Paper on Bunyan

For those interested, here is a beginning look at the basics of the independent research project I am doing on John Bunyan. In light of the Piper/Dever discussion on the role of baptism in determining church fellowship, I thought it would be helpful to do some historical research on the subject.

THESIS STATEMENT:
Bunyan's controversy with 17^th century London Baptist clergymen regarding the role of baptism in determining a basis for admittance to fellowship and communion indicates the presence of divergent views regarding baptism within the history of the Baptist movement.

THESIS PARAGRAPH:
John Bunyan (1628-1688) became embroiled in a controversy with other Baptist ministers of his day over the role of baptism in determining fellowship. The majority view held only immersion of an adult believer could be considered baptism, and this act was required before granting membership or communion. While Bunyan agreed with that definition of baptism, he disagreed that this act was an initiating ordinance and argued for tolerance of differing views within a congregation. While other clergy also argued a similar position, unique because he was a Baptist minister. Though Bunyan failed to influence the mainstream Baptist practice, indicated by the Baptist confessional documents of this time period, the controversy indicates that the nascent Baptist movement contained differing streams of thought on this issue.

THESIS PROPOSAL:
The act of baptism has been central to the Baptist identity since its nascent development as a movement. Rejecting the padeobaptist position, Baptists have universally maintained that biblical baptism is an act conducted by an individual after conversion. Furthermore, Baptists have also enjoyed broad agreement in their view that such baptism is a prerequisite to entrance into local church fellowship and communion. Considering the various theological streams of the Baptist movement, particularly in the 17^th century, this fidelity on the issue of baptism is amazing. In that period, one side of the theological spectrum was comprised of the General Baptists, who were strongly Arminian. On the opposite side were the Particular Baptists, who held firmly to Calvinism. Yet what was at stake for both these movements was the definition of what it means to be “church”. For both groups, it was inconceivable that one could be true church apart from practicing the Baptist view of baptism. As such, the act of baptism was viewed as an initiating ordinance; that is, an ordinance required before one could be admitted into a true (or, in their view ‘Baptist’) church. Therefore, since Communion was considered to be an ordinance for the Church, only those baptized according to the Baptist definition could be admitted to the Lord’s Table.

When one considers the Baptist confessional documents produced in the 17^th through 20^th century, one immediately sees how this belief was codified and entrenched within the movement. The General Baptist stream contains strong exclusivist language. The Standard Confession of 1660, after affirming believer’s baptism by immersion, dictates the following: Ánd as for all such who preach not this Doctrine, but instead thereof, that Scriptureless thing of Sprinkling of Infants (falsely called Baptisme) whereby the pure word of God is made of no effect, and the new Testament-way of bringing in Members, into the Church by regeneration, cast out…[and further] all such we utterly deny, forasmuch as we are commanded to have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather to reprove them ”. In the Orthodox Creed of 1678 (published in response to the Particular Baptist confession of 1677), while holding to the concept of believer’s baptism by immersion, states “And orderly none out to be admitted into the visible church of Christ, without being first baptized” (Article XXVIII) and “no unbaptized, unbelieving, or open profane, or wicked heretical persons, out to be admitted to this ordinance [Communion] to profane it” (Article XXXIII).

In the Particular Baptist stream, the document now known as the First London Baptist Confession of Faith (1646) includes this statement in Article 39: “Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, given by Christ, to be dispensed upon persons professing faith, or that are made disciples; who upon profession of faith, ought to be Baptized, and after to partake of the Lord’s Supper.” Furthermore, the document specified the method of baptism in Article 40: “That the way and manner of dispensing this ordinance, is dipping or plunging the body under water”. The Second London Baptist Confession (1677/1689) is noticeably neutral in its language regarding the role of baptism in determining who should be admitted to Communion. However, in 1697 Baptist minister Benjamin Keach condensed the lengthy Second London Confession for the benefit of his congregation in Horsley-down. In this confession, Article 21 on Baptism affirms the Baptist concept of believer’s baptism by immersion, and ends with this interpolative statement: “Baptism being an initiating ordinance.” Over a century later, the framers of the New Hampshire Confession of Faith (1833) would draw on Keach’s confession and would codify this principle of separation in the clearest statement seen thus far. In Article 14, the confession states that baptism by immersion of the adult believer “is a prerequisite to the privileges of a Church relation; and to the Lord’s Supper”. Article 14 of the Baptist Bible Union Articles (1923) is identical in its language. When the original charter of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary was adopted in 1858 it contained the following statement on baptism (Article 15) in its confession of faith: “It is prerequisite to church fellowship, and to participation in the Lord's Supper”. This confession later became the most influential confessional document within the Southern Baptist churches. The reworked Southern Baptist denomination documents of 1962 and 2000 (“The Baptist Faith and Message”) both contain identical statements (Article 9 and Article 7 respectively).

In light of the uniformity of these statements, developed over a span of 300 years, one may conclude that such a position is intrinsic to the very meaning of Baptist. However, beginning in the 17^th century, Baptist ministers and theologians have challenged this mainstream position. Most particularly, in the mid-1600’s John Bunyan (1628-1688) became embroiled in a controversy with other Baptist ministers of his day over the role of baptism in determining fellowship. Bunyan was the pastor of the congregation at Bedford, which had previously been pastured by the Rev. John Gifford. While affirming the Baptist meaning as to the means and recipients of baptism, Bunyan, following Gifford, also rejected that it should be viewed as an initiating ordinance and maintained it should not be used as a dividing wall regarding fellowship and communion. Thus Bunyan allowed both Baptists and Padeobaptists membership into the Bedford church and participation in Communion. Both General and Particular Baptists publically challenged Bunyan’s position, and a pamphlet war was initiated. Particular Baptist clergymen in London fiercely opposed Bunyan in writing, most notably William Kiffin, Henry Davers, and Thomas Paul. The General Baptist John Denne also wrote against his position.

While other churchmen of that era argued that one’s position on baptism should not be a divisive issue regarding membership and communion, Bunyan is unique because he was one of the few Baptist ministers to do so. In the paper that follows we will examine the key documents involved in this controversy—both those of Bunyan and his detractors. Furthermore, we will examine in more detail the statements relative to this subject that are contained in the 17^th century Baptist confessions.

Few modern scholars have looked deeply into this aspect of Bunyan’s life. Henry Poe, writing in 1988 during the 300^th anniversary of Bunyan’s death, provides a helpful summary of this controversy for a general audience. Underwood’s much-cited 1988 article looks at the broader issue of Bunyan as a controversialist. While offering valuable insight into this controversy, Underwood’s aims are too broad for a useful analysis of this specific situation. Finally, Joseph Ban’s 1984 article asked the provocative question, “Was John Bunyan a Baptist?” This last article has done an excellent job shifting through the data of this controversy. However, Ban’s purpose was to determine if Bunyan could be considered a Baptist. This paper is written from the vantage point that Bunyan was indeed a Baptist, which is Ban’s conclusion, and thus seeks to understand what impact this in-house controversy among 17^th century Baptist clergymen had on the nascent Baptist movement. Specifically, this paper seeks to determine whether this mid-1600’s controversy proves differing streams of orthodox Baptist thought and practice on this issue of Baptism and church fellowship.

Quote from Bunyan's Pastor

I have already blogged about my exciting new addition to the specialized collection on John Bunyan in my research library. The text is very difficult to decipher, and I may need to find a seminar to learn how to read 17th century handwritten text.

From what I can read, I came across this interesting quote from John Gifford, the pastor of the Bedford church (as far as I can tell), and Bunyan's pastor (Bunyan would later become pastor of the same church).

"Concerning separation from the Church about baptism, laying on of
hands, anointing with oil, psalms, or any other externals, I charge
every one of you respectively, as you will give an account of it to
our Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge both quick and dead at his
coming, that none of you be found guilty of this great evil, which
some have committed, and that through a zeal for God, yet not
according to knowledge. They have erred from the law of the love of
Christ, and have made a rent in the true Church, which is but one."
(Gifford, pg 3 of Church Book of Bunyan Meeting).

Bunyan's later refusal to exclude over baptism would become a controversial subject among several of Bunyan's fellow clergymen. On his part, Bunyan was simply teaching what he himself had been taught.

The influence of a pastor.......

Peaceable Principles and True

Click here for the full length article by Bunyan--the last he wrote on the Baptism controversy.

Link to Bunyan Work - Differences in Water Baptism, No Bar to Communion

See this link for a full length article of this important work of Bunyan. I am in the process of collecting the works of Bunyan that deal directly with the baptism controversy he was engaged in with some other 17th century London Baptists.

I'm back...and I brought Bunyan with me

I realize there has been a several month hiatus in posts on this blog. My ministerial duties have rightfully occupied my time, with my available "online" time taken by my alternate (and highly active) site Ephemeros.
_______________________________

I have begun an independent research project on the life and theology of John Bunyan. I had the foresight a few years ago to purchase his complete works (Banner of Truth), but my only prior reading of Bunyan had been pilgrim's progress. Over this last year I sensed that I had ignored my reading of the Puritans. It was replaced by other great reading (particularly Calvin and Bavinck), but Puritans are my first love (other than Scripture), and hence I am the prodigal returned.

In my initial reading, I was drawn towards two specific documents within Bunyan's works. Particularly, The Reason for My Practice in Worship, and his subsequent piece entitled Differences in Water Baptism No Bar to Communion.

For Bunyan, the word "communion" is used in its wider sense of Christian fellowship within a local church (what we might refer to as "church membership"). While Bunyan's communion would have included the ordinance of the Lord's Table (what we now commonly refer to as "communion") it would also have been much broader than that.

Bunyan is important for my purposes for two reasons: first, he is pure puritan. In fact, he ranks very high within the Puritan world. While not possessing the intellectual capacity of a John Owen (who does?), or the golden tongue (or pen) of a Richard Sibbes, Bunyan nevertheless had an unequalled ability to speak the great truths of Scripture to the common man. He felt comfortable in a multitude of communication mediums, and was an incredible popularizer and generalist. In fact, John Owen once said of Bunyan that he "would gladly exchange all his learning for Bunyan's power of touching men's heart." The power of Bunyan was located in his determined and constant focus on the Word of God. Later, Spurgeon said of him, "He bleeds the Bible, prick him anywhere and his blood in bibline".

Second, Bunyan is Baptist. While many Puritans were Baptist (most were Presbyterian or Congregational), very few Baptists were notable among the Puritans. In fact, Bunyan was the first Baptist to achieve a level of prominence within the Christian world....something that wouldn't be repeated for almost 2 centuries.

Thus, as a modern day Baptist pastor, who is Reformed in his theology and a great admirer of Puritans, Bunyan is a natural draw.

Later this week, I will offer a synopsis of these two important works of Bunyan, and offer what I believe are implications for our modern-day Baptist churches.

Failing to be original

Read these quotes from J. Gresham Machen ("What Is Faith", Banner of Truth) written in the 1920's:

"The trouble with university students of the present day, from the point of view of Evangelical Christianity, is not that they are too original, but that they are not half original enough. They go on in the same routine way, following their leaders like a flock of sheep, repeating the same stock phrases with little knowledge of what they mean, swallowing whole whatever their professors choose to give them--and all the time imagining that they are bold, bad, independent young men, merely because they abuse what everyone else is abusing, namely, the religion that is founded upon Christ...

...A true originality might bring some resistance to the current of the age, some willingness to be unpopular, and some independent scrutiny, at least, if not acceptance, of the claims of Christ. If there is one thing more than another which we believers in historic Christianity out to encourage in the youth of our day is independence of mind...

...It is a great mistake, then, to suppose that we who are called "conservatives" hold desperately to certain beliefs merely because they are old, and are opposed to the discovery of new facts. On the contrary, we welcome new discoveries with all our hearts, and we believe that our cause will come to its rights again only when youth throws off its present intellectual lethargy, refuses to go thoughtlessly with the anti-intellectual current of the age, and recovers some genuine independence of the mind...

...But what we do insist upon is that the right to originality has to be earned, and that it cannot be earned by ignorance or indolence. A man cannot be original in his treatment of a subject unless he knows what the subject is; true originality is preceded by patient understanding of the facts."

J. Gresham Machen was an outstanding scholar best remembered for his defense of historic Christianity in the midst of the "Modernist Controversy" of the 1920s and '30s. He was the founding President of Westminster Theological Seminary, after the fated re-organization of Princeton Theological Seminary.

Holiness - the "Forgotten Fundamental"

In the latest edition of Christianity today (CT, Jan 2007) the writers ran an editorial titled "Reviewing the Fundamentals: Ted Haggard's fall raises crucial questions about holiness".

It is a great article. While not being about the "Fundamentals" as associated with the Fundamental Movement, it rightly centers on the generically fundamental basics of the faith. What struck me about the article was the seriousness with which it took the matter of sin. Note the following quotes:

"Many Evangelicals, having fled from churches characterized more by judgment and hypocrisy than by grace and holiness, have no interest in condemning Haggard. At the same time, we must not unwittingly encourage misconduct."

"How do we treat sinners (that is, one another) with compassion, while still taking sin seriously?"

"The Bible never divorces grace from holiness."

"True grace not only treats sinners with compassion, but it also calls and enables them to live a life of holiness."

"Holiness is indeed God's indisputable call to us."

"Phoebe Palmer, the influential 19th century holiness leader, put it this way: 'If you are not a holy Christian, you are not a Bible Christian.'"

"'Be killing sin, or sin will be killing you', Puritan theologian John Owen warned..."

The funamentalist movement, in its best & historic expression (and not to be confused with the modern legalistic perversions of the movement), rightly concentrated on the importance of right belief. Of course, over time, various parties began to lift secondary doctrines to the status of essential orthodoxy (dispensationalism, pre-tribulation rapture, forms of church government, etc). That notwithstanding, the nascent movement underscored the importance of right belief.

However, I think the movement was understandably naive. The held, according to the best advice of old Princeton Common Sense Philosophy, that 'right belief leads to right living'. Of course, there is some truth in that statement, but there is also much error. Does a right heart produce right belief? Or does right belief produce a right heart? Every seminary & college professor I had firmly insist upon the latter. But I am no longer convinced.

It is at this point that fundamentalists and conservatives get a little nervous (or some just skip right to 'angry'). They cry, "Pastor, are you saying belief doesn't matter"? No, of course not. Belief is essential. But I think we have misordered the process. By lifting the understanding of 'data' so high, we have asked it to carry a weight it was never intended to hold. It becomes the sole bearer of the weight of right living.

Frankly, I have known too many Christians who hold right beliefs but who are not living rightly.

But I don't want to go to the other extreme and say that full holiness comes first, and then produces right belief. But think of it this way, Christ produces holiness in us. This holiness leads us to dig deeply into Scripture. This "digging" then produces in us a deeper holiness, which in turn prompts us to dig even dipper, which in turn produces greater holiness.

It must begin with holiness, and it can never begin with belief. I did not fall in love with my wife because I understood many right facts about her. I fell in love with her, which prompted me to discover right facts about her. In the discovery of these facts, I come to love her even more.

Perhaps the "First Fundamental" should be that holiness comes first. By changing the order, holiness becomes the "product" or "effect", when it reality it is the "cause". No wonder we constantly fail - we are asking the "effect" (belief, knowledge, doctrine) to produce the "cause" (holiness). Belief enhances holiness, but it can never create it. Holiness is a gift from God, which produces right belief. Right belief in turn nourishes and strengthens holiness.

"Holiness First" should become the rallying cry of the fundamentalist movement.