NEW
COVENANT Theology (NCT)
In
my articles I have been using the term “Reformed” to refer to pure New
Testament teaching as distinct from “Dispensational” and “Covenant”
theologies with their carry-overs from the OT.
By such my intent has been to recognize the tremendous contributions of
Reformation thinkers in reformulating central biblical doctrines from Roman
Catholic distortions. Nevertheless, as
significant as their work was, it was not perfect. In several areas they contradicted their own
scriptural principles and beliefs by accommodating certain OT Roman Catholic
concepts such as paedobaptism. [see
chap.7 of BELIEVER’S BAPTISM – Sign of
the New Covenant in Christ, 06] What
I have been calling “Reformed” viewpoint is really more in line with older
Baptist theology such as described in the 1646 London Baptist Confession of
faith which differed from the Westminster Confession of Faith in certain key
areas. Therefore, my reformed view (once known as Promise and Fulfillment Theology) is New Covenant Theology that is based upon
the finality of NT as the pinnacle of God’s revelation [see
The revelation of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ http://solochristo.com/_SC/SoloChristo.htm]. NCT’s goal is “to
join together…the logical priority of the NT over the Old…of Lord Jesus over
His godly predecessors, [Determining How Bible
Passages May Be Used http://pop.eradman.com] and…of the theology of the text over our own
theologies*…” NCT views the NT as governing all previous
revelation through the logic of progressive revelation by means of the analogy
of scripture [footnote 11 Scripture &
Conscience http://pop.eradman.com] according to the perspicuity (clarity, plainness, intelligibility) thereof. [See chap.2 RPCD
http://pop.eradman.com] NCT recognizes
and seeks to prevent OT system constructs’ tide of inferences from overflowing
into the NT and overriding its teachings.
Such constructs are often the
products of logical extrapolations from theological systems and have at times
been promoted by historical-political pressures rather than outright Biblical
exegesis.
------------------
--------------------
NCT is a hermeneutic (a
way of interpreting the Bible) that clearly shows how the Bible fits together
because it is unencumbered by a pre-conceived
system of theology that drives its interpretation in any one direction. NCT
is free of any system of theology that would force it to interpret Scripture as
that system demands, allowing NCT to interpret Scripture free from any
pre-conceived theological bias.
The “New” in NCT does not
mean that NCT is a new or recent version of Covenant Theology, but is simply a
reference to the New Covenant itself and the supremacy of Christ. NCT is the
study and application of the New Covenant and is in the best of positions to
explain how the Old Testament relates to the New. NCT is a theology of the New
Covenant that elevates it to its proper place in redemptive history, without
the interpretive limitations of other theological systems such as Covenant
Theology and Dispensationalism.
What
Makes NCT Different from Covenant Theology?
Even with its strengths for which we are greatly indebted, Covenant Theology
remains both theologically and confessionally
restricted in its interpretation of Scripture. Its interpretation of Scripture
must not contradict the historical Reformed creeds and confessions, and in many
ways, is subject to them. By and large, the Covenant theologian’s interpretation
of Scripture must conform to the historical Reformed confessions, and
especially the Westminster Confession of Faith.
What
Makes NCT Different from Dispensationalism?
Dispensationalism, while facing a different set of
interpretive hurdles than Covenant Theology, is limited nonetheless by its
pre-conceived system of theology. There are many “flavors” of Dispensationalism today, making it unfair to attempt to
categorize it as one unified theological system. However, one major
interpretive weakness facing most Dispensational theologians is the belief that
the New Covenant is fully realized in the future and is ultimately intended for
the nation of
-----------------
A Brief Explanation of
"New Covenant Theology" by Fred G. Zaspel
http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/hermenutics/nct.htm
NCT and the More
Traditional Systems of Interpretation
Hermeneutics
It is agreed that the New Testament is the apex of God's
self-revelation. But traditional Covenant Theology has failed to appreciate it
fully. We argue this on exegetical grounds specifically, and also from the
general standpoints of the newness of the New Covenant, the heavy
"fulfillment" emphasis in the New Testament [See The
Theology of Fulfillment http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/eschatology/fulfllnt1.htm], the
Lordship of Jesus Christ, Jesus' superiority to Moses, our "slavery"
to Jesus Christ, the striking contrast between the Old and New Covenants found
in the New Testament, and so on. Further, this necessarily brings us into a
distinctive emphasis on Biblical theology with its eye to the Christocentric and progressive unfolding of redemptive
history. In short, traditional Covenant Theology has failed to appreciate fully
the significant advance that marks this age of New Testament revelation.
Law vs. Grace
For classical Dispensationalism
the principle of grace in the New Covenant replaces the Old Covenant principle
of law. Within Covenant Theology there seem to be some differences, with
some following Luther in seeing law and grace as parallel tracks running
through history and others recognizing that the words "law" and
"grace" characterize two periods in the development of God's plan of
redemption. NCT also recognizes that law and grace are sometimes names
for the two periods covered by the Old and New Covenants, but looks at the two
words as also defining two emphases, not the replacement of law by grace. We
see a greater emphasis on grace under the New Covenant and generally a more
legal character to the Old Covenant. In short, we argue that law remains (contra
Dispensational Theology), but with signification alteration (contra Covenant
Theology).
The Decalogue
Covenant Theology argues that the Decalogue is
the eternal, unchanging moral law of God. It defined duty before Moses,
"outside" Moses in the nations surrounding
NCT argues that these presuppositions are exegetically
unwarranted. It cannot be shown that the Decalogue is purely "moral"
in character. If pushed, we argue that the Sabbath has more a ceremonial
character to it. Neither can it be demonstrated that this supposed three-fold
division of Mosaic law -- moral, civil, ceremonial -- is a legitimate
hermeneutical tool for the understanding of the "abolition" passages
of the New Testament. Some of the NT passages which speak of the passing away
of the Old Covenant speak specifically in reference to the Decalogue (eg. 2 Cor.3). The presuppositions of Covenant Theology on
this point are just too simplistic. An answer must be found which can take in
all the relevant exegetical detail. [see 3 Studies Theological Notes http://pop.eradman.com/]
The Sabbath
Covenant Theology's shift of the Sabbath from Saturday
to Sunday is exegetically unwarranted and it further renders its
"unchangeableness of the Decalogue" argument null and void. We affirm
rather that the Sabbath had a prophetic function in its anticipation of the
gospel rest enjoyed by all who are in Christ, both now and in eternity (eg. Heb.4). This is a point of Biblical
Theology that Covenant Theologians have largely overlooked, although there is
nothing about it that is inherently inconsistent with their position. However,
while Covenant Theology argues the Puritan position that the Sabbath day
is to be kept distinctively holy in this gospel age, NCT argues that this
aspect of the Sabbath marks the Old
Covenant (eg. Ex.31; Col.2:16-17) and emphasize
rather the position of Luther and Calvin that the Sabbath finds its fulfillment
in Christ (Col.2:17). [see Keeping the Sabbath in Christ http://pop.eradman.com/]
Miscellany
Much of this is more a matter of differing emphases than
of differing theology -- it is, after all, an "in house" debate. And
there are other (lesser) questions which the discussion generates, such as the
role of law in preaching the gospel, the role of law/grace in sanctification,
the role of Divine law in human government, the relation of Christ to Moses,
the role of creeds, and so on. All these questions find answers of differing
emphasis even within each respective theological camp.
-------------------
What Is New
Covenant Theology? Part Three John
G. Reisinger http://www.soundofgrace.com/jgr/
The first and basic premise of New Covenant Theology concerns the New
Testament Scriptures being the documents upon which the life and worship of the
Church is built. B.H. Carroll, president, Southwestern Baptist Theological
Seminary, wrote an excellent book entitled Baptists
and Their Doctrines, 1913. In the following article, Dr. Carroll has stated
very clearly the historic view of the Baptists concerning the "The New
Testament - The Law of Christianity."1
--------------------
1. Thank
God for the revival of the Doctrines of Grace in our day, especially among the
Baptists. However, we fear that many 'Reformed Baptists' today are little more
than immersed Presbyterians. Dr. Carroll's article sets forth a biblical truth
that is basic to any clear understanding of the life and worship of the ekklesia, or church, of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is
strange indeed that the worst condemnation and caricature that I have received
from many of my Reformed Baptist brethren has been over the very truth that Dr.
Carroll sets forth. It is even stranger when that condemnation and caricature
comes from Calvinistic Southern Baptists who are seeking to go back to their
own founding fathers.
From Baptists and Their Doctrines chap.1, Distinctive Baptist principles by B.H. Carroll,
edited (1913), p.7-34 http://www.pbministries.org/Theology/B.%20H.%20Carroll/baptist_principles/carroll_01.htm
http://www.theologue.org/DistinctiveBaptistPrinciples.htm
"A declaration of those things which are most surely
believed among us" Luke 1:1.
"It was needful for me…to exhort you that ye should
earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints"
Jude 3.
The distinctive principles of the Baptists are those doctrines or
practices which distinguish us from other Christian denominations. For example:
The Greek church and the Baptists both practice
immersion, but their doctrine of baptism is widely different from ours.
Authority, subject, and design all enter as much into the validity of this
ordinance as the act itself. More than mere immersion is necessary to constitute
New Testament baptism. Again, the Congregationalists agree with Baptists in the
form of church government, but their doctrine of the church is widely different
from ours. The statement "The Bible, and the Bible alone, the religion of
Protestants," is widely different from the Baptist principle, "The
New Testament, the only law of Christianity."…
I. THE NEW
TESTAMENT—THE LAW OF CHRISTIANITY
All the New Testament is the Law of Christianity. The New
Testament is all the Law of Christianity. This does not deny the
inspiration or profit of the Old Testament, nor that the New
is a development of the Old. It affirms however that the Old Testament,
as a typical, educational, and transitory system, was fulfilled by Christ, and
as a standard of law and way of life was nailed to the cross of Christ and so
taken out of the way. The principle teaches that we should not go to the Old
Testament to find Christian law or institutions. Not there do we find the true idea of the Christian church, or its
members, ordinances, government, officers, sacrifices, worship, mission,
ritual, or its priesthood. The overwhelming majority of Christendom, whether
Greek, Romanist or Protestant, borrow from the Old Testament much of their
doctrine of the church, including its members, officers, ritual ordinances,
government, liturgy and mission. When Baptists say that the New Testament is
the only law for Christian institutions they part company with most of
the Protestant world as well as from the Greeks and Romanists.
The church with all that pertains to it is strictly a New Testament
institution. We do not deny that
there was an Old Testament ecclesia, but do deny its identity with the New Testament ecclesia; not the circumcision of infants under
Old Testament law, but their baptism under New Testament law; not that there were elders under the
Mosaic economy, nor even deny the facts of uninspired history concerning the
elders of the Jewish synagogue, but simply claim
that the New Testament alone must define the office and functions of the
elder in the Christian church. Christ himself appointed its Apostles and its
first seventy elders. We not only
stand upon the New Testament alone in repelling Old Testament institutions,
apocryphal additions thereto, the historic synagogue of the inter-biblical
period as the model of the church, but
also to repel the binding authority of post-apostolic history, whether
embodied in the literature of the ante-Nicene fathers or in the decisions of
councils, from the council at Nice, A.D 325, to the Vatican Council, A.D. 1870.
We allow not Clement, Polycarp, Hippolytus,
Ignatius, Irenus, Justin, Tertullian,
Cyprian, Origen, Jerome, Eusebius, Augustine, Chrysostom, Erasmus, Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Henry VII,
Knox or Wesley either to determine what is New Testament law
or to make law for us.
We shut ourselves up to the New Testament teaching concerning the bishop. The idea of catholicity must
not be learned from post-apostolic fathers, but from the inspired Testament,
and because it was this word, katholikos (universal),
which led to the idea of the church as an organized general body having
appellate jurisdiction over the particular congregations, and led to the union
of church and state under Constantine. We are willing to enter the domain of
uninspired history as a matter of research, and ready to concede all its fairly
established facts, but we recognize the impregnable rock of the New Testament
as the only ground of union.
The New Testament always will be all the law of Christianity. Avaunt [Begone], ye types and
shadows; apocrypha; synagogue; tradition, thou hoary-headed liar. Hush! All
through the Christian ages—from dark and noisome dungeons, from the lone
wanderings of banishment and expatriation, from the roarings
and sickening conflagrations of martyr fires—there comes a voice—shouted here,
whispered there, sighed, sobbed, or gasped elsewhere—a Baptist voice. The
New Testament is the law of Christianity! Christ himself set up his
kingdom, established his church, and gave us Christian law. And the men whom he
inspired furnish us the only reliable record of these institutions. They had no
successors in inspiration. The record is complete. Prophecy and vision have
ceased. The canon of revelation and the period of legislation are closed. Let
no man dare to add to it or take from it, or dilute it, or substitute for it.
It is written. It is finished.
II.
INDIVIDUALITY
This New Testament law of Christianity segregates the individual
from his own family, from society with all its customs and requirements, from
race and nationality, from caste, however exclusive, from all governmental
control or intimidations, from all the bonds of friendship then isolates him
from every external influence. It strips him of every artificial distinction
arising from wealth or poverty or social status, and then shuts him up in an
exclusive circle alone with God, who is no respecter of persons, and there
demands of his naked and solitary personality a voluntary surrender of his will
to God’s will and an immediate response of obedience to all its demands. There
are no sponsors, or proxies. Enforced or insincere obedience counts nothing at
all. The sole responsibility of decision
and action rests directly on the individual soul. Each one must give
account of himself to God. This is the first principle of New Testament law—to
bring each naked soul face to face with God. When that first Baptist voice
broke the silence of four hundred years it startled the world with its appeal
to individuality: "Think not to say
within yourselves, we have Abraham to our father.
Behold, the axe is laid at the root of the trees, and every tree
that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and
cast into the fire." Do thou repent, confess thy sins, be baptized. It was the first step of Christianity, and what
a colossal stride! Family ties, Greek culture, Roman citizenship, Circumcision
count nothing. O soul, thou art alone before God! The multitude shall not
swallow thee up. "If thou shalt be wise, thou shalt be wise
for thyself; but if thou scornest, thou alone shalt bear it." Family relationship intruded
upon our Lord’s busiest hour. "Behold, thy
mother and thy brothers seek thee." Once before he had said: "Woman, what have I to do with thee ?" and now like a
flash of lightning comes his scathing reply: "Who
is my mother, and who are my brothers? Whosoever doeth the will of my heavenly
Father, the same is my mother, my brother, my sister."
Another time it intruded upon him to call forth his crucial
statement: "If any man hate not his,
father and mother and brother and sister he cannot be my disciple."
In his dying hour, on the way to the cross, he heard its voice once
more: "Blessed is the womb that bare thee and the paps which gave thee suck," and once more
he replied. "Yea, rather blessed is she that doeth the will of
God." Superiority for the twelve over Paul was claimed because
they had known the Lord in the flesh. But Paul rejoined: "Where henceforth know we no man after the flesh; yea,
though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more."
How often in history has the question been propounded by some
wishing to shun personal responsibility! May I not refer this matter to the
magistrates, consult the customs of my country, seek the guidance of my priest
and put on him the responsibility of interpreting this book? Nay,
verily. Do thou interpret. It is God’s letter
to thy soul. Thy right of private judgment is the crown jewel of thy
humanity. Not even thy church can absolve thee from individual duty.
Churches are time organizations and are punished in time. They do not stand
before the great white throne of judgment. But thy soul shall appear before the
judge. Well did our Lord know that there could be no evangelization of the
world if ancestors, families, customs, government, commerce and priests could
stand between the individual soul and God. Thy
relation to God is paramount. His law takes precedence of all and swallows up
all. In giving emphasis to this doctrine of individuality our Baptist fathers
have suffered martyrdom at the hands of the heathen, the Romanist, the Greek,
and the Protestant alike.
III. FREEDOM OF
CONSCIENCE
This follows from individual responsibility. If one be responsible
for himself, there must he no restraint or constraint of his conscience.
Neither parent, nor government, nor church, may usurp the prerogative of God as
Lord of the conscience. God himself does not coerce the will. His people are
volunteers, not conscripts. As has been stated, the prevalent theory in the
days of the Reformation was: "Whose is the government—his is the
religion." Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes, signed by his
grandfather, the great Henry of Navarre. Calvin burned Servetus
at the stake. Luther loosed all the hounds of persecution upon the Baptists in
his day. Holland, the little republic that tore her lowlands from the ocean
flood, and for eighty years, by pike and dike, repelled the Spaniard with his
Inquisition, did herself destroy her greatest statesman, John of Barneveldt, and banish her great historian Grotius for conscience’ sake. Henry VIII,
in
At a great dining in England John Bright asked a Baptist statesman
beside him: "What special contribution have your people made to the world? "Civil and religious liberty," replied the
statesman. "A great contribution," replied John Bright. Bancroft, in
his history of
Freedom of conscience in our day, especially in this country, is a
familiar thing. It was not so in earlier days. Pagan, Papist
and Protestant ground liberty of conscience into powder under the iron heel of
their despotisms.
IV. SALVATION IS
ESSENTIAL TO BAPTISM AND CHURCH MEMBERSHIP2
Here Baptists stand absolutely alone. Blood
before water—the altar before the laver. This principle eliminates not
only all infant baptism and membership, but locates the adult’s remission of
sins in the fountain of blood instead of the fountain of water. When the author
of the letter to the Hebrews declares: "It
is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins,"
he bases the impossibility on the lack of intrinsic merit. Following the precise
idea Baptists declare: "It is not possible that the water of baptism
should take away sins." There is no intrinsic merit in the
water. The blood of Jesus Christ, God’s Son, alone can cleanse us from sin.
True, the water of baptism and the wine of the Lord’s Supper may symbolically
take away sins, but not in fact. "Arise and he
baptized and wash away thy sins." "This is
my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many, for the remission of
sins." Both declarations are beautiful and impressive figures of
antecedent fact.
A brother of another denomination once objected: "You Baptists
have no method of induction into Christ. My people baptize a man into
Christ." The reply was two-fold: (1) It is not enough to get a man into
Christ; you must also get Christ into him, as he says, "I in you and you
in me." If you insist that baptism really, and not figuratively, puts a
man into Christ, how will you meet the Romanist on the other half of it,
"Eating the wafer of the Supper really puts Christ into the man. He eats the flesh of the real presence"? The words
are stronger for his induction than yours.
(2) Baptists have a method of double induction: "We have access by
faith into this grace wherein
we stand." Faith puts us into Christ. "It
pleased God to reveal his Son in me." "Christ in you the hope of
glory." "Ye are manifestly declared to be an epistle of Christ, . . . written with the Spirit of the living God . .
. in fleshly tables, of the heart." "God, who commanded the light to
shine out of darkness, hath shined into our hearts, to give the light of the
knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." Thus the Holy
Spirit puts Christ in us. We get into him by faith. He gets into us by the Holy
Spirit, thus fulfilling his words: "I in you and you
in me."
This great, vital, and fundamental Baptist principle, Salvation
must precede ordinances, does, at one blow, smite and blast
those two great enemies of religion, sacramentalism
and sacerdotalism. If ritualism saves, priests are a
necessity. If my salvation is conditioned on the performance of a rite, then
also it is conditioned on the act and will of a third party who administers the
saving rite. The doctrine of salvation by rites is the hope of the priest who
alone can administer the rite. This gives both importance and revenue to his
office. He multiplies the sacraments. "Two are too few. Let us have seven.
The more, the better for us, and thus we will control our subjects not only
from the cradle to the grave, but from conception in the womb to
eternity."
Not only does our great principle destroy both sacramentalism
and sacerdotalism, but it alone draws a line of
cleavage between the church and the world. To perpetuate the baptism of the
unsaved, whether infant or adult, tends to blot out from the earth the
believer’s baptism which Christ appointed. It is a question of discipleship.
John the Baptist made disciples before he baptized them. Jesus made disciples
before he baptized them. (John 4:1.) John made disciples by leading them to
repentance and faith. (Acts 19:4.) Jesus made
disciples by repentance and faith. (Mk.1:15.) Jesus commanded: "Go ye therefore and disciple all nations, baptizing them
(the discipled)." Draw a
perpendicular line. On the right of it write the words, Believers in Christ,
Lovers of Christ. On the left of it write the words, Unbelievers in Christ,
Haters of Christ. Now, from which side of that line will you take your
candidates for baptism? Will you baptize the hating and the unbelieving? You
dare not. If from the other side you take them, then already are they God’s
children, for what saith the Scriptures: "Whosoever believeth has been born of God. Whosoever loveth is born of God."
Baptists do not bury the living sinner to kill him to sin. But they
bury those already dead to sin. For devotion to this principle you may trace
our people back by their track of blood, illumined by their fires of martyrdom.
--------------------
2. We disclaim as Baptist
distinctives the following two doctrines:
(1) Immersion is Baptism
For
the first thirteen hundred years all Christendom held this belief. Even today
other Christian denominations believe and practice it as the only [means of] baptism.
(2) Baptism is Essential to Salvation
This
is not now and never has been a Baptist doctrine. More than all other people do
they repudiate it. Indeed on the contrary, the
Baptists are the only people in the world who hold its exact opposite: Salvation
is essential to baptism.
V. THE DOCTRINE
OF THE CHURCH
The church is not the expression of one idea, but of many. Only the
most salient and distinctive ideas are here cited:
(1) The church is a spiritual body. None but the
regenerate should belong to it. It is not a savior, but the home of the saved.
(2) Separation of church and state.
The state, a secular body for secular ends, can never be united to
the church, a spiritual body for spiritual ends, without irreparable injury to
both. United with the state, the church can never obey Christ. "Be ye not unequally yoked with
unbelievers, What part hath he that believeth with an infidel? Come out from
among them and be ye separate." There cannot be union of church and
state without persecution for conscience’ sake, or a pure and converted
ministry when politicians appoint the preachers. There cannot be free speech by
the church against national sins when the state holds the purse, See the awful
consequences of Luther’s mistake on this point in Germany where the owner of
all licensed sins, gambling houses, race tracks, saloons, houses of
prostitution, must exhibit certificate of church membership. The blackest pages
of American history are those which record the evils of the union of church and
state in
In
(3) The church is a particular congregation and not an organized
denomination.
This idea of the church is fundamental and vital, yet least
understood of all. With Greeks, Romanists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians,
Methodists and many others the church is an organized denomination having
appellate jurisdiction over its particular congregations. In history, the
church as an organized general body, or denomination, has assumed the following
forms:
(a) Papistical or autocratic.
It starts with the idea of an earthly head. This autocrat must be
the successor of some apostle, himself a primate. Inspiration must rest upon
him. All Christendom must be under him. Commencing with the union of church and
state under
(b) Practical or episcopal.
That is, the church is a general body, governed by the bishops,
bishop now having lost its New Testament meaning.
(c) Presbyterian.
That is, the church is a general body or organized denomination,
governed by its presbyters, through synods and general assemblies.
In all of these the particular congregation is under the appellate
jurisdiction of the higher power, the General Assembly for the Presbyterians,
the General Conference for the Methodists, the Bishops for the Church of
England, the Pope for the Romanists. It follows that all these general
organizations must have a graded series of courts, ending with a supreme court
whose decisions bind all the denomination. And of course these higher courts
provide for regular trials, with all necessary forms of law. The sessions of
these high courts must last quite a long time in order to attend to all these
trials. With all of them the church is an organized denomination having
appellate and final jurisdiction over all particular congregations.
Now, in opposition to all these, the Baptists hold that the New
Testament church is a particular congregation and not an organized
denomination. According to the New Testament: "In Christ, each several
building, fitly framed together, groweth into holy
temple in the Lord." Each congregation is complete
temple in itself, and has final jurisdiction over all its affairs. This is the
church, to which grievances must be told, and whose decision is final.
(Mt.18:15-18.) The most forceful and popular objection urged against this idea
of the church is that it will be powerless to secure unity of faith, uniformity
of discipline, and co-operation in general work among the churches. This
objection comes from the viewpoint of human reason. And we frankly admit that
whatever theory of the church fails necessarily and generally to secure these great
ends discounts itself in probability as scriptural in favor of any other theory
which does secure these great ends, simply because we cannot conceive of God’s
wisdom failing.
(d) A federation, like the
Read again Dr. Wayland’s great book, The Principles, and
Practices of the Baptists, and there see how the unscriptural idea
perished before the wisdom of the brethren. As the good doctor says, "we
now wonder that anybody ever supposed that there could be a representative
Baptist general body." In like manner, in the South, all attempts to
reduce our Southern Baptist Convention or state bodies to this basis have
failed for similar good reasons. Our general bodies are purely voluntary, and
composed of individuals, not churches. They are solely for counsel and
co-operation. They cannot have trials, seeing they possess no ecclesiastical
powers. Their sessions have no time for trials, lasting only three or four
days. In considering the one question of eligibility for membership in the body
they must necessarily act in a summary way on account of time.
The supreme question then arises, can we with our ideas of the
church secure unity of the faith, guard against hurtful schisms, bring about
substantial uniformity of discipline, and, above all, secure co-operation in
the great departments of work beyond the ability of a single church, namely,
missions, education, religious literature, and philanthropy?
Baptists come nearer to uniformity of faith and discipline and have
fewer hurtful schisms than the denominations which seek to secure these results
by their iron general organizations.
(4) The church is a pure democracy.
Indeed, it is the only one in the world. There is no disbarment of
franchise on account of race, education, wealth, age, or sex. In Christ Jesus
there is neither Jew nor Greek, barbarian, bond or free, man or woman or child.
All its members are equal fellow-citizens, and the majority decides. It is of
his people, for the people, by the people. This democracy receives and
dismisses its members, chooses or deposes its own officers, and manages its own
affairs.
(5) It is the supreme court in Christ’s
kingdom.
All cases of discipline come before it, and its decisions are final
and irreversible by any other human power. Of course, it is under law to
Christ. It possesses judicial and executive but no legislative powers. Christ
is the only lawmaker and the New Testament is his law. Its judicial powers
cover all cases of grievances and fellowship. It is Christ’s court. Our Lord
foresaw the inadequacy of secular courts to adjudicate religious differences.
The very atmosphere of secular courts is adverse to the religious spirit. Our
Lord himself was a victim before the courts of Pilate and Herod. He warned his
people that, in every age, they would he dragged before these courts, and
clearly foretold what they must expect at the bar of these tribunals.
One of his most impressive lessons of the New Testament is the
recital of the trials of his ministers before them. Nearly every one of his
apostles was put to a violent death by their decisions. Who has not thrilled at
the story of Paul before the magistrates at
(6) The officers of the church are bishops and
deacons, the first charged with spiritualities and the second with
temporalities. The idea of a metropolitan bishop, having charge of all the
churches of a great city, or of a diocesan bishop, having charge of a province,
or state, is of post-apostolic origin and subversive of the scriptural idea of
the bishop.
(7) The ordinances of the church are but two,
baptism and the Lord’s Supper, neither as a means of grace, but both
purely figurative and commemorative. The elements of validity in baptism are:
(a) it must be by proper authority; (b) its subject is a penitent believer or
saved person; (c) the act is immersion; (d) the design is a declaration or
confession of faith, symbolizing the cleansing from sin and commemorative of
the resurrection. The Supper is a festival observed by the church as a body,
and commemorates the atoning death of our Lord and anticipates his second
advent.
In summary, the church must be separated from the state; it is a
particular congregation and not an organized denomination, whether Papistical, Episcopal, Presbyterian, or federal; it is a
pure democracy; it is Christ’s executive and judiciary on earth; its officers
are bishops and deacons; its ordinances are baptism and the Lord’s Supper.