Baptist Successionism Part 2: 30-500

In this post I will continue to examine the claims made in The Trail of Blood by J.M. Carroll. If you have not done so, I recommend reading my previous post before reading this one. The first lecture in The Trail of Blood covers the time period of 30-500AD and makes several errors both in its understanding of ecclesiology and the sacraments but I won't go into those here. Instead I will just focus on the historical claims that are made. Carroll says:

Another vital change which seems from history to have had its beginning before the close of the second century was on the great doctrine of Salvation itself. The Jews as well as the Pagans, had for many generations, been trained to lay great stress on Ceremonials. They had come to look upon types as anti-types, shadows as real substances, and ceremonials as real saving agencies. How easy to come thus to look upon baptism. They reasoned thus: The Bible has much to say concerning baptism. Much stress is laid upon the ordinance and one's duty concerning it. Surely it must have something to do with one's salvation. So that it was in this period that the idea of "Baptismal Regeneration" began to get a fixed hold in some of the churches. (Shackelford, page 57; Camp p. 47; Benedict, p. 286; Mosheim, vol. 1, p. 134; Christian, p. 28.)

The only non-Baptist historian here is Mosheim. Mosheim does speak of various rites and ceremonies being added during the second century but he doesn't say anything about a change of belief that resulted in the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. The fact is that the Scriptures speak of baptism in salvific terms by saying "baptism now saves us" and baptism is "for the forgiveness of sins." And when we look at what the earliest church fathers say about baptism there are none who describe it as just a symbolic act and plenty that describe it as regeneration. The Epistle of Barnabas which was written in 130 says:

"This means that we go down into the water full of sins and foulness, and we come up bearing fruit in our hearts, fear and hope in Jesus and in the Spirit.”

The Shepherd of Hermas written around 140 AD says:

"I have heard, sir," said I, "from some teachers, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins." He said to me, "You have heard rightly, for so it is." (The Shepherd 4:3:1-2)

They had need [the Shepherd said] to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God, except by putting away the mortality of their former life. These also, then, who had fallen asleep, received the seal of the Son of God, and entered into the kingdom of God. For, [he said,] before a man bears the name of the Son of God, he is dead. But when he receives the seal, he puts mortality aside and again receives life. The seal, therefore, is the water. They go down into the water dead [in sin], and come out of it alive. (ibid 9:16:2-4)

Justin Martry writing between 148-155 said:

Whoever is convinced and believes that what they are taught and told by us is the truth, and professes to be able to live accordingly, is instructed to pray and to beseech God in fasting for the remission of their former sins, while we pray and fast with them. Then they are led by us to a place where there is water; and there they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn: In the name of God, the Lord and Father of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they receive the washing with water. For Christ said, "Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." ...The reason for doing this, we have learned from the Apostles. (The First Apology 61)

I could provide more quotes but I think this is sufficient. Baptismal regeneration was a teaching held by the early church. The innovation comes in the later denial of baptismal regeneration by some. After the statement about the meaning of baptism, Carroll goes on to talk about the subjects and mode of baptism:

The next serious error to begin creeping in, and which seems from some historians (not all) to have begun in this same century and which may be said to have been an inevitable consequence of the "baptismal regeneration" idea, was a change in the subjects of baptism. Since baptism has been declared to be an agency or means to salvation by some erring churches, then the sooner baptism takes place the better. Hence arose "infant baptism." Prior to this "believers" and "believers" only, were regarded as proper subjects for baptism. "Sprinkling" and "pouring" are not now referred to. These came in much later. For several centuries, infants, like others, were immersed. The Greek Catholics (a very large branch of the Catholic church) up to this day, have never changed the original form of baptism. They practice infant baptism but have never done otherwise than immerse the children. (Note--Some of the church historians put the beginning of infant baptism within this century, but I shall quote a short paragraph from Robinson's Ecclesiastical Researches.)

"During the first three centuries, congregations all over the East subsisted in separate independent bodies, unsupported by government and consequently without any secular power over one another. All this time they were baptized churches, and though all the fathers of the first four ages, down to Jerome (A.D. 370), were of Greece, Syria and Africa, and though they give great numbers of histories of the baptism of adults, yet there is not one of the baptism of a child till the year 370." (Compendium of Baptist History, Shackelford, p. 43; Vedder, p. 50; Christian, p, 31; Orchard, p. 50, etc.)

So Carroll's claim is that there is no record of children being baptized prior to 370 and that departure from immersion as a mode of baptism came later. Between 189-190 Irenaeus, a disciple of John, wrote:

"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4).

"‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]" (Fragment 34).

The first quote makes it clear that Irenaeus believed that Jesus regenerated infants. The second quote makes it clear that Irenaeus believed that regeneration took place through baptism. In 248 Origen wrote:

"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3).

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9).

Cyprian of Carthage wrote in 253:

"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2).

All these quotes are from before 370, so we know that Carroll's statement is false. The Cyprian quote also shows us what the first known controversy was in regards to infant baptism. Fidus was arguing that baptism should be delayed until the baby is eight days old. Cyprian says that baptism should not be withheld from someone simply because they have not reached the age of eight days old. There's no evidence in any of these quotes that anyone was arguing that babies should not be baptized at all.

According to Carroll the use of any mode other than immersion for baptism came much later than 370 AD but this isn't true either. The Didache dates back to the time of the Apostles. It was written sometime between the years 50 and 120. Some believe it was written in the year 150 but this is still much earlier than 370. Some ancient churches regarded it as part of the New Testament canon. It provides a helpful look into the practices of the early church. According to the Didache:

After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able. Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days (7:1)

Depending upon the amount of water available, immersion was used but pouring was used when there wasn't enough water. For the early Christians the water the Word were what was necessary for a valid baptism. In 215 Hippolytus wrote:

Where there is no scarcity of water the stream shall flow through the baptismal font or pour into it from above; but if water is scarce, whether on a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available. Let them remove their clothing. Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16).

In 254 Cyprian wrote:

In the saving sacraments, when necessity compels and when God bestows his pardon, divine benefits are bestowed fully upon believers, nor ought anyone be disturbed because the sick are poured upon or sprinkled when they receive the Lord's grace" (Letter to a Certain Magnus 69(76):12)

Carroll goes on to say:

These two errors (baptismal regeneration and infant baptism) have, according to the testimony of well-established history, caused the shedding of more Christian blood, as the centuries have gone by, than all other errors combined, or than possibly have all wars, not connected with persecution, if you will leave out the recent "World War." Over 50,000,000 Christians died martyr deaths, mainly because of their rejection of these two errors during the period of the "dark ages" alone--about twelve or thirteen centuries...To effectually bring about and consummate this unholy union, a council was called. In A. D. 313, a call was made for a coming together of the Christian churches or their representatives . Many but not all came. The alliance was consummated. A Hierarchy was formed. In the organization of the Hierarchy, Christ was dethroned as head of the churches and Emperor Constantine enthroned (only temporarily, however) as head of the church...Let it be definitely remembered that when Constantine made his call for the council, there were very many of the Christians (Baptists) and of the churches, which declined to respond. They wanted no marriage with the state, and no centralized religious government, and no higher ecclesiastical government of any kind, than the individual church. These Christians (Baptists) nor the churches ever at that time or later, entered the hierarchy of the Catholic denomination.

But there is no evidence of any of this. Carroll provides no citations to prove that 50,000,000 Christians were martyred because they rejected infant baptism and baptismal regeneration. The Council that Carroll refers to is the Council of Rome in 313. Constantine legalized Christianity and became a leader in the church but was not the head of the church. These "Baptists" that Carroll refers to are the Donatists.

There is no evidence that the Donatists denied baptismal regeneration or denied infant baptism and no evidence that they separated themselves from people who did. The Donatists were in full communion with the rest of the Church. There was no "Catholic" denomination at that time as Carroll refers to it. This is a much later development. At that time there was simply the Christian Church. You can read a good article on the Donatists here. During the persecutions of Christians under Diocletian there were some Christians who renounced the faith. When persecution ended many of them wanted to return to back to the church. The Donatists did not believe they should be allowed to return into full communion and denied the validity of the sacraments that were administered by priests who renounced the faith during the persecution. According to Carroll one of the marks of the true New Testament church is that they do not use carnal weapons to promote their beliefs. But this cannot be said of the Donatists. Donatists were killed by the Christian church but when Donatists gained political power, Donatists killed Christians. Carroll writes:

The course followed by the loyal churches soon, of course, incurred the hot displeasure of the state religionists, many, if not most of whom, were not genuine Christians. The name "Christian," however, was from now on denied those loyal churches who refused to accept these new errors. They were robbed of that, and called by many other names, sometimes by one and sometimes by another, "Montanist, "Tertullianists," "Novationists," "Paterines," etc., and some at least because of their practice of rebaptizing those who were baptized in infancy, were referred to an "Ana -Baptists."

The Montanists and Tertullianists did not reject the validity of infant baptism or baptismal regeneration. They believed that baptism should be delayed because they believed that all sins were washed away at the time of baptism that were committed until that time. The Montanists had a strong emphasis on the continuation of prophecy, ascetic lifestyle, and believed that the New Jerusalem was in west-central Phrygia. The Novatians did not reject infant baptism or baptismal regeneration. They believed that those who renounced their faith during the persecution of Emperor Decius should not be admitted back into the church. The Paterines (or Pataria) lived in the 11th Century and were opposed to both clerical marriage and concubinage. Some claim that they were opposed to all marriage, thought women should be allowed to teach in the church, and regarded matter as evil. But they were a group within the Christian church and there is no record of them denying infant baptism or baptismal regeneration. If they truly regarded matter as evil it's possible that they regarded baptism as completely unnecessary but that doesn't seem likely. The Trail of Blood Chart places the Paterines/Paterins/Pataria around the year 300 but I don't see any evidence of this.

To Be Continued...

Baptist Successionism Part 1: The Introduction to "The Trail of Blood"

Baptist successionism teaches that there is an unbroken of chain of churches since the time of the Apostles that have remained separate from the Roman Catholic church and taught Baptist doctrine. The first known Baptist to argue for Baptist Successionism was John Spittlehouse in 1652. Since the 19th century most Baptists have abandoned these claims because of the lack of real historical evidence.

Unfortunately some do still hold to the claims of Baptist successionism and this belief ends up being a distraction from Jesus Christ The circular reasoning of Baptist successionism makes it almost impossible to convince the Baptist successionist that his church's is teaching contrary to the Scriptures. Most Baptist successionists are very anti-Roman Catholic but their line of argument really isn't much different. The Roman Catholic church believes it is the one true church based on a questionable succession of bishops going back to the Apostles. They teach that the Pope is the successor of St. Peter. Later Roman Catholic dogma gets read into the early church fathers and the New Testament. When a Roman Catholic is questioned about this later doctrinal development that appears contrary to the Scriptures he will make the claim that the person who wrote this book of the Bible was a member of the Roman Catholic church and so they would never contradict Roman Catholic dogma. They insist that all passages must be read in a way that conforms with Roman dogma.

The Baptist successionist finds his own legitimacy through a supposedly unbroken line of Baptist churches going back to the Apostles. Unlike the case of the Roman Catholics, this line of succession is not just questionable, there is no historic record of it at all. The Baptists Successionist starts with the presupposition that his church is teaching the truth, point to Christ's promises that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church, and then claims that there MUST be a continuous line of churches teaching what his church teaches. The lack of historical evidence is explained by saying that the historical records were destroyed by the Roman Catholic Church.

The problem in both the Roman and Baptist cases is that the Scriptures are no longer the final authority--what the particular church teaches is the final authority. What the particular church teaches is read back into the Scriptures. Many of these Baptist churches also teach KJV-onlyism but they are always reading their own church's traditions into the KJV. They don't believe that "baptism doth also now save us" (1 Peter 3:21) or that it is "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38). In fact if you taught either of these things they would accuse you of teaching the "heresy" of baptismal regeneration. They don't teach that the Lord's Supper is the body and blood of Christ. It doesn't matter to them that all the historical records indicate that everyone in the early church took the Scriptures literally and taught that the Lord's Supper is the body and blood of Christ and that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins.

The rest of this post will tediously go through the claims made in J.M. Carroll's popular pamphlet The Trail of Blood. There are some more recent pamphlets like this one by Thomas Cassidy but they basically just parrot Carroll's work.

The introduction to the book is written by Clarence Walker.Walker begins by quoting sources that speak of persecution of the anabaptists. Many of these acts are real and inexcusable. But its not as if the anabaptists have no blood on their own hands. Many of the anabaptists were violent revolutionaries. The anabaptist John of Leyden got his own army together and took over Münster. He made himself king, kicked out dissenters, and set up a strange polygamous theocracy. Much of the Baptist literature would have you believe that Baptists were always persecuted and never persecutors but history says otherwise. Much of the literature will also tell you that Baptists have always promoted the separation of church and state but this just isn't true.

I haven't taken the time to research all the quotes that are merely in regards to the persecution of Baptists. I'm more interested in the quotes that make claims that there was a continuous line of persecution of Baptists back to the time of the Apostles. The most interesting quote is that of Cardinal Hosius. Hosius was a Roman Catholic, the quote is dated from 1524, and he is said to have been the President of the Council of Trent. According to Walker quoting Carroll, Hosius wrote:

"Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.)

So according this "quote" the Baptists had existed for at least 1200 years. Ben Townsend provides a vey detailed analysis of this "quote."  Townsend notes that there is no "Apud Opera" in Hosius's writings. "Baptist" was also not a term that was used at that time. They were referred to an anabaptists. Hosius was not the "President" of the Council of Trent. He was delegate. Also, the Council of Trent was not even taking place in 1524. It took place between 1561-1563. It appears that what is actually being provided is a paraphrase of a paraphrase found in Baptist magazine. Townsend was able to locate what he believes is the original quotation written in 1563 by Hosius in Liber Epistolarum 150, titled “Alberto Bavariae Duci.” Townsend sent the Latin to an expert for a translation. This is the result:

"For not so long ago I read the edict of the other prince who lamented the fate of the Anabaptists who, so we read, were pronounced heretics twelve hundred years ago and deserving of capital punishment. He wanted them to be heard and not taken as condemned without a hearing." (by Carolinne White, Ph.D, Oxford University, Head of Oxford Latin)

The actual quote does not provide evidence that there was continual persecution of the anabaptists for the 1200 years before this was written but that some of the same errors of the Baptists were declared heresy 1200 years before this was written. Hosius believed that the Anabaptists were committing some of the same errors as the Donatists did 1200 years prior to that. I'll compare the teachings of the Donatists and the Baptists later. The next quote of interest is by Sir Isaac Newton who reportedly said:

"The Baptists are the only body of known Christians that have never symbolized with Rome."

There is no reference to verify this quote and without context its difficult to determne what Sir Isaac Newton was trying to say. After doing some research I found some Baptist successionist sites that did provide a citation and said that this quote appears in the Memoirs of Whiston,page 201. Whiston was a student of Isaac Newton. Both were Arians. The book can be read online and there is nothing about Newton or the Baptists on page 201 and nothing that resembles the quote above. The only place I found in the book where Newton and the Baptists are mentioned together is on page 206. Whitson writes about how he became convinced that only those who have been catechized should be baptized, wrote a paper a paper about it and sent it to Isaac Newton (I updated the spelling in the quote:

"I sent this paper also, by an intimate friend, Mr. Haines, to Sir Isaac Newton, and desired to know his opinion : the answer returned was this, that they both had discovered the same before : nay, I afterward found that Sir Ifaac Newton was so hearty for the baptists, as well as for the Eusebians or Arians that he sometimes suspected these two were the two witnesses in the Revelation."

The next quote of interest from The Trail of Blood is from the Lutheran historian J.L. Mosheim. It says:

"Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay secreted in almost all the countries of Europe persons who adhered tenaciously to the principles of modern Dutch Baptists."

The quote does not say that there is an unbroken line of Baptist churches that date back to the time of the Apostles but that there were theologically similar groups that existed before the time of the Reformation. But once again we don't have a citation. I found some Baptist successionist sites that have an even longer "quote" but still without citation:

"Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay secreted in almost all the countries of Europe, persons who adhered tenaciously to the principles of the modern Dutch Baptists...the origin of Baptists is lost in the remote depths of antiquity...the first century was a history of Baptists."

The only thing that I could find by Mosheim that even comes close to page 200ff. BOOK IV. CENT. XVI. SEC. III. PART II. CHAP. III. of The Institues of Ecclesiastical History:

The modern Mennonites affirm that their predecessors were the descendants of those Waldensians who were oppressed by the tyranny of the papists; and that they were a most pure offspring, and most averse from any inclinations towards sedition as well as from all fanatical views. On the contrary, their adversaries contend that they are descended from those turbulent and furious Anabaptists, who in the sixteenth century involved Germany, Holland, Switzerland, and especially Westphalia, in so many calamities and civil wars; but that being terrified by the dreadful fate of their associates, through the influence of Menno Simonis especially, they have gradually assumed a more sober character. After duly examining the whole subject with impartiality, I conceive that neither statement is altogether true. In the first place, I believe the Mennonites are not altogether in the wrong, when they boast of a descent from those Waldensians, Petrobrusians, and others, who are usually styled the Witnesses for the truth before Luther. Prior to the age of Luther, there lay concealed in almost every country of Europe, but especially in Bohemia, Moravia, Switzerland, and Germany, very many persons, in whose minds was deeply rooted that principle which the Waldensians, tho Wycliffites, and the Hussites maintained, some more covertly and others more openly; namely, that the kingdom which Christ set up on the earth, or the visible church, is an assembly of holy persons, and ought therefore to be entirely free, not only from ungodly persons and sinners, but from all institutions of human device against ungodliness. This principle that such a church as they had formed an idea of, would never be established by human means, indulged the hope that God himself would in his own time erect for himself a new church, free from every blemish and impurity ; and that he would raise up certain persons, and fill them with heavenly light for the accomplishment of this great object. Others, more discreet, looked for neither miracles nor inspiration ; but judged that the church might bo purified from all the contaminations of evil men, and be brought into the state that Christ had intended, by human efforts and care, provided the practice and the regulations of the ancient Christians were restored to their pristine dignity and influence...Whether the origin of this discordant sect which caused such mischief land, or in Holland and Germany, in some other country, it is not important to know, and is impossible fully to determine. In my opinion, this only can be affirmed, that at one and the same time, that is, not long after the commencement of the reformation by Luther, there arose men of this sort, in several different countries. This may be inferred from the fact, that the first leaders of any note among the Anabaptists were, nearly all, founders of distinct sects. For though all these reformers of the church, or rather these projectors of new churches, are called Anabaptists, because they all denied that infants are proper subjects of baptism, and solemnly baptized over again those who had been baptized in infancy ; yet from the very beginning, just as at the present day, they were split into various parties which disagreed and disputed about points of no small importance. The worst part of this motley tribe, namely, that which supposed the founders of their ideal and perfect church would be endued with divine powers and would work miracles, began to raise great disturbances in Saxony and the neighbouring countries, in the year 1521, under the guidance of Thomas Munzer."

What Mosheim actually says is that just prior to the Reformation there were groups who taught "that the kingdom which Christ set up on the earth, or the visible church, is an assembly of holy persons, and ought therefore to be entirely free, not only from ungodly persons and sinners, but from all institutions of human device against ungodliness." Also note that according to Mosheim these groups descended from the Waldensians and Petrobrusians. The Waldensians were started by Peter Waldo who was excommunicated from the Catholic Church for preaching without permission in the early 1180s. Waldo did not deny that infants should be baptized. He gave up his possessions to the poor and focused his attention on morality. Some of his spiritual descendants did deny infant baptism but others did not. Many of his descendants joined the Lutheran and Calvinist churches after the Reformation. The Petrobrusians were founded by Peter of Bruys in the 12th Century. Peter of Bruys rejected the Old Testament. He encouraged and practiced physical violence towards the clergy and taught that church buildings should be destroyed. He did teach that only those who have confessed their faith should be baptized but taught that it is a requirement salvation making him more a forerunner of the Campbellites than the Baptists.

The next "quote" of interest is attributed to the Edinburg Cyclopedia:

"It must have already occurred to our readers that the Baptists are the same sect of Christians that were formerly described as Ana-Baptists. Indeed this seems to have been their leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present time."

Once again no citation is provided. This one took more work to find but find it I did.

If opposition to the mode in which baptism is commonly administered be the distinguishing characteristic of this sect, Tertullian, who lived about the end of the second century, may be accounted one of its earliest founders. A short time afterwards, Agrippinus, a Carthaginian bishop, and many of the neighbouring clergy, re jected the baptisms which were then administered, and rebaptized all those who joined this society. Cyprian and his followers adopted the same sentiments in the third century. From Carthage these opinions migrated to the East, and Firmilian, bishop of Casana, and many other bishops in Asia, re-baptized. The Novatians and Donatists likewise condemned baptism as then commonly administered, and embraced the sentiments of those who re-baptized. The ostensible reason which all these persons assigned for this conduct, was the wickedness of those who were universally admitted to baptism, and which, in their opinion, rendered the ordinance altogether invalid...But though there were many individuals, and even some small societies, who maintained the opinions, and deserved the appellation of baptists before the Refor mation, yet it was only about that period that the insulated members were collected into one body, were properly organized, and attracted the attention of Europe...It must have already occurred to our readers, that the baptists are the same sect of Christians which we formerly described under the appellation of ANA BAPTISTS. It is but justice to acknowledge, that they reject the latter appellation with disdain and main tain, that as none of the adopted by churches are consonant to scripture, the baptism of these churches is in reality no baptism. Hence, in their opinion, they do not rebaptize. Indeed, this seems to have been their great leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present day. According to them, something essential to baptism, either in the subjects, or in the administrators, or in the mode, was omitted, which rendered the rite altogether nugatory ; and hence they asserted, that their baptism was the first that was administered to such as were proper subjects of it."

You can read what Tertullian wrote about baptism here. Tertullian taught baptismal regeneration and didn't reject infant baptism as being an illegitimate baptism. He did teach that he thought it would be better if baptism were delayed so that the baptismal sponsors would not fall into sin by failing to keep their promises and doesn't seem to believe in original sin so he doesn't believe the unbaptized child is in danger. He also advises against the unwed being baptized. What the Edinburg Cyclopedia is actually saying is that since the time of Tertullian there have been those who argued that a real baptism didn't take place if there was something wrong with the "subjects, or in the administrators, or in the mode" that made baptism invalid. The Encyclopedia is not saying that there is a continual line of churches who believe what the modern day Baptist does. It's saying that since the time of Tertullian there have been those who thought that the way baptism was commonly practiced in the church was not good enough and made the baptism "not real" and so a "real" baptism needed to take place even though they disagreed with one another as to what made it "real."

All the relevant quotes in support of Baptist successionism are taken out of context and distorted. It's as if they are all bad paraphrases of someone else's bad paraphrase.


To Be Continued...

Being Passionate

I was listening to the radio a couple of months ago and they were interviewing some people who had just been to some kind of event that Mitt Romney spoke at. A couple of the people said that they didn't think Mitt Romney was angry enough. I can think of lots of reasons not to vote for Mitt Romney but not being angry enough isn't one of them. Many of these people would have been happy if Mitt Romney had come out yelling, screaming, and throwing chairs even if the content of what he said was the same. They are angry with the political machinery and aren't as concerned with actually fixing problems as they are having someone to express their outrage in a public way. After a political debate content usually takes a back seat to how "presidential" a person acted or how passionate they were.

Unfortunately our expectation of passion for the sake of passion is not limited to our expectations of government leaders. Pastors are praised for "being passionate" or dynamic. I've found websites that say you should leave a church if it does not have a passion for the lost. I recently read an interview with a local worship leader who talked about how important it is to show that you are passionate so that you can create the right worship experience and everyone else will get passionate with you.

If you are critical of what these passionate pastors teach or of how they teach, people will sometimes say, "I don't agree with everything he says but he has such a passion for the lost." But that's not the point. The Bible doesn't call anyone to be passionate. Being passionate is not where the Bible directs us for assurance or one of the qualifications for being a pastor. Pastors are called to be self-controlled, not quarellsome, disciplined, not violent, not quick-tempered, sober-minded, able to teach, and gentle. These Scriptural qualifications mean that if somebody is completely driven by passion they should not be serving as a pastor. A person who is consumed with passion is being driven by his own emotions.

That doesn't mean that pastors are not to have any emotion but their emotions should not be driving them. Jesus did not go around trying to scare people into heaven through elaborate emotional appeals about the terrors of hell. He said what hell was and left it at that. Jesus did respond in anger to the money changers in the temple but that was for theological reasons. The money changers made it seem that you could buy your way into heaven. There are good Scriptural reasons for getting angry with passionate people who preach themselves and use all kinds of gimmicks instead of preaching Christ-crucified and delivering the forgiveness of sins in Word and Sacrament. There are Scriptural reasons for getting angry at those who tell us that what we believe really isn't as important as how we live. There are Scriptural reasons for getting angry with anyone who does not preach the real Jesus crucified for sinners regardless of how passionate they may be for the lost.

Expository Preaching, Revivalism, and Biblical Fidelity

There are plenty of bad sermons out there where a pastor just picks a topic and goes hunting for verses to support his topic. When the verses are read in context, it becomes obvious that these passages are not trying to teach what the pastor is trying to teach.

So many opt for "expository" preaching. Often the pastor will go verse by verse through the Scriptures trying to tease out every little nuance of the Greek or Hebrew. In some cases a sermon may be on three words at the beginning of a sentence. The pastor may take one year or even several years going verse by verse through a particular book of the Bible.

But is this the point of preaching? Is the pastor primarily a teacher that is supposed to teach you about all the nuances of the Greek and Hebrew? Do the Scriptures provide any examples of preaching?

In Luke 4:16-20 we find the shortest recorded sermon:

He came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. He entered, as was his custom, into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read. The book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. He opened the book, and found the place where it was written, “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim release to the captives, recovering of sight to the blind, to deliver those who are crushed, and to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.” He closed the book, gave it back to the attendant, and sat down. The eyes of all in the synagogue were fastened on him. He began to tell them, “Today, this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”

Jesus reads from the lectionary reading assigned for that day and then explains it in a single sentence. In Luke
Luke 24:45-47 we read:

Then he opened their minds, that they might understand the Scriptures. He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name to all the nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Jesus opened the minds of his disciples and showed them that all the Scriptures are all about Jesus. In 1 Corinthians 2:2 Paul says:

For I determined not to know anything among you, except Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

In 2 Corinthians 5:18-19 Paul says:

But all things are of God, who reconciled us to himself through Jesus Christ, and gave to us the ministry of reconciliation; namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not reckoning to them their trespasses, and having committed to us the word of reconciliation. We are therefore ambassadors on behalf of Christ, as though God were entreating by us: we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

Paul believes that the central message of every sermon should be Christ-crucified--at least that is how Paul preached. God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself and its Paul's job as an ambassador of Christ to make that reconciliation known. That's exactly what Paul does in his letters. Each one of Paul's letters was originally intended to be read in the churches as a sermon. These are infallible and inspired sermons and so we should use them as a point of reference to determine what a sermon should look like. The length of Paul's sermons vary from very short to very long. Paul's letters address a variety of problems in the church. But they are all centered on Christ-crucified--in every single sermon Paul is acting as a minister of reconciliation.

Historically in the church there has been a reading from the Epistles and a reading from the Gospels. Historically, the sermon has generally been on the Gospel and if someone wants to preach like Paul this seems to be the best practice. If you preach on few verses or part of a verse from one of the Epistles you are really preaching on a small portion of somebody else's sermon. Because this is just a small selection from a sermon, if you preach on it, it is very likely that your sermon will have entirely different focus from that of Paul.

This is what you find in John MacArthur's sermons. He doesn't understand the Scriptural distinctions between Law and Gospel so he even takes objective Gospel statements and turns them into Law even when he's preaching on one of the Gospels. He'll preach on John 15 where Jesus says that He it the vine and we are the branche where Jesus promises that if we abide in Him we will bear fruit and makes the sermon all about internal self-evaluation to determine if your life is on a general trajectory of fruit-bearing to determine if you are a "for-real" Christian. Expository pastors give you the impression that they are just preaching the Bible. But in reality they are reading their own pietist traditions into the Bible. They are always taking objective outward-looking Gospel statements about what Jesus has done and turning us inward to our own experience.

It's even easier to make this same mistake when you are just preaching on a short selection from the writings of Paul. Our natural man's inclination is always trying to look away from what Christ has objectively done for us and instead look for life principles or rules that we can do or a mystical experience that we can have. The lectionary is helpful because it keeps pastors off their hobby horses and focuses our attention on the life and work of Jesus rather than our own works.

Good preaching will explain the text well but with a certain goal in mind. The goal is not a geography lesson, a Greek or Hebrew lesson, or even a doctrinal treatise. The goal is the forgiveness of sins. The sermon must be about Christ-crucified. The sermon must declare that we have been reconciled to God in Christ. Different passages of Scripture will lead to sermons that focus on specific sins and different aspects of our reconciliation. But ultimately if the sermon is about something other than Christ-crucified for sinners it is not a Christian sermon. The central message of the Scriptures is not Christ in you but Christ for you.

This type of preaching will not turn a pastor into a superstar. Subjective preaching that focuses on  inward transformation and "feeling" the pesence of God will always be more popular. The individual pastor's personality and his ability to be a dynamic speaker will take center stage. The more he can work people up into an emotional frenzy, the more people will talk about how they wish that  their pastors were more like this revivalist.

But popularity does not equal Biblical fidelity. We don't find the Apostle Paul trying to scare people into heaven by providing emotional descriptions of God hanging people over the flames of hell. We don't find Paul calling on everyone to examine themselves to see if they are "real" Christians.

Instead, we find Paul faithfully preaching Law, Gospel, and Christ-crucified. Faithful pastors who do this are loved by real sinners but will not be opening up satellite churches. Because if Biblical fidelity is the goal, the pastor down the block can do that too. He doesn't need to be skilled in the art of manipulations. The pastor becomes interchangable in a good way. He faithfully carries out the taks given to him by Christ. He doesn't draw attention to himself or try to impress those who don't know any better with his amazing Greek skills. He delivers Jesus.

The real Biblical church is a multi-site church. But it's not a multi-site church where everyone stares at a screen and talks about how great the pastor is. The real multi-site church is one in which we all gather at our local church and receive the same Jesus in the preaching in the Gospel and are given the same Jesus to eat and to drink while we worship with angels and archangels and all the company of heaven.

Why Don't KJV-Onlyists Believe the KJV?

The majority of KJV-onlyists are fundamentalist Baptists of one kind or another. Some would make the claim that the KJV is the most faithful translation while others would say that it is actually superior to the Greek and Hebrew that it was translated from. Aside from obvious questions about translation errors and the sheer randomness of designating the KJV as God's approved translation, I find something else even stranger. When the Jehovah Witnesses tell you that the New World Translation is the most accurate translation of the Bible, that's because the New World Translation has been translated in such a way to promote JW beliefs. But the KJV contradicts Baptist beliefs.

The Baptists claim that wine is sinful and therefore Jesus did not turn water into wine, but instead he turned water into grape juice. But the KJV says he turned water into wine.

The Baptists claim that "baptize" always means "immerse." But why didn't the KJV translate it as "immerse?"

The Baptists claim that baptism is an act where you testify of your own faith and has nothing to do with salvation. Why doesn't the KJV say that it is to testify of your own faith? Why does the KJV say things like "baptism doth also now save us" (1 Peter 3:21) and that baptism is "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38)?

If the Lord's Supper is just a memorial meal, why doesn't the KJV say that? Why does the KJV have Jesus saying that it's for the "remission of sins"?

There's a textual variant in 1 Corinthians 11:24. The KJV reads, "Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you." In other versions it says "given for you" instead of "broken for you" because of the textual variant. Personally, I think the reading in the KJV is the better choice but it does a very poor job of supporting Baptist doctrine. "Given for you" is preferable if you are trying to support Baptist teaching. The crucifixion accounts make it very clear that not a bone in Jesus's body was broken. The only time Jesus's body is broken is in the Lord's Supper itself when it is broken to be distributed.

From a Baptist perspective it would make a lot more sense to be a Living Bible-onlyist. The Living Bible by paraphrasing does a much better job of supporting Baptist doctrine both on the sacraments and on eschatology. But the KJV-onlyist will tell you that these modern versions water down and twist God's Word. I have to agree that paraphrases like the Living Bible certainly do water down God's Word but its because they twist the text to support Baptist doctrine. If a KJV-onlyist took the KJV seriously he would become a Lutheran.

Do Baptists Baptize or Do They Just Immerse?

Have you ever heard the term "baby sprinkler" used? I'm not talking about lawn and garden equipment or what baby boys often do while being changed. Rather, it's about a particular term that is used by Baptists in reference to those who thinks babies should be baptized along with everyone else. My pastor pours the water and would baptized unbaptized adults as well so maybe the term doesn't even apply to me, but what I find interesting about this term is what it reveals about the person who uses it.

The person who uses the term is for lack of a cooler term a "speech-capable immersionist." I know, it's not as catchy as baby sprinkler. I would like to use the term "adult immersionist" but adulthood is generally not required by them (judging by the prayer at a NASCAR event being an adult isn't even a requirement to be one of their pastors). If you come up with a cooler sounding name please let me know.

The two pillars of Speech-Capable Immersionism are immersion and the ability of the one being baptized to verbally confess his faith or fill out a card. Churches and denominations are filled with people who disagree on all kinds of soteriological issues but find their unity in the belief that the baptismal candidate must be immersed and must be able to verbally confess his faith prior to doing so.

 The Bapist Faith and Message used by the Southern Baptist Convention is typical of Baptist confessions of faith (whether they are Calvinist, Arminian, or somewhere in-between) in what it says about baptism:

Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper.

According to this statement, baptism is an act of obedience (the Bible never says that) and that it symbolizes the believer's faith and is a testimony that the believer is making (the Bible doesn't say that either). It's also your ticket to the Lord's Supper. The Scriptures teach that baptism is "for the forgiveness of sins," "now saves us/you," and is the "washing of regeneration." The Scriptures teach that baptism is all about something that is done to us. The Baptist Faith and Message turns it all into something that we do as a testimony. The Scriptures say that through baptism we are actually united to Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection but the Baptist Faith and Message says that

It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead.

There is an important element within the statement of faith and in most statements of faith of this kind that I think often gets missed by Baptists:

Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

So it's not that the baptismal formula is completely absent from Baptist baptism. The statement seems to suggest at least that baptism is "immersion" with the Word. At least I hope so. I was conversing with and a pastor of an Independent Baptist church and asked him what he believed these words meant. He told me that he didn't even use the words during the baptism. During the baptism he reads from Romans 6. He didn't believe that Matthew 28:19 contained a baptismal formula at all. He believe that "in the name of" simply meant "by the authority of." I checked the writings of the famous Baptist scholar A.T. Robertson and he makes this argument as well. More liberal Baptist scholars like G. R. Beasley-Murray, despite the lack of any manuscript evidence, argue that the text originally said "into the name of Jesus" but was changed over time to conform to liturgical developments.

Some point out that in the book of Acts, it says that people are baptized "in the name of Jesus." It seems more likely from the context that in Acts, "in the name of" means "by authority of." In one instance the Greek construction is even different from that found in Matthew. The baptismal formula isn't given but the narrative in Acts is saying that the Apostles were baptized according to the commission given to them in Matthew 28.

I watched some Baptist baptismal services on Youtube and in every instance the pastor would speak the baptismal formula from Matthew 28 but he did so prior to the immersion in water. His actions seemed to indicate that he believed that the passage in Matthew 28 merely gave him authority to baptize rather than actually being part of the baptism. This is a departure from historic baptismal practice where the person being baptized is immersed or has the water poured on them while the baptismal formula is said. The Roman Catholic church demands that the water be poured while the words are said in order for it to be considered a valid baptism. The intention of the Baptist does not seem to be to baptize the person into the name of the Triune God but rather to immerse someone as commanded by the Triune God.

In my opinion, Baptist baptism, although it usually uses the right words, seems to deny those words in both action and teaching in the much the same way that they use the words of institution in the Lord's Supper but deny those words. I would appreciate some feedback on this. Maybe I've missed something and am completely wrong. It really isn't my place to determine the validity of baptism. At the very least, the practice introduces doubt into the baptism and baptism was given to us as something objective that we can look to with certainty.

But regardless of whether or not we regard Baptist baptism as valid, I think that having this conversation with Baptists about the necessity of the Word in baptism would allow us to have more fruitful discussions. The Baptists tradition is so focused on the particular mode of baptism and who should or should not be baptized that I don't believe that most Baptists have even considered whether or not God's Word plays a role in the actual baptism. For Lutherans, baptism is not just plain water "but the Word of God in and with the water" that gives us what is promised in baptism. For Lutherans, baptism is the "washing of water with the Word" (Eph. 5:26). For Lutherans the focal point is always God's Word that says what it does. For the Baptist the focal point is obedience to a command to baptize in a way that they believe Scripture commands. It is a work. Baptists know that our works cannot save us. So it's important for the pastor to emphasize that it is God's Word that saves and forgives sins in baptism. Contrary to the accusations, Lutherans do not believe that babies are saved simply by throwing water on them.

A serious conversation needs to be had with Baptists about whether or not God's Word is necessary for there to be a baptism and what that means.

The Unscandalous Cross that Divides Us

There is a famous thought experiment in ethics known as the Trolley Problem.

A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?

Should you flip the switch to allow fewer deaths or should you avoid flipping the switch to avoid being an accomplice in an evil act? Would failing to act at all be an evil act? There are a variety of other experiments in ethics based on the trolley problem. This one is my own.

A trolley is running full speed down a track. In its path is your only son. The people in the trolley molested, beat, and ridiculed your son all his life even though he never did any harm to them. The people in the trolley hate you and want to kill you even though you've done nothing but good things for them. You've invited them to feasts--given them all the food and drink they could ever ask for. You've bought homes for them. The people in the trolley tied your son to the track and are trying to run him over. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley off the side of a cliff or you could let them run your son over. If you allow the people to live, they will continue to abuse and kill others. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?

I know what I would do. I would pull the switch and I'm sure you would too. There are plenty of popular movies where a man's child gets kidnapped and he goes and kills hundreds of bad guys to get his kid back. If we were able to do this we would. If all we had to do was flip a switch, we wouldn't think twice about it. In addition to saving your son you get to do away with all these horrible people.

But God does not choose this option. God doesn't flip the switch. In self-sacrificial love for these people, the Father gives His Son to them to be beaten and abused and killed. In self-sacrificial love for these people, the Son offers Himself to be beaten and abused and killed. The Son is beaten and abused and killed for you--to suffer for your sins. You gleefully run Him over and in return you receive the forgiveness of sins. This is not reasonable. And this is only a dim shadow of the reality of it all. The crucifixion is much more gruesome and much more unreasonable. It is also an even greater yet more unthinkable act of love.

Because God-crucified is so incomprehensible we will not look at Him. We look around Him or behind Him or in some other direction.

We speak of the crucifixion as something God did to satisfy His own justice and bring glory to Himself. While there is some truth to these statements, too often they are used to avoid the real issue. God is hanging there bleeding and dying on a cross for your sins and you're rationalizing it.

Rather than being the central message as it was for the Apostles, Christ-crucified is understood as almost unnecessary. In Calvinist circles there are the infralapsarian/supralapsarian debates where each party believes that they can get inside of God's head and figure out the logical order of His decrees. Both positions distract us from the way that God has chosen to reveal Himself on the cross. They both turn us to the hidden God and His secret will. They are both theologies of glory. Both regard election as central rather than Christ. Neither position is based on the Scriptures but have more to do with the one doing the theological exercise. God is examined as if He were an impersonal series of events that could be studied in the laboratory.

The Biblical language is very rich and speaks of the atonement in a variety of ways. The Scriptures speak of reconciliation, expiation, propitiation, redemption, victory, etc. Rather than acknowledge the richness, some theologians choose to pick out one term and exclude the others to make the atonement more sensible. Liberals don't like the propitiation language. Calvinists don't like the universal reconciliation and justification language. The Scriptural atonement language describe an atonement that is not reasonable, but should we expect it to be? The Calvinist says that Christ did not die for those who will be damned because that wouldn't be sensible. But that's like watching Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and deciding that everything is believable except for the fact that the rat is named Splinter. He's the leader, shouldn't he have a better name? God dying for sinners doesn't make sense to begin with. We are told in the Scriptures that God's ways are not our ways (Isaiah 55:8-9). What God has not revealed is not given to us to know (Deuteronomy 29:29).

But how could people be damned if Jesus died for them? The Scriptures do not give us all the details but always attribute damnation to unbelief. They never speak of damnation as being the result of Jesus not dying for the person. 2 Peter 2:1 speaks of those who deny the Master who bought them and Romans 5 says that all who died in Adam were justified on the cross. But why would God die for people if they would eventually be damned? The question seems to imply that there is something reasonable about God dying for anyone in the first place. God bleeding and dying for us can only be understood through what is actually revealed to us. God dying is beyond and contrary to reason. We are incapable of rationalizing it. We can only stand in awe with out mouths hanging open and a sick stomach staring at God's incomprehensible love displayed for us on the cross.

Because Jesus said He was going to do this unthinkable thing and actually did it when He can trust what He says. Jesus told His disciples rather frequently that He was going to be killed and rise again. They spiritualized this language. It wouldn't sensible for a good Messiah to die on us. If Jesus is truly God, God dying is even less sensible. He must be speaking figuratively. They were utterly astonished when Jesus died and even more astonished when He rose again.

Many do the same thing with the sacraments. They say Jesus could not possibly mean what He sounded like He was saying because that would just be crazy. Of course it's crazy, but so is the whole thing.

When Jesus says, "This is my body" and "This is my blood" it's really rather silly to say that He can't mean what He sounds like He's saying because it's just too crazy. The Gospel is crazy. To deny what sounds crazy would mean to deny the incarnation itself. The sacraments should be embraced for what Jesus says they are rather than explained via Aristotle or contradicted by our observations.