Baptists and Religious Liberty: A Call for Action

Posted on March 22, 2013 by Steve Weaver

Baptists have historically defended the principle of religious liberty. Since Baptists have always believed in churches made up only of professing, baptized believers, they have always rejected the idea of a state church union which results in a church composed of all citizens. In the sixteenth century, the European Anabaptists opposed the use of the sword to mandate matters of the conscience. Seventeenth-century proto-Baptists such as Thomas Helwys (in England)  and Roger Williams (in Colonial America) spoke directly to the governing authorities appealing for religious liberty. Baptists have always stood on the side of religious liberty for all. In fact, it was a group of Baptists in Danbury, CT, concerned about the infringement of the newly formed federal government upon the consciences of American citizens, to whom Thomas Jefferson responded in a letter with the famous expression of “separation of church and state” that has become such an important part of the American discussion concerning religious liberty. This expression was a summary of the rights guaranteed in the 1st amendment that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

We have the first amendment, in large part, due to the efforts of American Baptists such as Isaac Backus and John Leland. Leland, prominent Baptist preacher at the turn of the 19th century, had petitioned his Virginia legislator, James Madison, directly regarding his concern that more needed to be done to ensure religious liberty in the new country than the “Religious Test” clause of Article VI, paragraph 3 of the Constitution. Since Baptists represented a significant portion of the vote in Madison’s district, Leland’s threat to run for Madison’s seat in the House of Representatives resulted in a visit by Madison to his home. Coming out of that meeting was a compromise that included Leland agreeing not to run for Madison’s seat and Madison agreeing to champion Leland’s and his fellow Baptists’ concern for religious liberty. Madison kept his word and pushed for the Bill of Rights. Without Baptist involvement in the political process, it is at least possible that the protection of religious liberty from Congress would not exist.

Today, more than at any point since the turn of the 19th century, religious freedom in America is in jeopardy. Once again, Baptists need to lead the way in guaranteeing that our commitment to freedom of conscience in religious matters is preserved. The Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky today vetoed a bill (HB 279) which included important protections of religious liberty on the state level. This bill passed both houses of the Kentucky legislature with overwhelming bipartisan support. The Kentucky Baptist Convention, in historic Baptist manner, championed this bill and called for its passage. Now, we stand in need for the Baptists of Kentucky to speak up and ask their representatives to overturn the governor’s veto. For information on how you can help, please see this post on the website of the Kentucky Baptist Convention’s Committee on Public Affairs.

Filed under: 17th Century Baptists, Baptist, Kentucky Baptists, Religious Liberty | Leave a Comment »

John Smyth: Not the Founder of Baptists

Posted on January 31, 2013 by Steve Weaver

John Smyth (c. 1570-1612) is an important figure in Baptist history, mainly because of his commitment to religious liberty, a believer’s church, and “baptism” of believers. He was not, however, the founder of Baptists (Wikipedia is wrong.). His baptism was not technically baptism as it was done by affusion (pouring) and he did this to himself (se-baptism). The seventeenth-century English Baptists  did not acknowledge Smyth as their founder or initiator of the practice of baptism. In his work on baptism published in 1691, Hercules Collins directly refuted the claim that the English Baptists had received their baptism from John Smyth. This refutation was made in response to the paedo-baptist Thomas Wall who had claimed in his book Baptism Anatomized that the current “English Anabaptists” had “successively received” their baptism from Smyth who had baptized himself.[1] In Believers-Baptism from Heaven, Collins asserted that the Baptist community of which he was a part had not, in fact, had their baptism passed down to them from Smyth. In refuting this charge, he referenced then living sources who knew better. In so doing, he charged Wall with falsehood in his derogatory accusation regarding the origin of Baptists.

How many Leaves hast thou spent in thy Book, in asserting and maintaining a Lie, and to cast Filth upon the holy Ways of the Lord? Could not the Ordinance of Christ, which was lost in the Apostacy, be revived, (as the Feast of Tabernacles was, tho lost a great while) unless in such a filthy way as you falsly assert, viz. that the English Baptists received their Baptism from Mr. John Smith? It is absolutely untrue, it being well known, by some yet alive, how false this Assertion is; and if J.W.[2] will but give a meeting to any of us, and bring whom he pleaseth with him, we shall sufficiently shew the Falsity of what is affirmed by him in this Matter, and in many other things he hath unchristianly asserted.[3]

Those “yet alive” would certainly have included William Kiffin (1616-1701) and possibly Hanserd Knollys (b. 1599), who did not die until September of 1691, the same year in which these words were published.[4]

[1]Thomas Wall, Baptism Anatomized (London: G. Croom, 1691), 106-8.

[2]For some reason, Collins calls Thomas Wall “John Wall” in his response. Cf. Collins, Believers-Baptism from Heaven (London, 1691), 108 and 114. Thus, the initials “J. W.” in this quote. This is all the more curious since the cover page and table of contents both use Thomas Walls. Perhaps it was an intentional slight to liken Walls with the infamous John Child with whom he compares him on p. 114.

[3]Collins, Believers-Baptism from Heaven, 114-15. Italics in the original.

[4]Knollys had attended the 1691 General Assembly held 2-8 June 1691. He died on September 17, 1691, in his ninety-third year. For more on Knollys, see Barry H. Howson, Erroneous and Schismatical Opinions: the Question of Orthodoxy Regarding the Theology of Hanserd Knollys (c. 1599–1691) (Leiden: Brill, 2001).

Filed under: 17th Century Baptists, Baptist, Church History, Hercules Collins | Tagged: , , , , | 12 Comments »

Historian Greg Wills on the Demise of Church Discipline

Posted on January 23, 2013 by Steve Weaver

Gregory A. WillsAmerican Baptist Historian Greg Wills has written a tremendously helpful book on Baptist polity in the south during the period of 1785-1900. One of the striking features of Baptist life in the antebellum period noted by Wills was a strong emphasis on church discipline. Things have obviously changed and in the following selection, Wills opines on why this command of Christ to His church may have begun to be ignored.

After the Civil War, Baptist observers began to lament that church discipline was foundering, and it was. It declined partly because it became more burdensome in larger churches. Young Baptists refused in increasing numbers to submit to discipline for dancing, and the churches shrank from excluding them. Urban churches, pressed by the need for large buildings and the desire for refined music and preaching, subordinated church discipline to the task of keeping the church solvent. Many Baptists shared a new vision of the church, replacing the pursuit of purity with the quest for efficiency. They lost the resolve to purge their churches of straying members.

No one publicly advocated the demise of discipline. No Baptist leader arose to call for an end to congregational censures. No theologians argued that discipline was unsound in principle or practice. No “freedom” party arose to quash the tyranny of the redeemed. It simply faded away, as if Baptists had grown weary of holding one another accountable.

Gregory A. Wills, Democratic Religion: Freedom, Authority, and Church Discipline in the Baptist South, 1785-1900 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 9.

Filed under: Baptist, Church History | Leave a Comment »

Baptism, the Lord’s Supper and Confessions of Faith

Posted on September 18, 2012 by Steve Weaver

According to a recent LifeWay Research survey, over half (52%) of the 1,066 SBC pastors polled indicated that “anyone who has put faith in Christ” may participate in the Lord’s Supper at their church. This choice was in contrast to the more narrow option of “anyone baptized as a believer” which was selected by only 35% of those surveyed.

What is (or should be) surprising about this research is that Article VII of The Baptist Faith and Message states that Baptism “is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.” Of course this statement, which was adopted by the messengers at the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention in 2000, is not binding on any churches of the SBC. However, I would imagine that the majority of the churches polled have adopted this statement or earlier versions (1925 or 1963) all of which affirm that baptism of a believer by immersion is to precede both church membership and the reception of the Lord’s Supper.

I personally agree with article VII of the BFM which states that baptism “is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper,”  but I am not making policy for anyone else. Each local church must decide what they do about this issue. If, however, your church has adopted the Baptist Faith and Message (either 1925, 1963, or 2000), you should conform your practice accordingly or amend your Statement of Faith to reflect your beliefs through the process given in your church’s constitution. But before you take the drastic step of amending your church’s confession, I urge you to consider the reason that Southern Baptists have historically included baptism as a prerequisite to the Lord’s Supper in their confessions of faith.

In short, this is an issue of submission to the lordship of Christ, since:

  1. Baptism is commanded by Christ.
  2. Baptism is to occur at the beginning of the Christian life.
  3. The Lord’s Supper is to be received by repentant sinners.
  4. You have either obeyed Christ or not in regard to your baptism.
In other words, the only people eligible to receive the Lord’s Supper are believers in Christ Jesus who are repentant sinners. The way that one repents of not being baptized is simply to be baptized in obedience to Christ. A believer has either done this or not. If not, unless physically hindered, the believer is in rebellion against Christ and should not take the Lord’s Supper in this unrepentant state.

Of course I recognize that baptism, like everything else, is an interpretation issue. Granted some things are clearer in Scripture than others. The difference between the issue of baptism and other areas (either more or less clear) is that local churches must decide what they believe about baptism.  They are either going to sprinkle babies or immerse believers (of course a combination is possible too, but rare among Baptist churches both historically and presently).  If we believe that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and as a church we have stated a belief that baptism is the immersion of a believer and is commanded by Christ, then we have already made a decision on this issue.

Every church believes that only baptized people can partake of communion (Catholics, Presbyterians, etc.), Baptists only differ in their understanding of the nature of baptism (immersion of a believer).  Baptists believe that believer’s baptism by immersion is the only real baptism because of the meaning of term baptizo, the New Testament examples of believers being immersed, and the absence of any biblical examples of or commands to baptize infants or use the modes of sprinkling or affusion. Since a local church has to make an interpretative decision about the nature of baptism and the qualified recipients, we cannot have the church ordinance of the Lord’s Supper with those considered unbaptized. In other words, I think it is inconsistent for a church to allow unbaptized believers to partake of the Lord’s Supper if the church says that it believes that baptism of a believer by immersion is biblical and if it doesn’t allow paedo-baptists as members.

This, however, does not preclude me from being able to have gospel fellowship with a paedo-baptist. They can’t join my church or take the Lord’s Supper, but I don’t think they’re going to hell if they are believing the gospel. We have a different interpretation of baptism, just like we might on eschatology or any number of issues. The difference, though, is that we don’t have to make decisions on every other interpretive issue in the constitution of a church. We do on the definition of baptism. Thus, the necessity of limiting the Lord’s Supper and church membership to believers who have been baptized as we believe is biblical (like every other denomination).

Recommended Reading:

Filed under: Baptist, Lord's Supper | 3 Comments »

Historians and Anniversaries

Posted on August 31, 2012 by Steve Weaver

Historians love dates and anniversaries. If you look hard enough, you can always find a historical event to celebrate, or at least remember, every day of the year. In the newest issue (Summer 2012, 89) of the Founder’s Journal, Dr. Nettles writes in his editorial introduction about this propensity among historians and explains why anniversaries matter. He points to the fact that 2012 marks the anniversaries of such important events as the publication of Thomas Helwys’ The Mistery of Iniquity (1612), the passing of the Act of Uniformity (1662), and the departure of Adoniram and Ann Judson’s (along with Luther Rice) departure for India.

In addition to Dr. Nettles’ illuminating introduction, the journal also includes his address from the Founder’s Breakfast at this year’s meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention. The essay “‘Traditional’ Baptists Under the Microscope of History” offers Dr. Nettles’ perspective on the past, present and future of Southern Baptist theology.

Last and least, the journal also includes my essay on “Baptists and 1662″ which was recently presented at a mini-conference of the Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies. For an audio version of me reading my paper, click here. (Dr. Nettles also talks about the importance of Helwys here.)

The Founder’s Journal is now completely digital and the newest issue can be purchased as an ePub (for Apple iBooks, the Nook and other ePUB readers) or as mobi (for Kindle and other mobi readers). The price is $1.99. Past Issues of the journal are available free online in PDF format.

Filed under: Baptist, Church History, Hercules Collins | Leave a Comment »

Weekend Reading

Posted on August 18, 2012 by Steve Weaver

This weekend I took a break from dissertation writing to finish a book and read two other short ones. First, I finished up James A. Patterson’s recent study of the important 19th-century Baptist figure, J. R. Graves. Patterson, professor of Christian Thought and Tradition at Union University, offers a long overdue look at the man and his controversies. Titled James Robinson Graves: Staking the Boundaries of Baptist Identity, Patterson traces the broad contour of Graves’ life with special emphasis shown to Graves seemingly life long quest to establish the parameters of Baptist identity. Patterson’s examination of the many controversies in which Graves was engaged is a reminder that spirited-debate among Baptists is not a new thing. An interesting feature of the book is an epilogue examining Graves’ legacy well into the 21st century.

Along with finishing up the Graves volume, I also read a couple of short books that I found very helpful. Kelly M. Kapic’s A Little Book for New Theologians: Why and How to Study Theology looks to be a worthy successor to the often-assigned A Little Exercise for Young Theologians by Helmut Thielicke. As such it does the same two things which Thielicke’s small work did: 1. Stress the importance of theology as a discipline. 2. Emphasize the importance of the piety of the theologian. This is a welcome work, not just for new theologians, but for all of us who need to be reminded from time to time of these important emphases.

I also read the very small book (likely a printed sermon judging by its structure and brevity) by Tim Keller titled The Freedom of Self-Forgetfulness. This book quite simply needs to be read by everyone. The content is an exposition of Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 3:21-4:7 regarding his own selfless manner of living. It is short and to the point and the point is potentially life-transforming. Read it!

Filed under: Baptist, Books | Leave a Comment »

A Kentucky Baptist in the War of 1812

Posted on July 3, 2012 by Steve Weaver

I recently completed an essay on Ambrose Dudley, early Kentucky Baptist pastor, for publication in a multi-volume series of books published by Particular Baptist Press: A Noble Company. Ambrose was himself a Captain in the Virginia Militia during the Revolutionary War before resigning from his commission following his conversion and call to ministry. In researching Ambrose Dudley, however, I came across some fascinating details regarding his youngest brother, William. Since this year marks the bicentennial of the beginning of the War of 1812 and in honor of the approximately 25,000 Commonwealth citizens who served in the military during this period, I present the following brief sketch of Colonel William Dudley.

By 1778 William Dudley was under the guardianship of Ambrose after having been orphaned when he may have been as young as twelve.[1] When Ambrose moved to Kentucky in 1786, William was apparently still a member of his household. In the first tax records for which the Dudleys were present in Fayette County, William was listed as a male above 21 in the household of Ambrose Dudley.[2] By 1792, William had his own 150 acres.[3] William would become a respected resident and a leading magistrate in Fayette County.[4] He was received as a candidate for baptism at the Bryan Station Baptist Church (where his brother Ambrose served as pastor for nearly 40 years) in November of 1801.[5] During the War of 1812, William served as a Colonel and courageously led a group of 800 men to silence a British battery of cannons at Fort Meigs (in Ohio) on May 5, 1813. This effort was successful, but in a subsequent engagement with British troops in the area he and his company were lured into the woods, surrounded by Indians and defeated.[6] Early Kentucky historian Lewis Collins provides the gruesome details of the death of the Colonel. “Colonel Dudley was shot in the body and thigh, and thus disabled. When last seen, he was sitting in the swamp, defending himself against the Indians, who swarmed around him in great numbers. He was finally killed, and his corpse mutilated in a most shocking manner.”[7] These events caused William Dudley to achieve infamy as this episode became known nationally as “Dudley’s Defeat.” In his death, Dudley joined fellow Kentuckians in disproportionately making up approximately 60% of all casualties in the war with England.

[1] Ambrose Dudley posted a £2,000 guardian bond on April 16, 1778 on behalf of “William Dudley, orph. of Robert Dudley.” This probably indicates that Ambrose and William’s mother, Joyce, died around this time leaving William an orphan indeed. William Armstrong Crozier, ed., Virginia County Records: Spotsylvania County 1721-1800 Being Transcriptions from the Original Files at the County Court House, of Wills, Deeds, Administrators’ and Guardians’ Bonds, Marriage Licenses, and Lists of Revolutionary Pensioners (Baltimore, Md: Genealogical Pub. Co, 1978), 78.

[2] Netti Schreiner-Yantis and Florene Speakman Love. The Personal Property Tax Lists for the Year 1787 for Fayette County, Virginia [Now Kentucky] (Springfield, Va: Genealogical Books in Print, 1985), 2.

[3] Fayette County Tax Records 1787-1804 [micro-film] Kentucky Historical Society.

[4] Collins, Historical Sketches of Kentucky, 293-294.

[5] Bryan’s Station Baptist Church Records, 1786-1901 (Fayette Co., KY) [manuscript] Kentucky Historical Society, 119.

[6] Edward J. Reilly, Legends of American Indian Resistance (Santa Barbara, Calif. : ABC-CLIO, 2011), 57.

[7] Collins, Historical Sketches of Kentucky, 294.

Filed under: Ambrose Dudley, Baptist, War of 1812 | 2 Comments »

A Better Way Forward for Calvinists and Non-Calvinists in the SBC

Posted on May 31, 2012 by Steve Weaver

Historically Baptists who desired to cooperate with one another have sought to unite around truths held in common, rather than seeking to divide over differing opinions on various matters of interpretation. Southern Baptists have agreed to cooperate together within a consensus statement, The Baptist Faith  and Message. This confession provides precise language where needed, but is broad enough to allow for both Calvinists and non-Calvinists to cooperate together for the sake of the Great Commission. As a historian, I believe that by looking backward we can often find our best way forward. A clear example of the type of cooperation needed today is seen in the Terms of Union Between Regular and Separate Kentucky Baptists of 1801. This document facilitated the cooperation between Calvinists and non-Calvinists which eventually resulted in the Kentucky Baptist Convention and the Southern Baptist Convention.

On the second Saturday of October 1801, the Elkhorn (Regular) and South Kentucky (Separate) Associations were reconciled together as a single body of Baptists in full correspondence and communion based on the following statement:

We, the committees of the Elkhorn and South Kentucky Associations, do agree to unite on the following plan:
1st That the scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the infallible word of God, and the only rule of faith and practice.
2nd That there is one only true God, and in the God-head or divine essence, there are Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
3rd That by nature we are fallen and depraved creatures.
4th That salvation, regeneration, sanctification, and justification, are by the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ.
5th That the saints will finally persevere through grace to glory.
6th That believers’ baptism, by immersion, is necessary to receiving the Lord’s Supper.
7th That the salvation of the righteous and punishment of the wicked will be eternal.
8th That it is our duty to be tender and affectionate to each other, and study the happiness of the children of God in general; to be engaged singly to promote the honor of God.
9th And that the preaching Christ tasted death for every man, shall be no bar to communion.
10th And that each may keep up their associational and church government as to them may seem best.
11th That a free correspondence and communion be kept up between the churches thus united.

Unanimously agreed to by the joint committee. Ambrose Dudley, Joseph Redding, Robert Elkin, John Price, David Barrow, Daniel Ramey, Thos. J. Chilton, Samuel Johnson, Moses Bledsoe.

This is the historic approach for American Baptists which has worked for over two hundred years. While each individual, church, association, and entity is free to retain its own distinctives, we are united because we have agreed to cooperate under the banner of the Southern Baptist Convention for the purpose of fulfilling the Great Commission together. The Baptist Faith and Message sufficiently defines the kind of doctrinal agreement that we need to be able to do this effectively. I believe that this historic approach continues to be the best way forward in the days ahead.

Filed under: Baptist, Kentucky Baptists, SBC, SBC Life | 2 Comments »

My Initial Reaction to “A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation”

Posted on May 31, 2012 by Steve Weaver

I read with great interest this morning “A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation”. This consensus statement compiled by several Southern Baptist pastors, professors, and leaders has an impressive list of signatories. Many of those who have already signed this document are heroes of mine, some I consider friends. Since I care deeply about the issues discussed in the statement and the individuals who have signed it, I had a number of initial thoughts about the document. I thought it might be helpful to others for me to share my initial reaction to the document.

  • I affirm any individual or group’s right to believe what they think God’s Word teaches.
  • I appreciate any attempt to systematically articulate what one actually believes. This is helpful.
  • I fear “traditional” Southern Baptists have misunderstood “historic” Calvinism at several points.
  • Perhaps some Calvinists have fostered this misunderstanding through their own misunderstanding of historic Calvinism.
  • If this statement is merely a declaration of what some (many, most?) Southern Baptists believe, I don’t have a problem with it.
  • In other words, we can disagree on various propositions, clarify others, but they have as much right to state their beliefs as I trust they would give me to state my own.
  • The perceived need for this statement demonstrates that it is not the historic or confessional view of Southern Baptists.
  • The term “Traditional Southern Baptists” (last 80 years) seems to distinguish it from historic Southern Baptists (first 80 years).
  • As long as this statement is merely an expression of beliefs that (like Evangelical Calvinism) fits comfortably within the Baptist Faith and Message, I don’t have a problem with it.
  • The only possible problem which I foresee is if this statement is going to be set forward as an additional “statement of faith” to the Baptist Faith and Message and made binding upon the entities of the Southern Baptist Convention in any way. The introduction and Preamble seem to rule this out as a motivation. I hope my reading of it is correct.
  • As long as this statement is not going to be made a litmus test for cooperation by churches or hiring by SBC entities, I don’t have a problem with it.

While I disagree with this document at several points, I do not believe that it has to be seen as divisive. The motivation and spirits of the individuals involved on both sides will determine whether this becomes a divisive issue in the SBC. It could be seen as a barometer of the health of the SBC that such important doctrinal matters are being openly discussed. As far as this document allows us to clarify our beliefs through dialogue, it can be a good thing. I think a number of clarifications/corrections of an implied misunderstanding of historic Calvinism are in order and I am sure this will be addressed in due time (perhaps even by me). But for now I’m happy to accept the statement on face value and assume the best about the motivation of my brothers in Christ. I encourage all to approach this issue with a grace-filled disposition.

Filed under: Baptist, SBC, SBC Life, Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

Hercules Collins on the Jubilee of Heaven

Posted on March 7, 2012 by Steve Weaver

In 1684 Hercules Collins penned a discourse from his prison cell in London’s notorious Newgate Prison. The occasion of this discourse upon Job 3:17-18 was the death of two of his fellow prisoners, Francis Bampfield and Zachary Ralphson. The purpose was to provide comfort to those like him who had been imprisoned for their religious convictions. Near the end of the discourse, Collins reflects upon the rest that all God’s people will experience in heaven. He writes:

after the Resurrection comes the day of Jubile; in the Jubile of old, upon the sound of the Trumpet, they were every man to return to their Possessions; so when the great Trumpet shall sound, and the Dead in Christ Rise first, we shall take Possession of our Eternal Inheritance, which Christ is gone to prepare and secure for us: this Jubile was to return of old, but once in fifty years, but in Heaven in glory, it’s all Jubile; in this year of Jubile, the Jews were not to Sow nor Reap, but it was to be a year of Rest unto them: O! when we enter upon our spiritual one, all our labouring under Sin, Suffering, Satanical Temptations, will have end, and we shall Rest from our Labours. This temporary Jubile continued but a year, and then to their Toyl and labour again; Oh but the Spiritual Jubile will be an Everlasting Eternal one, that Rest which remains for the people of God will know no end: (Counsel for the Living, Occasioned from the Dead, 32-33).

Filed under: 17th Century Baptists, Baptist, Hercules Collins, Persecution | Leave a Comment »

Next Page »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,020 other followers