Generations ...

I have just finished Mary Kassian's The Feminist Mistake. This is a great book to read to have an overview of feminism and the damage that it has caused in the last 50+ years. While there are many quotes and thoughts going through my mind, given my last post I would like to share this one first:

Principles which one generation accepts provisionally, in the context of other cultural commitments, soon harden into icy dogmas for a generation brought up on nothing else. [1]

This is valid for liberation theology, feminism, liberal theology, and any other system we set up. May we be careful in all we do, say, and write.

[1] To be honest, I did something a good researcher should not do, but I don't have the time to deal with it now ... Kassian is not the author of this quote, she quotes it from Michael Novak, Will It Liberate? Questions About Liberation Theology (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1986), 27. I did not check Novak's work for accuracy or context, but even if this is not what Novak intended, it is the warning I am trying to communicate.

Albert Schweitzer

I am currently reading for my comprehensive exams (the comps, as they are know around here), and I just finished Albert Schweitzer's The Quest of the Historical Jesus. Overall, I thought that it was a very interesting book that helped me get a global perspective on a century of German historical higher critical thought (with the inclusion of a few French authors), starting with Hess and Reinhard in the early 1800s.

While reading it, I think I found confirmation of a thought I had about the "liberals" of the time. It seems to me that while we might quickly dismiss them as having played a pivotal role in the crumbling of Christianity, they themselves did not think that they were doing so. Their Christian identity was strong enough that they did not see how their attacks on the text of Scripture would damage Christianity. Listen to what Schweitzer writes:

"God-manhood, the highest idea conceived by human thought, is actually in the historic personality of Jesus. But while conventional thinking supposes that this phenomenal realisation must be perfect, true thought which has attained by genuine critical reasoning to a higher freedom, knows that no idea can realise itself perfectly on the historic plane, and that its truth does not depend on the proof of its having received perfect external representation, but that its perfection comes about through that which the idea carries into history, or through the way in which history is sublimated into idea.

. . . However far criticism may go in providing the reaction of the idea upon the presentment of the historical course of the life of Jesus, the fact that Jesus represented that idea and called it to life among mankind is something real, something that no criticism can annul. It is alive thenceforward—to this day, and forever more.

It is in this emancipation of spirit, and in the consciousness that Jesus as the creator of the religion of humanity is beyond the reach of criticism, that Strauss goes to work, and batters down the rubble, assured that his pick can make no impression on the stone" (78-79).

And again, as he concludes his book:

"Jesus means something to our world because a mighty Spiritual force streams forth from Him and flows through our time also. This fact can neither be shaken nor confirmed by any historical discovery. It IS the solid foundation of Christianity.

. . . further we must be prepared to find that the historical knowledge of the personality and life of Jesus will not be a help, but perhaps even an offence to religion.

But the truth is, it is not Jesus as historically known, but Jesus as spiritually arisen within men. who is significant for our time and can help it. Not the historical Jesus, but the spirit which goes forth from Him and in the spirits of men strives for new inuence and rule, is that which overcomes the world" (393-95).

It sure does sound like he thought that their work could not and would not crumble their Christian faith (their stone). Unfortunately, what Schweitzer did not realize is that their arbitrary and subjective rationalistic assault on the veracity of the text of the Bible did not just leave an impression on the next generation's stone, for some, it shattered it. This is a good warning for our generation of Christian thinkers.

Anabaptist in Italy

I was asked by my adviser to present a paper on the Italian Anabaptists at this year's SWBTS Anabaptism and Contemporary Baptists Conference. I was honored to be presenting in the company of some great scholars who have studied the Anabaptists: Friesen, Patterson, Yarnell, and Caner, just name a few. If you did not get the opportunity to come, but have an interest in the Anabaptists, you can find the audio of the conference here.

This paper also gave me the opportunity to start researching the topic that will end up being my dissertation topic: Italian Anabaptism. I was originally set against doing a historical thesis, but over time I have seen some of the benefits of doing a thesis in historical theology and have develop an interest in this topic. I am looking forward to the next year of research and writing (but before I get there, I have to study and pass my comprehensive exams).

Copycat Duke's Mayo recipe

As some of you know, Cindy has some food allergies. This has caused us to have to make a lot of things from scratch; mayo is one of them. While on the east coast, we both loved the taste and kick of Duke's mayo, and therefore when I set about to make home made mayo, I decided to try to imitate that taste. Here is the recipe I have come up with so far. It is not perfect, but it gets close. Let me know if you can improve on it.

200g oil (I use 100g of light sunflower oil + 100g of light olive oil)

1 Tbsp white vinegar

1 Tbsp cider vinegar

1 Tbsp lemon juice

½ tsp (2 x ¼ tsp) salt

¼ tsp dried mustard

¼ tsp paprika

2 egg yolks

To make it, I use the technique found here (for making mayo, a stick blender is a lifesaver, but you can do it the old fashion way if you want). Put all the ingredients in the jar. Set the stick blender to speed 1. Place the end of the blender at the bottom of the jar, over the two yolks. Pulse beat the mixture 4 times. Continuously beat the mixture until all the oil is incorporated; you will have to pull the blender up from the bottom some. Set the stick blender to speed 9. Continuously beat the mixture until it is as thick as desired. Enjoy!

Through a passage vs. Topical

I saw a picture similar to this one in a friend's textbook. I thought that it graphically made a very important point: preaching through a passage, if done well, is most likely going to present the original author's point. Preaching topically, which often boils down to picking thoughts from different authors, is most likely going to present the preacher's own point instead of the original authors' intended points, which is a problem since ultimately, when we teach or preach, we are to present's God's truth, not our ideas.

Camillo Renato on Scripture

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

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

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

Jerome and Baptism

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

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

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

Fourth Trimester Abortion?

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

Determining the will of God and Newtonian Physics

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

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

Language distributions around the world.

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

The Anglophone world (original):

The Francophone world (original):

The Hispanophone world (original):

The Lusophone world (original):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 - Relation Between Local Churches - Summary of Ecclesiology Part III

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[16] Ibid., 924-26.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[7] Ibid.

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

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

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

[11] Ibid., 893.

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

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.