"Distinctive Baptist Principles," a sermon preached by Rev. James. E. Carter, Editor of the "Western North Carolina Baptist", the Baptist state paper for the Western Baptist Convention (1845-1897), was delivered at the assembled Convention October 20, 1883. The text was Acts 5. 32: "We are witnesses of these things." Part one of this sermon may be read here.
IV. Church Independency.
No principle has more distinctly marked a difference between Baptists and other persuasions of Christians than that of the independency of the Churches. There can be no such thing as "the Baptist Church of England" or the Baptist Church of America, or any other nation or country. Baptist Churches may be any and everywhere, but such a thing as a general Church, as is the nature of other Christian denominations, is simply an impossibility with Baptists.
With us each Church or congregation is entirely independent of each other, in all that concerns its government. Each church calls its own minister and other officers, receives and dismisses or excludes its own members, makes its own rules for its government and is sovereign under Christ as its head throughout.
Our Churches, of their own accord, organize in to associations, conventions and such like, but these are only for fraternal and missionary purposes. Such a thing as a Convocation, Council, Synod or Conference clothed with legislative, judicial or executive powers, would be an unheard of thing as well as as an utter impossibility among Baptists...
No one then, need be surprised that Mosheim--a Lutheran--the celebrated historian, speaking of the first century of the Christian Era, should put upon the pages of his standard work the following:
The churches in those early times were entirely independent, none of them being subject to any jurisdiction, but each governed by its own rulers and its own laws; for though the churches founded by the Apostles had this particular deference shown to them, that they were consulted in difficult and doubtful cases, yet they had no judicial authority--no sort of supremacy--over others, nor the least right to enact laws over them."
Observe how, in another chapter, he shows the origin of the centralizing power, and how it went to seed in the outcome of the first pope of Rome:
These councils, of which we find not the smallest trace before the middle of this (the second) century, changed the whole face of the Church, and gave it a new form; for by them the ancient privileges of the people were considerably diminished, and the power and authority of the bishops greatly augmented. The humility indeed, and the prudence of these pious prelates prevented their assuming all at once, the power with which they were afterward invested.
At their first appearance in these general councils they acknowledges that they were no more than the delegates of their respective churches and they acted in the name and by the appointment of their people. But they soon changed this humble tone, imperceptibly extended the limits of their authority, turned their influence into dominion and their councils into laws, and openly asserted at length, that Christ had empowered them to prescribe to his people authoritative rules of faith and manners.
Another effect of these councils was the gradual abolition of that perfect equality which reigned among all the Bishops in the primitive times...In the meantime the bounds of the Church were enlarged...and the universal Church had now the appearance of one vast republic, form by a combination of a great number of little states. This occasioned the creation of a new order of ecclesiastics, who were appointed, in different parts of the world, as heads of the Church...At length, ambition having reached its most insolent period, formed a new dignity, investing the bishops of Rome and his successors wit the title and authority of Prince of the Patriarchs."
Had Baptist principles been maintained and the New Testament church government thus preserved, the world would never have witnessed the encroachments on church independency and the 'lording it over God's heritage by bishops and popes and ecclesiastical councils, such as the history of the past and exhibits of the present display.
V. Church membership to None but the Converted.
No less do Baptists show their distinct line of difference from others than in their great distinguishing doctrine of the spiritual nature of the churches. No person is qualified to be a member of a Baptist Church who is not regenerated by the Holy Spirit. At least that person must profess to have found the pardon of sins by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. We baptize one, not in order that his sins may be remitted, but because he professes that those sins are already remitted.
We can find no precept or example anywhere in God's Word where any but those who were convicted of sin and born again were considered eligible to church membership...Unless this great principle of ours is adhered to, membership in the churches must be made by baptismal regeneration or by hereditary membership.
VI. The Baptism of Believers Only
Baptists believe honestly, and with all due deference to the opinions of others, that an infant cannot discern the object and meaning of the Lord's Baptism any more than it can the Lord's Supper, and that consequently the infant is not a subject for either ordinance. They believe there is no precept or example for infant baptism in the Word of God from the book of Genesis to the book of Revelation. They believe that infant baptism is the outgrowth of the views of baptismal regeneration which obtained in the early centuries of the Christian era...
They believe that infant baptism necessarily demands infant membership, and that infant membership destroys the spirituality of the church...Baptists are so strenuous in their opposition to infant baptism because they know there are precepts, examples and commands in the Bible in favor of believer's baptism and none in favor of infant baptism, and that the tendency of infant baptism is to supplant believer's baptism, and banish it from the world, since the universal baptism of infants leave none to be baptized upon becoming believers.
VII. Immersion only is Baptism.
Baptists believe that the immersion of a believer in water, into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is absolutely essential to the performance of a valid act of baptism, and that the use of water in any other way, as a sacred rite, is without the sanction of the Scriptures. Among our many reasons for this will be found: 1. The meaning of the original Greek word; 2. The example of Christ; 3. The practice of the apostles and early churches; 4. The truths taught by baptism as a symbol; 5. The almost universal consent of the scholarship of the world; 6. The concessions of those who practice otherwise; 7. That immersion was the practice of all the churches until the thirteenth century. The, all, compel to our position and leave on our minds not a trace of doubt that we are Right, and that our position is simply impregnable...
Baptists know that the scholarship of the Church of England, at this time, is almost altogether united in the belief that New Testament baptism was immersion only, notwithstanding their practices to the contrary.
Upon the fundamental doctrines of Baptist's belief, they cannot find place for anything else than immersion. Their doctrine of a converted church membership, and the profession which the converted member makes when he is baptized, binds them against anything else.We believe that in the act of baptism the believer symbolizes his spiritual death and his spiritual resurrection; that he also symbolizes his total defilement and his total purification; and, in addition to this, we believe that the same act of baptism symbolizes the power and the agent by which he receives his cleansing and his new life...
Baptists believe that Christ intended, in the institution of this ordinance, to show forth in symbol these great fundamental truths of Grace, just as he symbolized other truths in the Lord's Supper. They believe that this ordinance of the Lord's House is so simple that the "wayfaring" may not err in the way; and they honestly feel that the errors which have sprung up, and are conscientiously believed by many now, are on account of the uprising of false doctrines; that with the New Testament only in one's hand, no one would ever make a mistake about the "mode" of baptism. Baptists believe that baptism is one of those simple teachings of Jesus, which is easily understood, both in the precept and the example...
VIII. Restricted Communion.
What is commonly known as "close communion" is a subject on which Baptists are more grievously misrepresented, more uncharitably thought of, and more severely spoken against than all things else. Sometimes the most scathing words of denunciation are spoken against us, and the most unkind references to bigotry and Phariseeism are hurled at us with unsparing tongues. This is done, too, we honestly believe, by some who, were they to listen long enough to understand our views, would respect us for our integrity and self-consistency rather than denounce us so bitterly.
Baptists hold, as a fundamental article of belief on the question of the Lord's Supper, the same as is held by the great body of those we cal "evangelical churches." That is, that the Supper is to be administered only to those who have professed conversion and have been baptized...These two ordinances, according to our faith, have equal authority, are of equal benefit, and are both symbolical in their nature. Baptism, to us, preaches Christ's burial and resurrection, and the Supper "shows forth" the Lord's death "till he comes."
We do not believe that a place together at the Lord's table is the test of Christian character, but that regeneration is that test. A true Baptist believes that there are thousands and tens of thousands of converted men and women in all the various denominations, many of them, it may be, better men than he is.
On this account, it is a great injustice to a Baptist to say that he "unchristianizes" those whom he does not welcome to the Lord's table. According to our faith we neither Christianize a Baptist when we sit down with him to the table--for there are many Baptists who partake of the supper unworthy of their name--neither do we unchristianize those with whom we will not sit down. Christian unity is what God's Word calls "unity of the faith" and not unity of the table.
But, we are told, the world's great preacher, Mr. Charles Spurgeon, is now open communionist, and that there are many followers of Robert Hall and other open communion Baptists in England now. This is true but it is not against us, as far as argument is concerned, nor is it in favor of the side of our Pedobaptist friends. Because the open communion Baptists defend their practice on grounds that both ourselves and Pedobaptist friends reject, namely that baptism is not prerequisite to the Lord's Supper.
While we deplore the existence, among a few Baptists, of open communionism--a very few, however--who need surprised that in our denomination, numbered by millions over the world, there should not be, at some time, a difference of opinion? We feel sure that those few Baptists are wrong on the principle on which they defend themselves, because we have our great denomination almost a unit upon the question of the principle, and almost the whole Pedobaptist world agreeing, also with us.
That I may not be rash, but speak to the record, I quote from the "Interior", an able Presbyterian organ, published in Chicago:
"Close communion, in our judgment, is a most defensible position than open communion which is justified on the ground that baptism is not prerequisite to the partaking of the Lord's Supper."
He is right. It is clear that the grounds of defense of the few open communion Baptists proves too much for our Pedobaptist friends...We poor Baptists are still berated, and have to receive and bear, for truth's sake, hard blow after hard blow, because we do not recognize the baptism of our brethren [Pedobaptists] who differ with us, and then admit them to the table...
On of the leading minds in the Pedobaptist pulpit of the United States has published these words:
"A Pedobaptist who believes that baptism is a prerequisite to communion has no right to censure the Baptist churches for close communion. On this question there is a great deal of pulling out of motes by people whose own vision is not clear. Their course, on this question, however mistaken, is certainly consistent, and we must yield them the respect d due to all who adhere firmly to their conscientious convictions."
The great Presbyterian preacher of New York city, Dr. John Hall, speaking of those who would heap censure on Baptists for being close communionists says:
"It is a course of doubtful catholicity to raise a popular cry against a most valuable body of people, who honestly defend and consistently go through with what they deem an important principle."
The Chicago Interior, already referred to, says;
"The difference between our Baptist brethren and ourselves is an important difference...Their views compel them to believe that we are not baptized and shut them up to close communion...To chide Baptists with bigotry because they abide by the logical consequences of their system is absurd.
We think they are wrong in reference to the mode and subjects of baptism, and should not hesitate to take ground against their interpretation; but we would not be silent about the interpretation and then charge them with bigotry for a consistent adherence to their interpretation."
Conclusion.
We solemnly believe that God has given a special mission to uphold and preach their distinctive doctrines, so that, in addition to the other great truths which they propagate, they shall, by maintaining the gospel order of, first faith, then baptism, and then communion, continually and perpetually bear a solemn protest against infant baptism and against every mode of baptism which does not symbolize burial and resurrection; and that they shall, through the symbolism of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, preach, till the world shall end, that whole gospel which Jesus intends those ordinances of His House shall symbolize.
As another has said:
"We yield to no other denomination in our love for all Christians, and in our desire to unite with them in all Christian labors; but the honest truth is, we do differ from them in our views of the ordinances of the visible Church--not from ignorance, not from bigotry, not from a spirit of exclusiveness--but because we cannot help understanding our Master Jesus to teach that none but a believer ought to be baptized; that baptism must symbolize his death and resurrection, and that baptism must precede communion."
God save us from a spirit of boasting. It is a fact that despite all the contempt and charges of "Phariseeism" and "bigotry" which have been put upon Baptists, God has wonderfully honored and blessed them. Notwithstanding in the early history of our country they were few in numbers and were fines, whipped, imprisoned and banished by the persecuting colonies, they now number, in the United States alone, over two million members of as good and true people, as a class, as ever walked the earth.
As I began, so I close, with expressions of kindnesses and good will to the brethren of other religious persuasions. They are, most of them, conscientious and honest in their convictions.. Though we believe them to be in error, we respect and esteem them for their love to Christ and for their Christian character.
I believe I can speak for every true Baptist when I say we love the image of Christ when seen in any feature in a child of God, by whatever name he may be called. We wish them well in their efforts to love and serve our Lord. And we hope to meet them in "That Day" when, as face answereth to face in water, heart shall answer to heart, and we shall cast our crowns before the throne, saying: "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory, and honor, and power." Amen.
With that, I am...
Peter
so, peter, i take it that you'd see no way for us to join with the methodists, or the presbyterians, or the assembly of Gods, or the pentecostals in order to fulfill the great commission? that there'd be no way for us to join together to start churches?
david :)
Posted by: volfan007 | 2007.09.06 at 11:41 AM
David,
Thanks for asking. Actually, this sermon represents what evidently a significant majority of Baptists believed the second part of the 19th century. Mr Carter appears relatively bold in asserting such.
But, the answer to your question is while I believe much can and ought to be accomplished in Great Commission causes thru cooperation with those 'evangelicals' who name the name of Jesus and surrender to the same Lord as do we, the reality is, from my understanding of Biblical ecclesiology, there is little hope of assisting one another in planting/organizing new Churches.
From what I glean from this "City Church" concept, I think it could only be a disaster for the health of a robust Doctrine of the Church. That is my view exclusively; but I also think it is the core belief of Baptists in past generations.
Grace, David. With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2007.09.06 at 03:25 PM
peter,
i agree with you. now, if only the world of christendom could see it all like us!
david :)
Posted by: volfan007 | 2007.09.06 at 10:34 PM
Do not underestimate the grace and power of God guys! I have been able to work alongside men and women of many persuasions without sacrificing any Baptist distinctives. In our Muslim context Pedobaptist have had to resort to baptizing adults and as a result they have no reason to argue with us. Our ministry has attracted the attention of men and women who are excited about participating with what God is doing and God is using them to enhance our own poor efforts.
Just last week a Presbyterian brother has offered funds for a seminary we are starting. A seminary that teaches believer's baptism exclusively.
SDG.
Posted by: Strider | 2007.09.07 at 02:17 PM
Our ecclesiology is in Christ, not in a denomination, or a church building. By that I mean, He is our Head, and we are His church. Our Baptist distinctives are important, but secondary to our fellowship in Christ, which is most important. In the end, we may not have the same style of buildings (or even a building!) or denominational labels, but we share the same resurrected Lord, and we fellowship together as recipients of grace and partakers of divine salvation. I don't have the answers for all of our differences, but I do know the greatest unity we have we share in Christ.
Posted by: Byroniac | 2007.09.08 at 03:16 PM