here, we have discovered several interesting things about this state: some interesting, some annoying, and some just plain humorous. So, I figured that I would share some of these in a new series: "Things we learned about Texas."

Pendleton. Baptist Church Manual - A book review

2009-12-31T00:55:00.004-05:00

Pendleton, J.M. Baptist Church Manual, rev. ed. Nashville: B&H, 1966. 178 pp. $ 4.36.

A Virginia native and a great proponent of landmarkism, the late James Madison Pendleton was a prolific book and newspaper author, writing such titles as An Old Landmark Reset, a hymn book entitled The Southern Psalmist, and the very popular Baptist Church Manual, which is now in its fifteenth printing since it was first published in 1867.

Summary

The Church Manual is divided in seven chapters and five appendices. In broad strokes, it could be said that the seven chapters deal with doctrine and the appendices deal with praxis, if that would not run the risk of understating the practicality of doctrine and its discussion. Pendleton starts by spending a whole chapter on the nature of the church. While he admits a larger meaning for the term, “the redeemed in the aggregate” (5), he quickly points out that a majority of passages refer to a local assembly. He therefore defines a church as “a congregation of Christ’s baptized disciples, acknowledging him as their Head, relying on his atoning sacrifice for justification before God, and depending on the Holy Spirit for sanctification, united in the belief of the gospel, agreeing to maintain its ordinances and obey its precepts, meeting together to worship, and cooperating for the extension of Christ’s kingdom in the world” (7) He then proceeds to discuss the “moral and ceremonial” (8) qualifications of the membership of such a church. The moral requirements are repentance and faith, both of which have to precede the ceremonial requirement of baptism. Some attention is then dedicated to how a new church is constituted and how members are received and how membership is ceased.

The second chapter details the officers of the church. Said “officers are not necessary to the being of a church,” as can be seen by the absence of their mention in the definition he gives for a church, but “they are necessary to its well-being” (22). Pendleton identifies the “two officers that each church should have” as pastors and deacons (23), but also introduces two other officers, one which is “a prudential arrangement for each church to have,” namely the church clerk, and the other one being the trustees, which “are generally the legal custodians of the church property” (37).

In the third chapter entitled the “Doctrines of the Church,” Pendleton, after a short introduction, reproduces J. Newton Brown’s “A Declaration of Faith,” which is nothing less than the New Hampshire Confession of 1833 with an added church covenant and a prayer. In the introduction to this chapter, Pendleton informs the reader that the “Bible contains the revelation of God to man,” and declarations of faith “are not substitutes for the Scriptures. They are only exponents of what are conceived to be the fundamental doctrines of the word of God” (41-3).

Pendleton continues into chapter four by tackling the ordinances of a church, which he identifies as two: baptism and the Lord’s Supper. In the section on baptism, after defining baptism as “the immersion in water, by a proper administrator, of a believer in Christ, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” Pendleton like many of his epoch, spends much time reasoning that baptism has to be by immersion. He then logically continues on to the proper subject of baptism where he argues that s/he has to be a believer, and therefore not an unbeliever or an infant. While talking of infants, he does undertake to deal with the issue of the death of un-baptized infants. As for the Lord’s Supper, Pendleton sees it “chiefly and supremely” as a commemoration of the death of Christ, so much so that he states that “the death of the Lord should monopolize all the power of memory” (89). Much of the subsequent discussion is to establish that “the meeting of a church is indispensable to a scriptural observance” of the supper (90). Church membership is thus used to imply the prerequisite of baptism for the supper.

As for church government, Pendleton identifies three distinct types: Episcopacy, Presbyterianism, and congregationalism. Pendleton identifies the salient features of Episcopacy as a church government which “recognizes the right of bishops to preside over districts of country” where the “bishop is officially superior to other ministers” and of Presbyterianism as a church government which “recognizes two classes of elders –preaching elders and ruling elders” (100-1). Three are the distinctives which he attributes to congregationalism: “that the governmental powers is in the hands of the people,” “the right of a majority of members of a church to rule,” and “that the power of a church cannot be transferred or alienated” (101-2). He then proceeds to argue for congregationalism alone is the New Testament model.

The penultimate chapter addresses the disciplines of the church or “the process by which the spiritual improvement, usefulness and efficiency of a church are promoted” (117). This includes formative and corrective discipline. The later is the major focus of this chapter. As for the last chapter, Pendleton separated the duties of the church into two categories: the duties to one another and the duties to the world. The latter includes personal evangelism, Sunday School, distribution of Bibles, etc., and sustaining missions.

As for the appendices, they include practical information on the business meeting of a church, various templates for letters and forms, a brief marriage ceremony, a section on associations and councils, and a section on Baptist declarations of faith. One has to wonder, though, how many of these are original to Pendleton, since Appendix V contains postmortem dates.

Critical Evaluation

Pendleton definitely wrote this manual as a defense of Baptist ecclesiology as the New Testament model. His justifications are often scripturally based, lexically sustained, and logically reasoned. There are times, though, when the reader is left wanting a more substantial scriptural basis for what Pendleton’s ideas and is frustrated by his repeated “lack of room” argument (see 26 for example). At other times, the scriptural justification is simply not found, and I am not only talking of points where he clearly deals with “secular” issues, like the necessity of trustees, but also about points where one would expect Scripture not to be silent on the issues. Throughout, he is very much so apologetic in his approach and often uses the writings of his opponents to convincingly support his assertions.

His starting the book with a discussion on the nature of the church is very much so appreciated, for such a discussion is often lacking and always necessary when dealing with ecclesiology. One has to wonder, though, if Pendleton would have thought that a non-cooperating church was actually not a church. The same could be asked about his necessity to meet together for worship. Would a congregation that meets together primarily for edification (1 Cor 14:26) and encouragement (Heb 10:25), understanding that God has called them to worship at all times (Rom 12:12, Rev 4), not be a church?

Reading Pendleton, I found myself shocked to find much of what I see as wrong with typical Baptist ecclesiology being stipulated by a pastor and Bible scholar. Let me deal with only one issue as an example, due to lack of space (can you say tu quoque?). While claiming to be an advocate of congregationalism, which he defines as the majority rules and the minority submits (which begs the question: is this understanding of congregationalism really the New Testament model of unity, love, and dying to self?), Pendleton practically advocates ruling elders called deacons. The Pendletonian pastor has “an authority not belonging to other church-members” (27), yet his duties “are preeminently spiritual” (31) and therefore there is a need for deacons, whose duties are both spiritual and secular and who are “a connecting link between the pastor and the needy one of the church” (33). One can see how ruling deacons got their start with such a train of thought. Pendleton displays some inconsistency, for he proceeds to argue for a plethora of standing committees so that the deacons can “share with the pastor in the spiritual ministries of the church,” which is their “role that is consistent with the place of the office in the New Testament” (35). Does he mean by that, that the deacons’ secular duties, which he argues for, are unbiblical? Is any of this true, Biblical congregationalism?

Conclusion

I conclude that Pendleton is a must read for two reasons. First, it does provide some good Biblical and lexical information about some core Baptist beliefs. Second, it allows us to understand better the background which undergirds the current typical Baptist church model. If we are to regain a New Testament church model, it is essential that we understand where people are and why they believe what they do.

Yarnell. “From Christological Ecclesiology to Functional Ecclesiasticism." - A short review

2009-12-29T00:50:00.002-05:00

Yarnell, Malcolm. “From Christological Ecclesiology to Functional Ecclesiasticism: Developments in Southern Baptist Understandings of the Nature and Role of the Churches.” Paper presented to the Anglican Communion-Baptist World Alliance International Theological Conversations, Wolfville, Nova Scotia, 11 September 2003.

In this article, Yarnell proposes to “elucidate developing understandings of the nature and role of the church” in Southern Baptist circles to show that “Southern Baptists have traded their original Christological ecclesiology for a functional ecclesiasticism” (1). It is not clear why understandings is plural, since he is tracing the historiography of one group, which he ultimately presents as having a relatively homogeneous ecclesiology. Yarnell’s journey begins, as is often his style, with a historical overview, where he traces Baptist foundations to the Reformation Church of England. Probably for the benefit of his audience, Yarnell spends much effort teasing out the common roots and similar beliefs of our English Baptist forefathers and their Anglican forefathers. It is not clear if Yarnell ignores the other forefathers of the modern Baptists due to his scope or due to his historical beliefs. Nevertheless, he finds parallels in Baptist and Anglican views of the Bible, justification, and prayer. He sees the beginning of tensions when “radicals were denied episcopal preaching licenses.” One is not clear if Yarnell believes that had the bishops agreed to license these radicals, they would not have separated, for he concludes that the difficulties ultimately lay with ecclesiology.

Yarnell transitions to a discussion of the historically Christological ecclesiology of our Baptist forefathers. He sees the genesis of Baptist ecclesiological doctrines in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer and attributes the identification of the “locus classicus for early Separatists and Baptists” (Matt 18:20) to Anglican liturgical practices. It is in this passage that, according to Yarnell, early Baptists found inspiration for the authority of the gathered congregation. Christ, as prophet, priest, and king, our only Mediator, is the one who “dispenses the authority to preach, to pray, and to rule” (4). In these three offices of Christ, they saw the three marks of the church: the Word, the sacraments, and discipline. “God and His people came together in covenant and to form the local church” (4).

Yarnell eventually migrates his setting to the New World and focuses on the development of the Southern Baptist Convention. Yarnell sees a gradual transformation caused by the freedom of the New World, the eighteenth and nineteenth century evangelical awakenings, the frontier mentality, and the American governmental system. The transformation finally culminated in a separation from the early Baptist “ideological roots” due to a “general lack of education . . . coupled with the self-sufficient nature of the churches” (6). All that remained was the functional ecclesiasticism which was lacking ideological roots. This, coupled with individualism and liberalism, resulted in the demise of church discipline and resulted in a “crassly voluntaristic understanding of the nature of the church” (7). It is on this low note that Yarnell transitions to the last part of his essay, where he presents the average ecclesiastical model of the typical Baptist church. He divides this section into three parts: churches in relation to their people, churches in relation to God, and churches in relation to “the other.” His description of the typical Baptist church is unfortunately accurate and does prove his point. While Yarnell seems to identify the typical Baptist church’s problems and their causes, he does not offer any suggestions of how to return to a Christological ecclesiology, as a matter of fact, his article ends rather abruptly.

Patterson. “The Meaning of Authority in the Local Church.” - A short review

2009-12-27T00:47:00.000-05:00

Patterson, Paige. “The Meaning of Authority in the Local Church.” In Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem. 248-251. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1991.

In three simple sections, Patterson cuts to the chase on the issue of the ordination of women, or more appropriately, on the issue of authority in the local church, for he accurately identifies authority as the issue at hand, instead of the red herring which is the controversy over ordination. In his first section, Patterson starts the process with an expeditious lexical and biblical study on the topic of ordination. While at times allowing for the existence of an emerging pattern in Acts 14:23, 1 Timothy 4:14, and 5:22, he concludes that “it is sufficient to stress that no clear pattern or procedure for ordination is discernible in the New Testament” (253). One thing that is lacking in this section, though, is a definition for the concept of ordination. Due to the variety of meanings this term has in different traditions, it would have been helpful for Patterson to present his understanding of what ordination is and what it entails. Nevertheless, he correctly ends this section by stating that “most churches and denominations have developed ordination beyond New Testament precedent in both its form and its significance” (253).

This lack of New Testament evidence for ordination does not constitute, according to Patterson, a lack of evidence for the existence of ecclesiastical offices in the New Testament. Therefore the question is not “who can be ordained,” but “who is qualified to serve in those offices?” Here Patterson makes an assumption: that an office has authority associated with it. While he does not directly declare said assumption, it is central to his next section, where he seeks to understand how much authority elders wielded in the primitive church. This second section is mainly a discussion of multiple salient passages dealing with elders and authority. While maintaining that elders did have some level of authority in the primitive church, he quickly identifies limitations to said authority. These limitations are twofold: elder authority cannot supersede the authority of Scripture and is additionally bound by the authority of the congregation. As one proceeds through this section, one is given a theological whiplash of the mind, for one is first drawn in by Patterson’s convincing arguments on the role of the believers as priests and ministers with substantial congregational authority, which seems to be subordinate only to Christ’s authority, only to be thrown back by his reassertion of elder authority, even if somewhat limited. This limitation is necessary later when he reminds elders that their authority is subject to Scripture, therefore warning them not to give authority to any member to disobey Scripture (viz. giving authority for women to disregard what Scripture has to say about their role in the body).

Patterson then transitions to the question of authority and female teachers. He begins this section with a thorough encouragement for women to teach based on the Biblical pattern seen in the book of Acts and the writings of Paul. He also rightly points to Genesis to remind his readers that there is ontological equality between man and woman. He finally uses philosophical and Biblical arguments to argue that ontological equality does not necessarily mean functional egalitarianism. Knowing the classical arguments for egalitarianism, Patterson proceeds to dismantle them one at a time, while continuing to remind the church that they have the obligation to encourage women to “participate in the worship of the community of the saints with certain restrictions” (259).

He concludes this chapter with wisdom from his wife who, through a series of exhortations to live out Scripture in logical consistency, reminds the reader that the church should strive to assure “the full and proper use of [spiritual] gifts” (260).

Yarnell. “Οικος θεου: A Theologically Neglected but Important Ecclesiological Metaphor.” - A short review

2009-12-25T00:41:00.000-05:00

Yarnell, Malcolm. “Οικος θεου: A Theologically Neglected but Important Ecclesiological Metaphor,” Midwestern Journal of Theology 2 (Fall 2003): 53-65.

In this essay, Yarnell attempts to restore οικος θεου to its appropriate level of importance among other Biblical metaphors for the church. After a thorough background check to substantiate his accusation of “general neglect,” Yarnell starts developing his defense for a renewal of interest in οικος θεου by pointing to the frequency and the importance of the uses of the metaphor. Yarnell identifies two types of uses of the οικος terminology: physical and relational. He points out that these are two “distinct images” and identifies Mark 11 and 1 Corinthians 3 with the concrete physical type. He postulates that these two uses “could easily transition into one another” and points to Ephesians 2:19-22 as an example. As for the relational use, he finds most evidence in the Pastoral epistles to which he dedicated almost half his paper.

The pièce de résistance for the relational use of οικος is 1 Timothy 3:14-16. Yarnell first resuscitates the notion of the Pastoral epistles as an ecclesiastical handbook by pointing to 1 Timothy 3:14-16 as the high point of the epistle. In this passage he finds his locus classicus, 1 Timothy 3:15, which describes the function of the epistle: to outline “standards of conduct in a set of social relationships figuratively know as ‘God’s household’.” Yarnell sees three levels of concern in this epistle: first, the church, then the family, and last, the state.

His analysis of the seventeen uses of the οικος family of terms throughout the Pastoral epistles expands his search to a wider set of terms which vary from “administration” to “steward” to “dwell.” Through this research, Yarnell demonstrates that “this family of words is used metaphorically of the church or of some part of the church” over half the time. The reader, though, is left wondering if looking at such a wide family of terms was actually needed to prove his point.

In the rest of the article, Yarnell summarizes his findings. After reminding his readers that “the ancient household was ‘the basic socio-political unit’ which had major religious and economic functions,” that “there was often a cult associated with a household’s god in which the householder functioned as the leader,” and that “household structure and terminology was frequently co-opted by religious associations,” he proceeds to identify five adaptations “of the structure of the household in the churches addressed in the Pastoral Epistles.” First, he sees a clear use of familial titles. Second, he sees the household as a locus of conversion and gathering. Third, he sees the household as a center of instruction. Fourth, he sees the household as a center of discipline. Last, he sees the clear identification of God with the householder (the father) figure. Finally, he also summarizes the Scripture references which refer to literal households.

While this essay provides good biblical data and did make a strong argument for the acceptance of οικος θεου as an important metaphor for the church, I was left wanting more elaboration on the outworking of this metaphor. It would also have been helpful for him to make a connection with and/or a distinction from the “family of God” metaphor.

Patterson. So You’ve Been Called to a Church - A short book review

2009-12-23T00:38:00.003-05:00

Patterson, Paige. So You’ve Been Called to a Church. Wake Forest: Magnolia Hill Papers, 1996.

In this captivating essay, Patterson shares words of wisdom with the fictitious new pastor of New Mercy Seat Baptist Church. Since, in this candid heart to heart talk, his purpose is to address a new vocational pastor of a typical Baptist church, I will force myself to abstain from arguing matters of ecclesiology, and will just critique the work, given the audience for whom it is intended. Actually, regardless of the audience, the majority of his counsel is priceless and right on.

The bulk of Patterson’s plea with his readers consists of six existential insights. First, he makes a plea for anybody entering such a position to do so only because of the call of God on their lives. This comment cannot be understated and should more over be expanded to all believers, for as servants of the Most High, we should all seek to follow God’s calling on our lives. Second, he encourages his readers to “rule by love” or “not rule at all.” Patterson revels in pointing out that the KJV uses “rule” as a translation for hegeomai, yet he perceptively describes hegeomai as “moral ascendancy.” Translation issues aside, the point is that anybody whom the Spirit of God has put in a position of leadership can only do so by modeling the attitude of the Great Shepherd, Jesus Christ. He must love all, he must walk with God, and he must serve all. Only after years of modeling godliness and love, will anyone truly be considered a leader. Third, Patterson pleas for integrity and incarnational living; this implies honesty and humility. Fourth, he urges his reader to be courageous. He defines this attribute, which he has observed is frequently missing, as bravery, not bravado. It “is the ability to stand for truth and justice,” and is “characterized by restraint.” It is often needed on behalf of others and should be done with the fruits of the Spirit, not “allowing the root of bitterness to spring up in one’s life.” Fifth, due to the responsibility of teachers to indoctrinate their pupils, Patterson makes a plea for expository preaching. Here Patterson probably assumes a little of his audience, for he does not define expository preaching except for an indirect comment from Jeff D. Ray who claims that it is “difficult, laborious, and time-consuming to dig out an adequate interpretation of a passage of Scripture and coordinate the results of that patient digging in an effective, logical outline” (emphasis mine). His insistence on sola scriptura in preaching is appreciated, and so is his definition of fervency, for which he also pleas; by fervency he means “that the message is prepared in arduous study and marinated in prayer until the aroma of God has so permeated it in your own soul that your audience is riveterd to your message.” His sixth and final plea is for a consistent walk with God. This is as much for the preacher’s relationship with the body, as it is for his own personal life.

Patterson uses this topic to transition to a warning to his reader that the venture on which he is about to embark will be a torturous one. Due to human sin and churches’ abandonment of church discipline, troubles will come. This view of the church is a sad reality, but even sadder is the view of the preacher’s solitude in this situation (bar his relationship with God, of course). While Patterson does not advocate solitude, he seems to succumb to its apparent inevitability and is transparent about of his own grief in the matter. He is therefore compelled to give his reader some advice on what do to in those circumstances. First, keep on following one’s calling. Second, do not turn a pulpit into a “bully pulpit.” Third, trust in God.

Overall, most of Patterson’s insights to his fictitious pastor are beneficial to any believer who takes his call to be a minister seriously. This comes as no surprise since pastors and leaders are called to be examples (1 Pet 5, Heb 13). Having said that, vocational ministers who seek to glorify God in this vocation, more than anybody, should take this wisdom to heart.

Hammett. Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches - A short book review

2009-12-21T00:36:00.002-05:00

Hammett, John. Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005.

Hammett, motivated by his “concern for the welfare of the church,” writes a book which he believes accurately reflects Biblical teachings, is deeply rooted in Baptist history, is practical and applicable, and is urgently needed to help Baptist churches “be the radiant bride of Christ” (21). Not all these lofty goals are achieved on all subjects, but Hammett does provide a valiant attempt at it. His stated methodology, which he is consistent in using, is to begin with Scripture and then to enrich the understanding of Scripture with history. Once this process is completed, systematic theology can be formulated, and finally it can be used in practical ministry (16). He divides his work into five sections each centered on an individual question.

In What is the Church?, Hammett first takes a Biblical approach by analyzing the lexical terminology associated with the church. The bulk of his effort is centered on the word ekklēsia. Next, he presents three main images of the church: the people of God, the body of Christ, and the Temple of the Spirit. He then proceeds to look at the historical marks of the church and concludes that this is an ongoing task (65). Unfortunately, he does not offer a modern outworking of this task. The last chapter of this section presents a theological and practical answer by trying to identify the essence of the church. While he discusses several aspects that are very intrinsic to the essence of the church, one is still left wondering what exactly a church is. Why is a para-church not a church? What is the difference between a Bible study and a church?

In Who is the Church?, Hammett presents his biblical, historical, and theological plea for regenerate church membership. He offers some practical suggestions on how to recover regenerate church membership. First, he argues for a return to the use of a church covenant. His Biblical support is from Nehemiah 8-9, but the heart of his plea is pragmatic. Second, he argues for a reformation of Baptism and church membership. His plea for a separation between the application and the granting of membership leads him to suggest that Baptism be delayed, especially for children. Relational evangelism and the discipling of children seem to be more efficient methods of solving the issue, without requiring a child to disobey Christ by not following his Master in believer’s baptism. Last, he rightly pleas for re-instating church discipline in church life.

In How is the Church Governed?, Hammett argues for elder led congregationalism. A plurality of elders is suggested, with a single pastor “who sees himself as one of the leaders” (209), but “more important than the model of government is the character of the leaders” (210). In this model, he emphasizes that the “atmosphere to be cultivated is one of challenge, encouragement, and affirmation in the area of every member ministry” (212). Hammett is very pragmatic with his single pastor position, and the reader is left wanting Biblical support for several of his arguments.

In What Does the Church Do?, Hammett divides the ministry of the church into five aspects: teaching, fellowship, worship, service, and evangelism. He also presents a thorough look at the Lord’s Supper and Baptism as “more than simple symbols” (257).

Hammett concludes his book with Where is the Church Going?, a look at current and emerging trends, both nationally and internationally. He deals with the seeker movement, which he correctly accuses of pragmatism, and the emerging church movement, which he correctly chastises for its overemphasis on postmodern thought. He sees an impulse of some churches to want to travel to the past historically or to other cultures geographically to learn of how God’s Spirit has worked in those scenarios.