Who’s Ultimately Converting?

By Ryan Patrick Hoselton

Contextualization—in culture and on the mission field—has perennially been one of the most sensitive and complicated subjects for Christians interested in sharing their faith. To what degree should believers talk, dress, act, and think like their non-Christian community in order to effectively present the gospel to it? Andrew Fuller (1754–1815) offers a helpful test for Christians wrestling through these questions, simply ask: who’s ultimately converting? Are you seeing unbelievers embrace a new identity in Christ, or are your neighbors actually seeing you convert?

In his apologetic work against the Socinian Joseph Priestley (1733–1804), Fuller paralleled the compromise of doctrine to cultural trends to an example of a compromise on the mission field:

Nearly the same things might be observed respecting heathens and Mahometans. We may so model the gospel as almost to accommodate it to their taste; and by this means we may come nearer together: but – whether, in so doing, we shall not be rather converted to them, than they to us, deserves to be considered. Christianity may be so heathenized that a man may believe in it, and yet be no Christian. Were it true, therefore, that Socinianism had a tendency to induce professed infidels, by meeting them, as it were, half way, to take upon them the Christian name, still it would not follow that it was of any real use. The popish missionaries, of the last century, in China, acted upon the principle of accommodation; they gave up the main things in which Christians and heathens had been used to differ, and allowed the Chinese every favourite species of idolatry. The consequence was, they had a great many converts, such as they were; but thinking people looked upon the missionaries as more converted to heathenism, than the Chinese heathens to Christianity.^[1]

Why would unbelievers even consider becoming a Christian when its representatives have nothing unique to offer, for what would they “do more, by embracing Christianity, than they already do?”^[2] When Christians compromise their doctrine for the sake of reaching a certain demographic, they divest their mission of its life-source.  The missionaries that Fuller referenced “stripped the gospel of all its real glory” and “of all that is interesting and affecting to the souls of men.”^[3] When identifying with unbelievers, be careful not to lose your own identity. Don’t be ashamed of the uniqueness of the gospel when evangelizing. The reality is that the gospel is different than us, and that’s exactly why we need it.

---

            ^[1] Andrew Fuller, The Calvinistic and Socinian Systems Examined and Compared, As to their Moral Tendency, in The Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller with a Memoir of His Life by Andrew Gunton Fuller, 3 Vols., ed. Joseph Belcher (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1845. Repr., Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle, 1988), 2:126.

            ^[2] Andrew Fuller, The Calvinistic and Socinian Systems Examined, in Complete Works, 2:127.

            ^[3] Andrew Fuller, The Calvinistic and Socinian Systems Examined, in Complete Works, 2:126–27.

__________________

Ryan Patrick Hoselton is pursuing a ThM at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He lives in Louisville, KY with his wife Jaclyn, and they are expecting their first child in August.

“Truth Itself is of the Greatest Importance”

By Evan D. Burns

On September 27-28, 2013, The Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies will host its 7^th Annual Conference on “Andrew Fuller & His Controversies” at Southern Seminary. (Register here).  In keeping with the theme of this conference, consider Andrew Fuller’s motivations behind theological controversy.  Near the end of his “Reply to Philanthropos” in Section IV, “On the Death of Christ,” Andrew Fuller discloses his heart for engaging in controversy.  Fuller is a great pastoral example of contending for truth without being contentious:

As I did not engage in controversy from any love I had to the thing itself, so I have no mind to continue in it any further than some good end may be answered by it. Whether what I have already written tends to that end, it becomes not me to decide: but, supposing it does, there is a point in all controversies beyond which they are unprofitable and tedious. When we have stated the body of an argument, and attempted an answer to the main objections, the most profitable part of the work is done. Whatever is attempted afterwards must either consist of little personalities, with which the reader has no concern; or, at best, it will respect the minutiæ of things, in which case it seldom has a tendency to edification. To this I may add, though I see no reason, at present, to repent of having engaged in this controversy, and, in similar circumstances, should probably do the same again, yet it never was my intention to engage in a controversy for life….

A reflection or two shall conclude the whole. However firmly any of the parties engaged in this controversy may be persuaded of the goodness of his cause, let us all beware of idolizing a sentiment. This is a temptation to which controversialists are particularly liable. There is a lovely proportion in Divine truth; if one part of it be insisted on to the neglect of another, the beauty of the whole is defaced; and the ill effects of such a partial distribution will be visible in the spirit, if not in the conduct, of those who admire it.

Further, Whatever difficulties there may be in finding out truth, and whatever mistakes may attend any of us in this controversy, (as it is very probable we are each mistaken in some things,) yet, let us remember, truth itself is of the greatest importance. It is very common for persons, when they find a subject much disputed, especially if it is by those whom they account good men, immediately to conclude that it must be a subject of but little consequence, a mere matter of speculation. Upon such persons religious controversies have a very ill effect; for finding a difficulty attending the coming at the truth, and at the same time a disposition to neglect it and to pursue other things, they readily avail themselves of what appears to them a plausible excuse, lay aside the inquiry, and sit down and indulge a spirit of scepticism. True it is that such variety of opinions ought to make us very diffident of ourselves, and teach us to exercise a Christian forbearance towards those who differ from us. It should teach us to know and feel what an inspired apostle acknowledged, that here we see but in part, and are, at best, but in a state of childhood. But if all disputed subjects are to be reckoned matters of mere speculation, we shall have nothing of any real use left in religion….

Finally, Let us all take heed that our attachments to Divine truth itself be on account of its being Divine. We are ever in extremes; and whilst one, in a time of controversy, throws off all regard to religious sentiment in the gross, reckoning the whole a matter of speculation, another becomes excessively affected to his own opinions, whether right or wrong, without bringing them to the great criterion, the word of God. Happy will it be for us all if truth be the sole object of our inquiries, and if our attachment to Divine truth itself be, not on account of its being what we have once engaged to defend, but what God hath revealed.^[1]

---

 ^[1]Andrew Gunton Fuller, The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller, Volume 2: Controversial Publications, ed. Joseph Belcher (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1988), 510-11.

_______________________________

Evan D. Burns (Ph.D. Candidate, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) is on faculty at Asia Biblical Theological Seminary, and he lives in Southeast Asia with his wife and twin sons.  They are missionaries with Training Leaders International.

An Invitation from Dr. Haykin to "Andrew Fuller & His Controversies" (Video)

By Dustin Bruce

[iframevideo width="380" height="285" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/NpmdCWypuA8?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen /]

Join us on September 27-28, 2013 for "Andrew Fuller & His Controversies," our 7th Annual Conference at Southern Seminary.

For more details and to register, visit events.sbts.edu/andrewfuller.

We're only two weeks away from the conference, so register today!

_____________

Dustin Bruce lives in Louisville, KY where he is pursuing a PhD in Biblical Spirituality at Southern Seminary. He is a graduate of Auburn University and Southwestern Seminary. Dustin and his wife, Whitney, originally hail from Alabama.

Understand Ourselves Through Understanding Our Past: Two Recent Publications

By Dustin Bruce

Despite what it may seem, your local Baptist church didn’t appear out of thin air. It falls within a long line of Christian history, much of which has shaped the way you understand your Bible and gather as a church, in ways that are hard to overestimate.

Baptists have been shaped by a number of individuals, institutions, and movements. Of the many, perhaps no movements have shaped us so much as the 16^th century Reformation and the 18^th century revivals that formed early Evangelicalism.

If you would like to know more about these movements, I recommend two recent publications.

First, the recent appearance of the 25^th Anniversary Edition of Timothy George’s Theology of the Reformersmarks the revising and republication of a treatise that serves as a great introduction to the key leaders and theological contributions of the Reformation. If you want to know more about the 16^th century Reformation, I heartily recommend this volume. Read it and you may be surprised how much you learn about why you do the things you do.

Second, the publication of Early Evangelicalism: A Reader, edited by Jonathan M. Yeager, comes as a great service to those interested in exploring the roots of the Evangelical movement. This work features a short introductory piece on over 60 persons of key influence, followed by a sampling of their work. This book also comes highly recommended as a helpful guide to exploring the roots of the larger movement of which we are a part.

I don’t believe it to be a stretch to say that you can’t understand yourself as a 21^st century Baptist (or Evangelical) without understanding these two key movements. Whether you know little or much about these movements, these two volumes will undoubtedly be of service to you.

Pick up and read!

_____________

Dustin Bruce lives in Louisville, KY where he is pursuing a PhD in Biblical Spirituality at Southern Seminary. He is a graduate of Auburn University and Southwestern Seminary. Dustin and his wife, Whitney, originally hail from Alabama.

Andrew Fuller on the Content of Saving Faith

By Nathan A. Finn

While lecturing in Church History I last week, I was asked by a student if I thought you had to believe certain doctrines to be saved. My answer was an unequivocal “yes.” While I do not believe one has to have extensive theological knowledge to be converted, I do believe there are some beliefs that are necessary for salvation. The gospel is news, and all news includes specific content.

Specifically, I believe there are certain things one needs to believe about the nature and character of God, the nature and destiny of humanity, and the person and work of Christ in order to be saved. I summarize these essential doctrines this way: 1) God created the whole world and human beings perfectly good, but we sinned against him by not trusting him and obeying his commands; 2) Jesus, the eternal Son of God, became a man and lived the perfect life we ought to live, but do not and cannot because we are captive to sin; 3) Though he never sinned, Jesus died the death we deserve to die, but do not have to, because he is our perfect substitute; 4) Jesus was raised from the dead to conquer the terrible consequences our sin has earned; 5) any person who repents of his sin and trusts in this amazing work of God through Christ as his only hope for salvation will be forgiven of his sin, adopted into God’s family, and given eternal life.

Obviously, this is a bare-boned presentation of the good news, the bare minimum of the gospel. Furthermore, there is little doubt that not all new converts understand even these baseline truths with the same degree of depth. Nevertheless, I believe a basic affirmation of these concepts is inherent to saving faith, even if a new convert understands far more than these core doctrines.

I am not alone in arguing that certain beliefs are essential to salvation. In 1801, Andrew Fuller published the second edition of his famous treatise The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation. In this important work, Fuller challenged what he believed to be aberrant views found in three theological movements: 1) hyper-Calvinists, who denied the universal proclamation of the gospel to all people; 2) Arminians, who denied the monergistic nature of salvation; 3) Sandemanians, who denied that repentance is an element inherent to saving faith. In countering these movements, Fuller argued that some beliefs are necessary for one to be saved.

He that cometh to Christ must believe the gospel testimony, that he is the Son of God, and the Saviour of sinners; the only name given under heaven, and among men, by which we must be saved: he must also believe the gospel promise, that he will bestow eternal salvation on all them that obey him; and under the influence of this persuasion, he comes to him, commits himself to him, or trusts the salvation of his soul in his hands (italics in original).

I’m with Fuller: You cannot be saved if you don’t have some understanding of who does the saving, what we need to be saved from and why, and how it is that he has saved us. To be sure, this is not all we need to know if we are to be fruitful disciples of Jesus Christ. But we must know at least these truths if we are to begin a life of discipleship.

See Andrew Fuller, “The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation,” in The Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller, vol. II, ed. Joseph Belcher (1845; reprint, Sprinkle Publications, 1988), pp. 340–41.

________________________

Nathan A. Finn is associate professor of historical theology and Baptist Studies at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is also an elder at First Baptist Church of Durham, NC and a senior fellow of the Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies.

Top Five Reasons You Should Attend Andrew Fuller and His Controversies

By Dustin Bruce

With the Fuller Conference coming up later this month, I thought I would present you with five reasons to consider attending this year’s conference. Thanks to Dustin Benge for contributing a number of these.

1. Engage first-class scholarship in the field of Baptist studies. The Andrew Fuller Center exists to further historical research and interest in the field of Baptist history, theology, and related disciplines. The annual conference, which features a number of distinguished speakers, serves as one way we try and do this. This year, you can hear notable scholars such as Paul Helm, Mark Jones, Tom Nettles, Nathan Finn, and more.

2. Equip yourself to face current controversy from a historical perspective. The Fuller Conference is not just for scholars. At The Andrew Fuller Center, what we care about most is the church. With every conference, we aim to empower ministers and lay leaders to serve more effectively in the context of local Baptist churches.

This year is no different. What church does not face controversy from time to time? If you are a ministry leader, come learn how to handle questions on hyper-Calvinism, Arminianism, and eschatology from a historical perspective.

There is truly nothing new under the sun. Controversies don’t die; they just reappear under a different name. You may have never heard the term ‘Socinianism,’ but listening to Dr. Nettles on the topic will guide your approach to dealing with its modern counterpart, Unitarianism. The same could be said about Deism, Socinianism, and more.

3. Engross yourself into another century. Evangelicals all too often fall into what C.S. Lewis described as “Chronological Snobbery,” the penchant to automatically discredit ideas from the past and uncritically accept contemporary thought. At the Andrew Fuller Conference, you will have the opportunity to leave the twenty-first century and travel back to the eighteenth-century. In doing so, you may just find that much of what you assume to be true is false (and vice-versa).

4. Enjoy the close fellowship of a smaller conference. At The Andrew Fuller Center, we thank God for giant conferences that bring together thousands to extol the riches of God’s grace through preaching and song. Yet, this is not our aim. At the Fuller Conference, our intention is to create a thriving environment of brotherly affection centered on the gospel. With our smaller size and more pointed focus, we think we do just that. Come join us and enjoy the fellowship of godly men and women in a smaller, more intimate conference setting.

5. Experience the campus of Southern Seminary. The Andrew Fuller Center has the great benefit of being located on the beautiful campus of Southern Seminary. Come join us and enjoy the amenities of The Legacy Hotel and Conference Center while enjoying Southern’s 80-acre campus located in the Cherokee Park section of Louisville, KY. Close to everything Louisville has to offer, the Fuller Conference would pair great with a family trip to this historical city.

We hope you will join us at the 7^th annual Andrew Fuller Conference. If you have any questions, contact:

The Office of Event Productions

Phone: (502) 897-4072

Email: eventproductions@sbts.edu

or

The Andrew Fuller Center

Phone: (502) 897-4613

Email: andrewfullercenter@sbts.edu

_____________

Dustin Bruce lives in Louisville, KY where he is pursuing a PhD in Biblical Spirituality at Southern Seminary. He is a graduate of Auburn University and Southwestern Seminary. Dustin and his wife, Whitney, originally hail from Alabama.

Caveat on Reading John Gill

By Ian Hugh Clary

The Confessing Baptist website recently linked to an article by pastor Mike Waters of Heritage Reformed Baptist Church in North Canton, OH. Pastor Waters and I are acquaintances, so I thought it would be nice to read what he had to say, especially as he encourages us to read John Gill (1697-1771). Having studied Gill at some length, I am thankful for pastor Waters’ five reasons for reading “Dr. Voluminous,” possibly the leading Baptist theologian of the eighteenth century. We should read Gill, according to Waters, because he was Reformed, baptistic, theological, pastoral, and Christocentric. These are all very good reasons, and I’m glad pastor Waters shared them with us.

I would like to add my own endorsement of reading Gill, but with one caveat: be careful. In many ways, Gill is worth regular and sustained reading. In certain areas, he is absolutely stellar. I am thinking pre-eminently of his work on the Trinity and the deity of Christ, and also, of course, his work on baptism. I advocate care in reading Gill, however, because of the serious problems in Gill’s theology noted by pastor Waters, namely Gill’s high Calvinism and his tendencies to antinomianism. I am more than aware of the debates surrounding the interpretations of Gill on both scores, and I agree that Gill was nuanced enough as a theologian and exegete to be able to dodge those charges in absolute terms. But there can be no doubt that many of his disciples—such as John Brine in the eighteenth century, and the Gospel Standard Baptists of the nineteenth—were not as careful.

Our biggest concerns should be those expressed by subsequent Baptists like Andrew Fuller, who admired Gill, but saw the necessity of critiquing those dangerous elements in his theology. For instance, Gill was against the idea of “offering” the gospel to sinners, he advocated eternal justification, and though he wrote against antinomianism, there is a strain of it in his works. All of this comes out more strongly in the writings of his followers. While Gill was a noteworthy exegete—he was a leading Hebraist in his day, and a master of many ancient languages—he also took to performing exegetical back-flips to suit his theology. I think here of his distinctions between “active” and “passive” justification, and “legal” and “evangelical” repentance. Both of these are notions that Fuller took to task in his justly famous Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation.

Of course, being involved with the Andrew Fuller Center, I would recommend reading Fuller’s works—especially Gospel Worthy. Fuller, like Gill, also wrote on the deity of Christ and baptism, and was a great defender of evangelical Calvinism. I would also recommend reading Abraham Booth, another great Baptist theologian from that period who is, by and large, quite trustworthy. Even better, if you are really interested in Baptist theology, read all three! But keep the problems with Gill in mind, and take to heart the criticisms that have been laid at his feet, whether by the men of that earlier period, as I have noted, or those today like Tom Nettles, Peter Naylor, or Robert Oliver. Critical appreciation is a must!

_____________________

Ian Hugh Clary is finishing doctoral studies under Adriaan Neele at Universiteit van die Vrystaat (Blomfontein), where he is writing a dissertation on the evangelical historiography of Arnold Dallimore. He has co-authored two local church histories with Michael Haykin and contributed articles to numerous scholarly journals. Ian lives in Toronto with his wife and two children.

Precious Doctrines: Quakertown Regional Conference on Reformed Theology

On November 15-16, 2013, Dr. Michael A.G. Haykin will be speaking at the Quakertown Regional Conference on Reformed Theology. The conference theme is "Precious Doctrines" and will also feature Voddie Baucham and Philip Ryken as speakers. Details on the conference can be found here. The conference is a regional conference of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals.

A series of video spots promoting the conference will be available here. The first has already posted.

Learn Your Religion from the Bible

By Evan D. Burns

In a sermon entitled, “On an Intimate and Practical Acquaintance with the Word of God,” Andrew Fuller meditated deeply on the piety exemplified in Ezra 7:10—“Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the law of the Lord, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments.”  Fuller made four outstanding observations about Ezra’s character, which Fuller strongly commended for Christian imitation.  Here is what he gleaned so exquisitely from one verse:

1.  SEEK THE LAW, or will, of God
   1. Seek it.
   2. Seek it at the fountain-head.
   3. Seek the will of God in every part of the Bible.
   4. Seek it perseveringly.
2. PREPARE YOUR HEART to seek the law of the Lord
3. KEEP THE LAW.
   1. Dread nothing more than recommending that to your people to which you do not attend yourself.
   2. More is expected from you than from others.
   3. You will attend to practical preaching.
   4. Attend not only to such duties as fall under the eye of man, but walk with God—in your family, and in your closet.
4. TEACH in Israel the statutes and judgments of God.
   1. Let Christ and his apostles be your examples.
   2. Give every part of the truth its due proportion.
   3. Dare to teach unwelcome truths.
   4. Give Scriptural proof of what you teach.
   5. Consider yourself as standing engaged to teach all that hear you—rich and poor, young and old, godly and ungodly.
   6. Teach privately as well as publicly.[1]

One of the most perceptive and potent points Fuller argued from this verse was the preeminence of seeking the will of God in the Bible alone.  Under the first point, Fuller contended:

Seek it at the fountain-head.—You feel, I doubt not, a great esteem for many of your brethren now living, and admire the writings of some who are now no more; and you will read their productions with attention and pleasure. But whatever excellence your brethren possess, it is all borrowed; and it is mingled with error. Learn your religion from the Bible. Let that be your decisive rule. Adopt not a body of sentiments, or even a single sentiment, solely on the authority of any man—however great, however respected. Dare to think for yourself. Human compositions are fallible. But the Scriptures were written by men who wrote as they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Human writings on religion resemble preaching—they are useful only so far as they illustrate the Scriptures, and induce us to search them for ourselves.^[2]

---

 [1]Andrew Gunton Fuller, The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller, Volume 1: Memoirs, Sermons, Etc., ed. Joseph Belcher (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1988), 483-486.

^[2]The Complete Works, 1: 483.

____________________

Evan D. Burns (Ph.D. Candidate, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) is on faculty at Asia Biblical Theological Seminary, and he lives in Thailand with his wife and twin sons.  They are missionaries with Training Leaders International.

Augustine of Hippo’s Theology of Moral Reasoning

By Ryan Patrick Hoselton

Christians today have two options: hiding under a rock, or confronting complicated and disturbing moral issues. The past month alone has witnessed an ethical Blitzkrieg on Christian values. From the Gosnell trials to the Marathon Bombing, with two more states on the verge of legalizing homosexual marriage and insecure international relations, believers are overwhelmed with moral conundrums. Thankfully, there are resources from the past that help Christians think through the moral dilemmas of today—nothing is new under the sun. Augustine’s work, The City of God, is an excellent example of such a resource, and while it may not comprehensively address every nuance of our modern ethical crises, it’s a good place to establish a moral framework for working in that direction.

In this work, Augustine (354-430) depicts two realms: the earthly city and the heavenly city. The earthly city is transient and corrupt, and the heavenly city is eternal and glorious. In Book XIX, Augustine explains what differentiates the citizens of these cities: one worships and serves God, and the other serves the self. The worship of God establishes true virtue while self-worship leads to immorality. He expounds this point:

Now in serving God the soul rightly commands the body, and in the soul itself the reason which is subject to its Lord God rightly commands the lusts and the other perverted elements. That being so, when a man does not serve God, what amount of justice are we to suppose to exist in his being? For if a soul does not serve God it cannot with any kind of justice command the body, nor can a man’s reason control the vicious elements in the soul. (XIX.21)

If God is not the master of our actions, then our conduct will serve evil. Service to God subjects the mind, will, and actions to righteousness rather than corruption.

The worship of God grounds not only justice but also true happiness and wisdom. When the saints inhabit the heavenly city, they experience supreme joy because they no longer serve other things. The “present reality without” the future hope of being righteous in God is “a false happiness, in fact, an utter misery” (XIX.20). The things humans serve in the earthly city will not only tend to evil but also to profound disappointment. True wisdom must direct “its just dealings with others” towards “that ultimate state in which God will be all in all, in the assurance of eternity and the perfection of peace” (XIX.20). If believers want to act morally wise in the present age, they must pattern their conduct on the heavenly city rather than the earthly city.

Make no mistake, Augustine warns, for many will exploit the virtues to serve selfish ends rather than serving God. Non-Christians and Christians alike can fall into this insidious trap. Augustine explains, “if the soul and reason do not serve God as God himself has commanded that he should be served, then they do not in any way exercise the right kind of rule over the body and the vicious propensities” (XIX.25). Thus, it is essential for believers to constantly study and cherish God’s commands if they hope to gain moral discernment.

In sum, the foundation of virtue is the worship and love of God. Moral reasoning that is not subject to the service of God is vulnerable to serve all kinds of evils, for “it is not something that comes from man, but something above man, that makes his life blessed” (XIX.25). Augustine grounded his confrontation with the moral issues of his day in this framework, and believers today would do well to imitate him.

St. Augustine. The City of God. Trans. Henry Bettenson. New York: Penguin Books, 1972, 1984.

__________________

Ryan Patrick Hoselton is pursuing a ThM at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He lives in Louisville, KY with his wife Jaclyn, and they are expecting their first child in August.

Disowned as Baptists: Conflict Between Two Early Alabama Baptist Associations

By Dustin Bruce

Baptists are no strangers to soteriological disputes. And while generally Baptist groups have found ways to overcome their differences and cooperate for the sake of evangelism and missions, there are cases where Baptist churches and associations have drawn the line and considered another group outside the bounds of cooperation and fellowship. One example of this occurred near Tuscaloosa, Alabama in the 1830’s and 40’s, when differences arose among churches that would form the Tuscaloosa County Baptist Association and the North River United Baptist Association.

The genesis of the controversy can be traced back to 1832, when pastor David Andrews was narrowly removed from Bethel Church in Tuscaloosa for espousing what many considered “Arminian views.” Andrews, along with a number of members of the congregation, broke off to form a new church, which shortly merged with Salem Baptist Church, also in Tuscaloosa. By 1835, Andrews had convinced enough area churches of his theology, that they were able to form the North River United Baptist Association.

The Tuscaloosa Baptist Association, conceived only a year earlier, did not recognize the legitimacy of the North River Association. The Tuscaloosa Association, whose Abstract of Principles was decidedly of the Strict Baptist persuasion, found the soteriological beliefs of the North River Association, as presented in their Articles of Faith, far too dismissive of God’s sovereignty in salvation. As a result, the Tuscaloosa Association refused to recognize the North River Association as Baptists, because they did not first consider them orthodox.

A number of neighboring Baptist associations attempted to intervene, including the Chickasaw Association from neighboring Mississippi. In response to an inquiry from the Chickasaw Association, the Tuscaloosa Association responded in a letter indicating no difficulty has ever existed between the Tuscaloosa Association and the North River Association, since the events causing the separation occurred before the formation of the Tuscaloosa Association itself. Lest you think such a statement constitutes the acceptance and approval of the North River Association, the letter states that upon organizing, the Tuscaloosa Association reviewed the actions undertaken by the churches involved in the schism, concluding the churches they had accepted into their membership were justified “in the course they had taken, and of condemning the others as disorderly, and as guilty of gross Heterodoxy.”[1] The Tuscaloosa Association felt the Chickasaw Association would be sure they were “fully justified in disowning them (North River) as Baptists” after seeing the minutes of the North River Association for themselves.[2]

In 1848, another nearby association, the Columbia Baptist Association, attempted to intervene. A meeting was organized at Pleasant Grove Baptist in Fayette, Alabama the following year. This time, the well-known Baptist leader and president of the University of Alabama, Basil Manly Sr., would preach a message aimed at reconciliation. Choosing Philippians 2:12-13 as his text, the Baptist statesman preached a moving and compelling sermon entitled “Divine Efficiency Consistent with Human Activity.” In the sermon, Manly gave a majestic defense of the compatibility between God’s sovereignty and human free will in salvation. The sermon was a smashing success. Amazingly, the North River Association incorporated Manly’s theology into a new Abstract of Principles. In response, the Tuscaloosa Association began to associate with them as Baptist brethren, ending a nearly 16-year controversy.

---

[1]Foster, History of Tuscaloosa County Baptist Association 1834-1934, 39.

[2]Foster, History of Tuscaloosa County Baptist Association 1834-1934, 39.

_____________________________

Dustin Bruce lives in Louisville, KY where he is pursuing a PhD in Biblical Spirituality at Southern Seminary. He is a graduate of Auburn University and Southwestern Seminary. Dustin and his wife, Whitney, originally hail from Alabama.

Zwingli Against the Zwinglians?

By Ian Hugh Clary

Zwinglianism is the view that the elements of the Lord’s Supper are only a memorial and that Christ is in no sense present—what some have called the “real absence” view, or the memorialist view. The Eucharist was a hotly debated topic during the Reformation that resulted in deep lines drawn between the Reformed, particularly the Swiss, and the Lutherans. Luther could barely bring himself to say that Zwingli was a brother in the Lord because the Zurich theologian refused to believe in consubstantiation. It is often noted that Calvin sought to steer a middle course between the Lutheran and Zwinglian forms by offering a “spiritual presence” view, where the Spirit draws the believer by faith into true communion with Christ in the elements. The so-called memorial view had a continuing influence in subsequent Reformed theology, and even more so in broader evangelicalism. But was Zwingli a Zwinglian?

W. P. Stephens, in his Zwingli: An Introduction to His Thought (Oxford, 2001) puts Zwingli in perspective. The heat of Zwingli’s debate with Luther centred on the words of Christ who said of the bread, “This is my body.” For Zwingli, the word “is” should be understood as “signifies.” For Luther this was anathema. At the Marburg Colloquy (1529), though some headway towards agreement was made, the two Reformers could not agree on this point. However, this did not entail that Zwingli denied any presence of Christ in the supper. After the colloquy, Zwingli expressed his belief in the “real presence” of Christ. Stephens, pointing to Zwingli’s works like An Account of the Faith (1530) and The Letter to the Princes of Germany (1530), says, “Zwingli made it clear that the bread was not mere bread, and he began to affirm terms such as presence, true, and sacramental” (105). In the appendix to his An Exposition of the Faith (1531) Zwingli said, “We believe Christ to be truly present in the Supper, indeed we do not believe that it is the Lord’s Supper unless Christ is present” (Stephens, 105). This change in emphasis came with a greater stress on the bread and the wine, both of which were “divine and sacred” (Stephens, 107).

Stephens does an excellent job tracing out Zwingli’s overall Eucharistic theology. After establishing that Zwingli was not really a “Zwinglian,” as the term has become known, he also makes the important point that Zwingli was consistent in his theology from his early to his later years. While his earlier views were nascent, his later views did not contradict them. In 1523 Zwingli spoke of the soul being fed in the supper. Admittedly he emphasised the “symbolic” understanding of the elements after 1524, yet he held this view when he spoke of feeding on Christ. Stephens summarizes Zwingli’s overall thought saying, “The more positive notes in the later Zwingli do not indicate a real shift in his position, rather a difference of emphasis” (Stephens, 109). The concern for Zwingli, as for other Reformers at this time, was the place of faith in the communicant—he guarded against any gracious effect for the unbeliever who partakes. In this, he appealed to the early Luther who emphasized the need for faith. While issues of Christology and philosophy play into their differences, Zwingli was not as far from Luther as the German Reformer thought. Though he they did not share full agreement, Zwingli was much closer to Calvin, whose view Luther was not so scathingly against.

So, in a sense, Zwingli was against the Zwinglians.

_____________________

Ian Hugh Clary is finishing doctoral studies under Adriaan Neele at Universiteit van die Vrystaat (Blomfontein), where he is writing a dissertation on the evangelical historiography of Arnold Dallimore. He has co-authored two local church histories with Michael Haykin and contributed articles to numerous scholarly journals. Ian serves as a pastor of BridgeWay Covenant Church in Toronto where he lives with his wife and two children.

Treatment of the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit within Reformed Confessions: Poor or Pervasive?

By Dustin Bruce

The Puritans and broader Reformed orthodoxy have long been considered a movement intensely interested in the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. This concern for pneumatology, inherited from John Calvin, led Geoffrey Nuttall to declare, “the doctrine (of the Holy Spirit), with its manifold implications, received a more thorough and detailed consideration from the Puritans of seventeenth-century England than it has received at any other time in Christian history.”[1] Considering the significance placed on the person and work of the Spirit within Puritan and Reformed orthodox thought, it may surprise some that no chapter specifically on the Holy Spirit was included in major confessional statements, such as the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Yet, the lack of a chapter dedicated solely to the Holy Spirit does not reveal a lack of interest in the topic. Commenting specifically on the charge that the Westminster Confession of Faith lacked an emphasis on the Holy Spirit, B.B. Warfield stated, “The sole reason why it does not give a chapter to this subject, however, is because it prefers to give nine chapters to it…”[2] Though Warfield’s analysis rings true and much mention is made of the Holy Spirit and his work throughout Reformed orthodox confessions, the lack of a designated chapter does require greater analysis on the part of the reader if one wants to discover the full scope of a confession’s treatment of the doctrine.

The past year has witnessed the publication of two helpful guides on the doctrine of pneumatology within the Reformed confessions. First, a chapter entitled “The Holy Spirit in the Westminster Standards” by Joseph Morecraft III has been published within a helpful larger volume, The Beauty and Glory of the Holy Spirit, edited by Joel R. Beeke and Joseph Pipa Jr.[3] More substantially, Yuzo Adhinarta has published his fine doctoral dissertation, completed at Calvin Theological Seminary, as The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit in the Major Reformed Confessions and Catechisms of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. In his own words, Adhinarta’s work, “attempts to explore and provide a systematic account of the person and some aspects of the work of the Holy Spirit as presented in the major Reformed confessions and catechisms of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.”[4]

I encourage you to pick up both worthy volumes, but Adhinarta’s work is one that any scholar interested in Reformed orthodox pneumatology must consult.

---

[1] Geoffrey F. Nuttall, The Holy Spirit in Puritan Faith and Experience, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, 1992), xxviii.

[2] Benjamin B. Warfield, “Introductory Note” in Abraham Kuyper, Concise Works of the Holy Spirit, 1900 ed., AMG Concise Series (Chattanooga: TN: AMG Publishers, 2009), xxvii.

[3] Joseph Morecraft III, “The Holy Spirit in the Westminster Standards,” in Joel R. Beeke and Joesph A. Pipa, Jr., eds., The Beauty and Glory of the Holy Spirit (Reformation Heritage Books, 2012).

[4] Yuzo Adhinarta, The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit in the Major Reformed Confessions and Catechisms of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Carlisle, UK: Langham Partnership International, 2012), 2.

_____________________________

Dustin Bruce lives in Louisville, KY where he is pursuing a PhD in Biblical Spirituality at Southern Seminary. He is a graduate of Auburn University and Southwestern Seminary. Dustin and his wife, Whitney, originally hail from Alabama.

Two new works on Covenant Theology in its Baptist expression

By Jeff Robinson

One of the theological questions I have been asked most often during my first 24 months as pastor has been some version of this query: Do Baptists believe Covenant Theology or is that just a Presbyterian thing? My answer (which is consistently “Yes, Baptists have historically believed Covenant Theology that obviously differs a bit from our Presbyterian brethren”) has puzzled some and made others curious enough to launch your own study of my conclusion. But my dear friend Mike Gaydosh at Solid Ground Books in Birmingham, Ala., the city where my family lives, has recently published two books that will provide plenty of grist for that mill and will provide substantive historical and biblical answers to the question of Baptists and their relationship to Covenant Theology.

The first work is titled The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology: A Comparison Between Seventeenth-Century Particular Baptist and Paedobaptist Federalism by Pascal Denault. The point of pressure separating the Baptist and non-Baptist version of Covenant Theology is, of course, the subjects (the who?) of baptism. In the concise span of 140 pages, Denault’s work provides a brilliant historical, biblical and theological defense of believer’s baptism and provides an excellent overview of the consistent, biblical Covenant Theology which the Calvinistic (Particular) Baptists of 17^th century England espoused. Denault surveys British Particular Baptists who held to Covenant Theology such as Benjamin Keach and John Gill and also shows biblically how paedobaptists misinterpret the continuity between the promises given to Abraham in the OT and baptism in the NT and arrive at the conclusion that baptism replaces circumcision as the sign of membership in the covenant people of God. The author traces the points at which historic Baptists and their fellow Puritans parted ways on issues of the continuity and discontinuity between the old and new testaments and argues forcibly that Baptists more consistently held to a biblical version of Covenant Theology.

Edited by Earl M. Blackburn, the second work, Covenant Theology: A Baptist Distinctive, is a multi-author work and includes chapters from contributors such as Justin Taylor, Fred Malone and Walter Chantry. Like the Denault book, this work is brief in compass (161 pages, including three appendices) and each of the five well-written chapters examines a separate issue related to the covenants of Scripture, ranging from baptism to the question of the existence of a covenant of works. Blackburn opens with an excellent overview of Covenant Theology and Malone follows with a discussion of biblical hermeneutics and Covenant Theology. This work, like Denault’s book, offers a well-done overview of the Baptist version of Covenant Theology and I heartily recommend them both for your spring or summer reading.

To order, see the Solid Ground Christian Books website at http://www.solid-ground-books.com/index.asp. Phone: (205) 443-0311.

___________________________

Jeff Robinson (Ph.D., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) is Senior Pastor of Philadelphia Baptist Church. Jeff is the author of the forthcoming book, The Great Commission Vision of John Calvin. Jeff is also a fellow of the Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies.

Ellen Charry and Implications for Historiography

By Ryan Patrick Hoselton

Ellen Charry’s work, By The Renewing of Your Minds: The Pastoral Function of Christian Doctrine (1997), is among those rare gems that challenge you to consider a serious paradigm shift in the way you do theology. Even more, I think her arguments have implications for historiography.

Charry contends for the restoration of theology that is sapiential (which she understands as knowledge that emotionally engages the knower to the known), aretegenic, and salutary. She attempts to show that the best Patristic, Medieval, and Reformation theologians thought, wrote, and spoke about God in this way. Theologians such as Basil of Caesarea, Anselm of Canterbury, and John Calvin insisted on correct doctrine—on knowing God accurately—because it was conducive to moral transformation and flourishing in the Christian life. Knowing and loving God rightly enables authentic imitation of him, and this is the key to human virtue, excellence, and happiness. Thus, pastoral concern drove their theological reflection and engagement in doctrinal controversy.

The modernism of Locke, Hume, and Kant severed faith and sapience from reason, eliminating both from the category of knowledge. Charry suggests that these epistemic shifts facilitated the waning of sapience from theology. Modern academic theology, preoccupied with pursuing knowledge of God on the terms of this modern epistemology, reduced theological reflection to factual knowledge, scientias. However, for classical theologians like Augustine, the goal of scientias was to move the knower to sapientia, wisdom.Knowing factual things about God must be paired with knowing God in wisdom and love. The verity of a doctrine rests largely in its result. For example, Basil of Caesarea argued that the Holy Spirit must be God on the basis that he makes us more like God and unites us to him—only God can do that. Basil contended for this doctrine because he believed that if his congregants denied it they would not grow in godliness. These classical theologians did not separate scientias and sapientia in the way that the modern Academy often does. For them, theology and pastoral theology were synonymous. Their doctrinal battles and treatises functioned primarily to protect and promote their congregants’ holiness.

Charry’s thesis applies to church historians as well. Treatments in historical theology that are limited to broad sweeps of ideologies could fall into the modern trap of severing scientias from sapientia. Historians must avoid imposing this modernist separation on past theological thought. Church historians are responsible for uncovering the pastoral concerns that lie behind the subject’s theological reflection. As Robert Darnton says, the point is “to show not merely what people thought but how they thought—how they construed the world, invested it with meaning, and infused it with emotion” (Darnton, 1985, 3). The historian must investigate the relationship between a theologian’s ideas and his behavior, shepherding, and spirituality. This kind of historiography will assist theologians and pastors in understanding why historic Christian doctrines mattered and still matter to the lives of believers.

__________________

Ryan Patrick Hoselton is pursuing a ThM at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He lives in Louisville, KY with his wife Jaclyn, and they are expecting their first child in August.

New Book by Michael Haykin: Tri-Unity: An Essay on the Biblical Doctrine of God

Tri-Unity: An Essay on the Biblical Doctrine of God

From the Publisher:

Early Christian contemplation on the Trinity is one of the most fascinating intellectual and spiritual conversations in the history of western thought.

In this new work by Dr. Michael A.G. Haykin on this bedrock doctrine of the Christian Faith, follow some of the greatest figures in the Ancient Church — men like the missionary theologian Ireanaeus of Lyons, the African bishop Athanasius and the monastic reformer Basil of Caesarea — as they study the Bible, grapple with how to talk about the Triune God and determine what exactly this means for the Christian life.

Their thinking is just as relevant now as it was when they first put pen to papyrus.

“What a rich story this is, and one the reader will understand and appreciate much better because of Haykin’s masterful work.” — Bruce A. Ware, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY

“Michael Haykin’s, with his impeccable scholarship, has produced a short, readable account that will help many to appreciate these struggles and to grow in their knowledge of God. Buy it, read it, give it to a friend.” — Robert Letham, Director of Research, Senior Tutor in Systematic and Historical Theology, Wales Evangelical School of Theology

“In a clear and learned way, Michael Haykin connects the Bible to Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers…” — Carl R. Trueman, Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, PA

Product Details

Format: Paperback Language: English Publisher: NiceneCouncil.com Year: 2012 Pages: 75 ISBN: 098825480-8

Posted by Steve Weaver, Research Assistant to the Director of the Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies, Dr. Michael A.G. Haykin.

Theological education: the fruit in history speaks for itself

There has been a lively interchange going on regarding theological education on my facebook page. This will be my final post on the issue of theological education (though I do intend to write, DV, a small book on the issue).

In the early Church context about 12%-15% of the Graeco-Roman world were literate. All of the Church Fathers were drawn from these ranks. They had to have been to be able to use and preach the Word of God.

It is very telling that the Reformation leaders were all men trained in the universities. And it is also very telling that the Puritans, all of them apart from Bunyan and Baxter, were university men, with MAs in theology. Very telling indeed. And the impact of the Puritan literature on the 18th century men is well known: it is a major stimulus for revival. And none could accuse the Reformers or the Puritans of not being lovers of the church and ardent pastors.

And then the 18th century leaders of the Evangelical awakening: which of them had not been to university? Well, there is Newton and some of the key Baptists like Fuller and Carey. But both of the latter were geniuses.

And do we really think in this complex world we will be best served in the church by men without such formal training? We are whistling dixie (no offence to my Southern brothers!) And we all know what happened to Dixie.

Theological seminaries: for the bene esse of the church

For the last two weeks have been pondering the fact that seminaries are of the bene esse of the church. They may not belong to the esse, but it is pure folly to think the local church can do the whole task of training men for a learned gospel ministry without the benefit of a seminary education. I am disturbed to think that we have to convince churches of this basic fact. Do these churches know nothing of the last five hundred years of church history?

The Trellis and the Vine

Am reading Colin Marshall and Tony Payne, The Trellis and the Vine: The Ministry Mind-Shift that Changes Everything (Kingsford, NSA: Matthias Media, 2009) and loving it. This struck me today: the comment that "According to Paul, gospel partnership is the normal Christian life" (p.66). A hearty Amen to that! How can churches not be linked purposefully with others in gospel initiatives and defence? That some are speaks not of gospel fidelity but of disobedience to the Word.

Reformed catholicity

In his new book, God Incarnate: Explorations in Christology (T&T Clark, 2009), Oliver Crisp has a fascinating note regarding the appropriateness of using the phrase "Reformed Catholics." He rightly points out that the Reformed tradition was an historic attempt to reform catholic Christianity. Hence, he is wary of talking of Catholics and Protestants. Rather, he wants to distinguish Reformed Catholics from Roman Catholics (p.3, n.8). I have long believed that it is quite appropriate to confess that one belongs to the one holy catholic apostolic church if one has truly believed on the Lord Jesus alone for salvation. For there is one church. It is holy by virtue of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It is apostolic, being based on the Apostles' teaching. And it is catholic, in that it is universal.

In this light, there is much to be said for using the nomenclature "Reformed Catholic." Of course, as with all name tags, the term "Catholic" has associations with Roman Catholicism that are not easily shed and that, as a consequence, can easily confuse. When explained it is a great term.

And within that great body of Reformed Catholicity, I am not ashamed to call myself a Baptist.