Luther on infant baptism according to McGrath:

In a paradoxical way, infant baptism is totally consistent with the doctrine of justification by faith, because it emphasizes that faith is not something we can achieve, but something which is given to us graciously. . . . Baptism does not presuppose faith" rather, it generates faith. "A child becomes a believer if Christ in baptism speaks to him through the mouth of the one who baptizes, since it is his Word, his commandment, and his Word cannot be without fruit." Baptism effects what it signifies: "So we can see what a great and excellent thing Baptism is, in that it delivers us from the jaws of the devil and makes us God's own, suppresses and takes away sin, and then daily strengthens the new person, and is (and will always remain) efficacious until we pass from this state of ministry to eternal glory."

Wow ... that is not the understanding of salvation by grace alone I thought Luther had. Whatever happened to confessing and believing? Could it be that, as often happens, Luther was so concerned with protecting God and his understanding of Him that his "system" derailed him? This still happens today when people want to try to protect God and their understanding of God as love ... or when people want to try to protect God and their understanding of God as sovereign. When are we going to stop trying to protect God with our theological systems and allow His Word to speak for itself?

From: McGrath, Alister E. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012. McGrath here cites Luther's Greater Catechism on Infant Baptism.

Jerome and Baptism

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 - Intro

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.

Dargan. Ecclesiology - a Book Review

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.

Carroll. Ecclesia: The Church - A Book Review

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.