Baptist

In this series on denominational traditions, we have thus far looked at the Reformed and Presbyterian, Anglican and Episcopal, and Congregationalist denominations. Today we come to the Baptists.

Overview
 

The Baptist tradition is a more radical congregationalism that rejects infant baptism. 

• Baptists hold to church membership on the basis of conversion, gathered churches formed by church covenants, church government by the congregation, and the autonomy of the local church (sometimes in associations).

• Baptists hold to the baptism of believers only and baptism by immersion only, and a stronger contrast between the Old and New Testaments than is held by Presbyterians.

• Baptists also generally support a greater separation of church and state than the other groups covered thus far.

• Baptists are divided on the issue of Calvinism vs. Arminianism (or, in their terms, Particular Baptists vs. General Baptists). While Particular Baptists (holding to the five points of Calvinism) were more prevalent in the past, General Baptists are more common today.

History

Notable Baptists include Thomas Helwys, Roger Williams, John Bunyan, Benjamin Keach, Isaac Backus, John Leland, John Gano, Adoniram Judson, James Boyce, Charles Spurgeon, Billy Graham, Martin Luther King Jr., W.A. Criswell, Al Mohler, and Rick Warren.

Their relation to the Anabaptists of the 1500s is contested, both inside and outside Baptist circles. While perhaps inspired by, or manifesting similar tendencies as, the Anabaptists, the Baptists originated as a branch of English Puritan Congregationalism in the early 1600s.

Origins in the early 1600s.

1609 - A group of English separatists in Amsterdam under the leadership of John Smyth and Thomas Helwys repudiated their previous baptisms and were baptized upon profession of faith. They also adopted Arminian beliefs and became known as General Baptists. They adopted a confession in 1612. While Symth went on to seek membership among the Anabaptists, Helwys led a group back to England.

1630s - The first Particular Baptist church is founded, in London.

1638 - Roger Williams founds the first Baptist church in the colonies, in Providence, RI. Soon after, John Clarke founds a Baptist church in Newport, RI, securing a charter for RI in 1663.

1641 - A Particular Baptist church in England begins the practice of baptism by immersion.

Growth and maturation in 17th century England.

1644 - The 1st London Baptist Confession is written. Baptists increase and enjoy more freedom during the interregnum under Cromwell.

1653 - John Bunyan is (re)baptized by immersion after his conversion. By 1655 he was preaching. He would become one of the most famous Baptist preachers and writers, especially due to his book, Pilgrims Progress.

1677/1689 - The 2nd London Baptist Confession (2LBC) is written and published, based on the Savoy Declaration, which was based on the Westminster Confession.

Baptists in America: growth in the Awakenings, disestablishment, and westward expansion.

1665 - The First Baptist Church of Boston is established.

Late 1690s - Some Baptists from Maine move to Charleston, SC, founding the first Baptist church in the South.

1742 - The Philadelphia Confession of Faith (the 2LBC with two additional chapters) is adopted by the Philadelphia Association. 

1730s-1740s - Baptists increase during the Great Awakening. A number of northern Baptist preachers start Baptist churches in VA and NC in the wake of the Great Awakening, such as former Congregationalists John Leland (MA), Shubal Stearns (MA), Daniel Marshall (CT), and former Presbyterian John Gano (NJ).

1789-1840 - Baptists experience much greater growth amid the disestablishment of Anglican and Congregationalist churches, the Second Great Awakening, and westward expansion.

Formation of denominations

1814 - The Triennial Convention is founded, especially for the sake of cooperation for missions (its full name was the General Missionary Convention of the Baptist Denomination in the United States of America for Foreign Missions). Its founding was prompted by appeals from Adoniram and Ann Judson, missionaries who had switched from Congregationalist to Baptist on their voyage to the mission field.

1833 - The New Hampshire Confession of Faith is written by Rev. John Newton Brown and agreed upon by the Triennial Convention.

1845 - Due to a dispute over slavery (whether slave-owners could be appointed as missionaries, which also impacted the ability to support missionaries in the South), Baptist churches in the South left the Triennial Convention and formed the Southern Baptist Convention.

1865 - Following the Civil War, many Black Baptists form their own churches and associations.

1895 - The National Baptist Convention, USA is founded by representatives of three African-American Baptist conventions (in 1961, a group split off this group called the Progressive National Baptist Convention).

1907 - The Triennial Convention is reorganized as the Northern Baptist Convention (it was later renamed American Baptist Churches USA in 1972).

1925 - The Southern Baptist Convention adopt the Baptist Faith and Message (a revision of the New Hampshire Confession of Faith). The SBC currently (2024) has 46,876 churches and a little over 12.7 million members, making it the largest Protestant denomination in the USA.

Other Baptist associations and traditions developed in the 1800s, such as Regular Baptists, Primitive Baptists, Missionary Baptists, Free Will Baptists, General Baptists, and Independent Fundamentalist Baptists.

The conservative resurgence in the SBC.

Beginning around 1979, after growing concern about the direction of the denomination, there was a conservative resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention, with strategic and successful efforts to elect conservatives and bring back denominational boards, agencies, and seminaries from liberalism. Issues included biblical inerrancy and opposition to abortion and women’s ordination. The Baptist Faith and Message was revised in 2000, including a complementarian statement on the family and statements opposing homosexuality and abortion.

What We Have in Common

As a comparison of the Westminster Confession of Faith and the 2nd London Baptist Confession shows, Baptists can have much in common with Presbyterians. In that comparison, we share the same doctrines of Scripture, God, God’s sovereignty, the five points of Calvinism, creation, providence, Christ, his benefits, faith, good works, assurance of salvation, the law of God, worship and the sabbath, the Lord’s Supper, the state of the dead, and the resurrection and last judgment.

But Baptists are diverse, and some do not hold all these things in common with us. Many today are Arminian, dispensational, pre-millennial, memorialist with regard to the Lord’s Supper, not very sabbatarian, and sometimes antinomian. Yet, even these Baptists will hold at least to the “five fundamentals” and the Trinity and justification by faith alone and Scripture alone. Also, some Baptists are liberal and have very little in common with us.

In general, we can appreciate Baptists for being evangelical and zealous, eager to maintain Biblical authority and the fundamentals of the faith and to spread the gospel.

Where We Differ

If we are comparing the WCF and 2LBC, the main differences have to do with covenant theology, church and church government, and baptism. There are also differences regarding civil government (omitting the maintenance of piety from the duties listed in paragraph 2, omitting paragraph 3, and rewriting the 4th in the chapter on civil government) and marriage (omitting one end of marriage - the increase of the church).

And so, in addition to the differences we would have with Congregationalists about church membership and government and the autonomy of the local church, we would also differ with the Baptists on the continuity of Old and New Testaments, and the mode, meaning, and subjects of baptism. Also, Baptists, like later Congregationalists, hold to only two offices: elder/pastor and deacon, rather than a threefold division of teaching elders, ruling elders, and deacon.

Baptists hold a variety of views on the covenants. They generally deny that the old covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace and would equate the covenant of grace with the new covenant (the more covenantal Baptists would say that the new covenant was progressively revealed in the Old Testament and was the only way anyone was saved). They say that the new covenant is only made with regenerate believers, and that the infants of believers were never included as such in the covenant of grace. But this does not do justice to the unity of God’s covenant with his people in the Old Testament or the continuity between the testaments and the people of God.

Baptists hold to the necessity of baptism by total immersion, while Presbyterians believe that total immersion is not necessary, but that the essential thing is washing with water, and that pouring or sprinkling is lawful, sufficient, and most expedient.

The 2LBC omitted "the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church" from the meaning of baptism (following Savoy), as well as it being "a sign and seal of the covenant of grace," but did add that it is a sign of fellowship with Christ, in his death and resurrection. The Baptist Faith and Message, following the New Hampshire Confession, adds that baptism is a prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and the Lord’s Supper, and that baptism is “an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s faith” (as well as the believer’s spiritual death, burial, and resurrection). But describing the sacraments as “acts of obedience” makes as much sense as describing the gospel an “act of obedience.” Both are given by God to us, to be received by us. The sacraments are the gospel made visible, signs of Christ and his benefits.

Baptists would insist that only professing believers be baptized. “Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance” (2LBC). The way many would say it today is that baptism is a public declaration of an inward transformation. Most would say that baptisms of the unregenerate are invalid, so that if a person came to realize they were converted after their baptism they should be baptized again. But these positions remove the visible objectivity of the sacrament, downplay its function as a sign from God to man, and neglect God’s consistent inclusion of the children of believers in the administration of his covenant (Gen. 17, Deut. 29, Acts 2:38-39, 16:31-34, see more here).

An Invitation to Roman Catholics

I would like to take the time to invite my Roman Catholic friends and countrymen to “swim the Tiber” out of Rome and to the green pastures of historic Protestantism.

To leave the Roman church is not to leave the one holy catholic and apostolic church that Christ founded. The Reformers did not found a new church during the Protestant Reformation. They worked to reform the church of Jesus Christ, which already existed. They worked to reform it according to Scripture, and this reformation extended to much of the existing church. John Calvin put it this way: “we have had no other end in view than to ameliorate in some degree the very miserable condition of the Church” (The Necessity of Reforming the Church, 1543).

The church is not built upon the bishop of Rome, but upon the apostles and prophets, with Christ being the cornerstone (Ephesians 2). We have the word of the apostles and prophets in Scripture, the only rule of faith and obedience now given by God to his church. It does not say that Peter appointed the bishop of Rome to bear his apostolic authority, but that Peter and the apostles faithfully delivered the message of Christ once to the saints - a message that is recorded in Scripture - ordaining all ministers to faithfully preach and teach it.

To leave the Roman church is also not to discard as useless the history of the church up to 1517. We confess the Nicene Creed every Sunday at our church. The two authors that John Calvin quoted the most outside of the Bible in his Institutes of the Christian Religion were Augustine and Bernard of Clairvaux. As Calvin wrote to Cardinal Sadoleto, “The fact is now too notorious for you to gain anything by denying it, viz., but in all these points, the ancient church is clearly on our side, and opposes you, not less than we ourselves do.” The Reformation was sparked by a "return to the sources" that extended not only to Scripture, but also to the early church fathers.

To leave the Roman church is also not to abandon apostolic succession, a valid ministry, and the Eucharist. Apostolic succession is to be measured by faithfulness to apostolic doctrine, which is found in Scripture. At the same time, we do not forsake the practice of the ordination of pastors by other pastors, although many Protestants do reject the distinction between bishops and priests, seeing that the Bible uses the terms "bishop/overseer," "pastor/shepherd," and "elder/presbyter" interchangeably (e.g. Acts 20:17, 28). As J.A. Alexander, put it “Supposing, then, as we of course do, that the rank, which we have claimed for Presbyters, is justly due to them, it follows necessarily, that no objection to the validity of Presbyterian orders can be founded on the want of apostolical succession; partly because it is not absolutely necessary, partly because we are as really possessed of it as any other ministry or church whatever.” Protestant ministers do administer the Eucharist (whether they use that term or "Communion" or "the Lord's Supper"), following Christ's example by setting apart the elements to their sacramental use by the words of institution and prayers of thanksgiving and blessing.

The Roman church falsely claims to be the whole church while it obscures the gospel by its errors, its distinctive doctrines and practices which have no warrant in God's word, but are invented by man. I have given one example recently here: Justification by Faith Alone: Scripture and Rome. The Protestant doctrine of justification for Christ's sake alone, received by faith alone (although not by a faith that is alone, but is ever accompanied by other graces), is good news, to be joyfully received and spread abroad. Remember the promise sealed by your baptism, the promise of forgiveness and cleansing through the blood of Jesus Christ, a promise to be received by faith - its efficacy and use continues throughout your life. The only perfect righteousness that satisfies the demands of God’s law and gains for us a righteous verdict before him is the satisfaction and obedience of Jesus Christ imputed to us. Faith justifies, not by the good works which it does produce, but by receiving Jesus and his righteousness. "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor. 5:21).

If you live locally, my church website can be found here: Covenant Family Church (OPC). For those who are further away, you can begin by checking out these: Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Presbyterian Church in America, and United Reformed Churches in North America. 

Justification by Faith Alone: Scripture and Rome

In Paul's letter to the Galatians, we are told that when the apostle Peter came to Syrian Antioch, he ate with the Gentiles, as God had taught him in Acts 10. But when men of the circumcision party in Jerusalem came to Antioch, Peter drew back and separated himself from the Gentiles through fear of them. Other Jewish believers, even Barnabas, followed Peter’s example.

Paul saw correctly that this was hypocrisy, since Peter was not acting on his beliefs but was acting through fear of these visitors. Paul also saw the dangerous impact of this action on the Gentiles converts, since by withdrawing, Peter was compelling the Gentiles to live like Jews, to be circumcised and return to the laws of ritual purity. And so Paul opposed Peter and told him publicly, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

It is a little unclear where the quotation of what Paul said to Peter stops. The ESV ends the quotation at the end of verse 14, and that might be correct. But Paul goes on to explain his basic point in Galatians 2:15-16.

"We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified." (Galatians 2:15–16) 

“We ourselves” is speaking of Jewish believers like Peter and Paul. They were Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, and yet even they had sought their justification through faith in Jesus Christ, not through works of the law. They put no confidence in the flesh and did not rely on works of the law, but relied on Jesus Christ. Both Jews and Gentiles were condemned by the law and were justified by God through faith in Jesus Christ.

To insist on the observance of the old covenant ceremonies was to count the Gentile believers as unclean, despite their faith in Christ and possession of the Spirit. Those who insisted on circumcision were teaching people to rely on works of the law, to put confidence in the flesh.

Paul goes on to show that these “Judaizers” were misusing the old covenant, which was meant to lead us to Christ, and which had become obsolete with the coming of Christ. But the point of our passage is that no person is justified by works of the law; a person is justified through faith in Jesus Christ. This is why both Jews and Gentiles have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law. It is not that we have believed in Christ in order to receive the ability to keep God's commands and thereby be justified. In that case Paul could have said we are justified by the works of the law through faith in Jesus Christ. But no, Paul contrasts two different ways of seeking justification, by works or by faith.

1. The Doctrine of Justification

A person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ.

What is “justification”?

It is a declaration of a person’s righteousness. It is the opposite of condemnation. In the Bible, it is a judicial word, a pronouncement and sentence, not the work of making someone righteous. For example, in Romans 3:4, God is said to be “justified” in his words and to prevail when he is judged. And in Romans 8:33-34, to justify is set against to condemn, "It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn?”

What are the “works of the law”? Are they only the observance of the ceremonial law?

They are not only the ceremonial law. Paul's point is that justification is not by our obedience to the law of God, whether ceremonial or moral. Those who rely on old covenant ceremonies in themselves for justification (not putting them aside and looking to the Christ they fore-signified) are relying on their perfect obedience to the whole law for their righteousness (Gal. 3:10-14). Paul goes on in Galatians 3:10-14 to speak of how Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us. Paul also writes about this in his letter to the Romans, "For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law" (Romans 3:28), and there it is especially clear that the “law” in question is one that is convicts all of us of sin and demands perfect obedience. Romans 3:20, “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.”

By what kind of faith are we justified?

We are not justified by any faith, but "by faith in Jesus Christ" (Gal. 2:16). The object of faith is important. And it is not a mere knowledge of the gospel or an assent to its truth, but a reliance upon Jesus Christ, a receiving and resting upon him for salvation.

What function does faith serve?

Faith is unique among all the virtues in that it receives Christ. The function of faith is to receive Christ, that we might be united to him. Faith is not the food, but the way we eat the food; not the treasure, but the way we receive the treasure; not the glorious robe, but the way we put it on. 

On what basis are we justified?

Believers are justified on the basis of Christ’s righteousness, imputed to us. We are justified “by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith” (Rom. 3:24-25). 2 Corinthians 5:21, “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” The satisfaction and obedience of Jesus Christ is imputed to us. That is the only perfect righteousness that will satisfy the demands of God’s law and gain for us a righteous verdict.

This doctrine is not only biblical and Protestant, but also finds a precedent in the early and medieval church, although it was not always well formulated or clearly taught.

On justification by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness:

John Chrysostom (Homily 11 on 2 Corinthians, on 2 Corinthians 5:21, AD c. 400) - “For he said not ‘made’ [Christ] a sinner, but ‘sin;’ … that we’ also ‘might become,’ he did not say ‘righteous,’ but, ‘righteousness,’ and, ‘the righteousness of God.’ For this is [the righteousness] ‘of God’ when we are justified not by works, (in which case it were necessary that not a spot even should be found,) but by grace, in which case all sin is done away.”

Bernard of Clarivaux (Letter LX, AD 1140) - “For what could man, the slave of sin, fast bound by the devil, do of himself to recover that righteousness which he had formerly lost? Therefore he who lacked righteousness had another’s imputed to him … Why should not righteousness come to me from another when guilt came upon me from another? … It is not fitting for the son to bear the iniquity of the father, and yet to have no share in the righteousness of his brother. … I attain to one and to the other in the same way: to the one by the flesh, to the other by faith.”

On justification by faith alone:

Clement of Rome (1 Clement 32.4, AD 95) - “And so we, having been called through his will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety, or works that we have done in holiness of heart, but through faith, by which the Almighty God has justified all who have existed from the beginning; to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.”

Chrysostom (Homily 5 on Colossians, AD c. 400) - “For, all of a sudden, to have brought men more senseless than stones to the dignity of Angels, simply through bare words, and faith alone, without any laboriousness, is indeed glory and riches of mystery…”

The right use of this true doctrine?

As Paul teaches in Galatians 2:19-20, being justified by faith in Christ, we now live in Christ and for Christ, for the one who loved us and gave himself for us. We give ourselves back to him in gratitude. Being set free from the condemnation of the law, we now live our new life to God. Being justified because we are in Christ, we are also sanctified because Christ is in us. “I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”

2. Roman Errors that Obscure the Doctrine

Peter once obscured the truth by his actions, and Paul rebuked him. So those who claim to succeed Peter obscure the truth, not only by their actions, but by their teachings. The Roman church will say some things we can agree with, but they teach various errors that obscure the truth and lead people astray.

1. Their doctrine of justification.

For example, they accept the satisfaction of Christ for their satisfaction, but not their righteousness before God. They include sanctification as part of justification, teaching that justification is by the forgiveness of sins and by the renewal of the inner man, on which basis a person is declared to be righteous. They reject justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ alone. The Council of Trent proclaimed: 

“If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favor of God; let him be anathema.” (Session 6, Canon 11)

The Council of Trent still asserted the necessity of grace and faith for justification. They asserted that we were unjust in Adam and only justified by being “born again in Christ” (Session 6, Chapter 3). Yet, they denied that justification is only the remission of sins, but argued that it is “also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts…” (Chapter 7). The council taught that God does not merely reckon us to be just, but properly calls us just because we are just, each according to our measure. It taught that our justification is not dependent upon the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us, but rather upon our righteousness which we are enabled to exercise because of the grace of Christ given to us. Thus they give faith a different function, to prepare a person for justification and by working love in them, on account of which they are justified.

By making our righteousness before God depended upon our virtue and deeds, it diverts the Christian from looking to Christ toward looking at his own character and works. We agree that Christ does work righteousness and love in us, but we deny that these graces serve as the basis of our justification. The law of God demands perfection, and it is Christ’s own perfect righteousness that covers believers and is reckoned to them by grace. 

2. Their doctrine of concupiscence.

They deny concupiscence to be sin. This view of sin makes it easier for people to believe that they are righteous before God in their own right. But we believe that this original corruption is sin and is still present in the believer, so that if we were judged by the law on the basis of our virtue and works, we would be condemned. Even Paul found sin at work in him; seeing the desire for sin as sin, something to be confessed and mortified (Rom. 7-8). Thus, Christians need the imputed righteousness of Christ to be declared righteous before God. 

3. Their doctrine of penance.

Their doctrine of penance is wrong and misleading. They distinguish between venial and mortal sins in the life of the believer. They teach that mortal sins cause a person to lose his justification and utterly fall from the state of grace. But justification may be renewed. While they affirm that “only God forgives sins” and that “Christ alone expiated our sins once for all,” they also teach that justification may only be renewed by the sacrament of penance. This not only requires contrition and a confession of the sins to a priest, who absolves the sinner, but in their definition of repentance they include the making of satisfaction to God by your deeds to expiate the sin, a satisfaction accepted by God through Christ (CCC, p. 407-408). Again, this redirects people from faith in Christ’s work to their own works.

It is true that we must repent. Repentance is primarily an internal turning from sin to God. With grief and hatred toward sin, we turn from it to God, with full purpose of and endeavor after new obedience. True repentance will include a new resolve to obey God, resulting in deeds in keeping with our repentance (Acts 26:20). But this new obedience is not a satisfaction made to God. We rest on the satisfaction made by Christ, who is the propitiation for our sins and the one who intercedes for us. A true turning from sin to God will include the making of restitution to our fellow man for sins against him and a faith in Christ and his redemptive work for the satisfying of divine justice.

4. Their doctrine of temporal penalties for sin.

Their doctrine of temporal penalties for sin is also wrong and misleading. They will say that even when the guilt and punishment of sin is forgiven, that temporal penalties due for that sin remain. From this doctrine come belief in indulgences, purgatory, and the use of the merits and intercessions of the saints. They teach that if a believer dies before suffering all the temporal punishments for their sins, they must be further purified by suffering in purgatory. They no longer sell indulgences, but still affirm their use to relieve a person of these temporal punishments. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, “An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints. … The faithful can gain indulgences for themselves or apply them to the dead.”

Again, this redirects attention away from Christ’s work, neglects the fullness of his work, and substitutes beliefs and practices of man’s invention.

When we are forgiven, both guilt and punishment is removed. We are not liable for a debt that has been canceled (Col. 2:14). We no longer need to make satisfaction for sin. Christ has satisfied divine justice by his single sacrifice, offered once for all, and he is the propitiation for our sins (Rom. 3:24-25, Heb. 9:14, 25-28, 10:10-14). It is true that believers are sanctified through trials, sometimes sent as consequences for our sins, but this suffering is not a satisfaction for sin, but a fatherly discipline for our training in this mortal world. Those who die in the Lord are blessed and rest from their labors (Rev. 14:13). As Jesus told the believing criminal on the cross, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). When believers die, their souls are made perfect in holiness and immediately pass into glory, being blessed in Christ for his sake. There they await the resurrection from the dead on the last day.

5. The sacrifice of the Eucharist.

They also teach that the sacrifice of the Eucharist is a reparation for the sins of the living and the dead that obtains spiritual or temporal benefits from God. They teach that the love inspired by this communion wipes away venial sins. They teach it can be offered for the dead, to relieve them of some of their temporal penalties.

The word “Eucharist” is not bad. It comes from the Greek word for “thanksgiving.” A sacrifice of thanksgiving is made in this sacrament, but not a propitiatory sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. Christ offered himself once as a sacrifice for sins on the cross (Heb. 9-10), and now the benefits of that sacrifice are given to believers. The Eucharist is a sacrament that represents, seals, and applies the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice to us, to be received with faith, thanksgiving, and renewed consecration; not a sacrifice that man offers to God to obtain benefits from him. The letter to the Hebrews could not be more clear on the contrast between the repeated offering of sacrifices in the old covenant and the single sacrifice of Christ once offered to God by Christ, our priest.

What are to we to make of the Roman church and its members?

On the one hand, it is a huge institution with more diversity than they like to admit. The beliefs of its members are supposed to be whatever the church teaches, but this is often not the case. Their beliefs can be worse than the official dogma, but sometimes they are better, especially when they have been influenced by Protestants. If you are interacting with individuals in the Roman church, it is important to not jump to conclusions. See what they themselves actually believe. Not only will that make your conversations more productive, but it can also open a door to share what you believe and to clear up misconceptions they may have about Protestants.

As for the Roman church in general, a good analogy that was used by the Reformers was that of the northern kingdom of Israel. The northern kingdom professed the true God and its members were marked by the sign of the covenant and there was a remnant of faithful believers in it; yet that kingdom had departed from ordinances God had appointed in Jerusalem, they had substituted for them the idolatrous and corrupt worship of the true God using golden calves, and was led by kings that made the people to sin in unfaithfulness to their covenant God. Calls were given to the northern kingdom and its members to turn to their Lord and to worship him in Jerusalem (2 Chron. 30:1-12).

We should continue to seek the purity and unity of the visible church, encouraging members of the Roman church to be true to their baptism by resting upon Christ alone for their salvation if they don’t already, and by forsaking the false teaching and corrupt worship of the Roman church. Even though it is possible to be saved in it, it is a spiritually dangerous place to be, all the more because of the weight that is given in that church to the authority of the church hierarchy and tradition.

May we call the hierarchy of that church to repent and reform. In the meantime, may we have compassion on our Roman neighbors and share the truth of the gospel that is obscured by the doctrines and practices of their church. Encourage them to come out to the refreshing waters and green pastures of historic Protestantism. 27% of St. Charles County belongs to the Roman church, and 21% of the St. Louis metro area, so this is a very practical issue.

Let them know that to leave the Roman church is not to leave the one holy catholic and apostolic church that Christ founded. The Reformers did not found a new church during the Protestant Reformation. They worked to reform the church of Jesus Christ, which already existed. They worked to reform it according to Scripture, upon which his church is founded (the word of the prophets and apostles). The work of reform is not yet done - may all the baptized be taught the joyful tidings of the gospel and organized in local and regional churches that faithfully proclaim the word of God and rightly administer the sacraments.

Justification by faith alone for Christ’s sake alone is good news, to be spread abroad and joyfully received. May you receive it yourself and live now by faith in the Son of God, who loved you and gave himself for you. May we not abuse this doctrine and bring it into disgrace, but confess it faithfully along with the whole counsel of God, adorning the faith with good works of grateful love.

We have joyful tidings of salvation in Christ. We who have believed in Jesus Christ, to be justified by faith in him, can take comfort and rejoice that there is “now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1). We can rejoice that, “since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of, the glory of God” (Rom. 5:1–2). You can come with confidence to the throne of grace, seeking help in times of need, resting upon the meditation and perfect sacrifice of your merciful high priest.

“Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.” (Romans 8:33–34)

Congregationalist

In this series on denominational traditions (part 1, part 2), we come next to the Congregationalists. Congregationalism was a branch of English Puritanism, Reformed in doctrine and worship but holding to some unique positions on the doctrine of the church:

1. Membership on the basis of conversion.

The basis for church membership (communicant church membership) is faith and repentance, or more precisely, a profession of faith that is not only believable, but that compels belief. At least in New England, they generally required prospective members to give testimonies of their conversions. They did retain infant baptism, although the status of such children before their profession was debated (the Savoy Declaration did not count baptized infants as members of the visible church, but the versions of Savoy and the Westminster Confession accepted by New England Congregationalists did count them as such). 

2. Gathered churches formed by church covenants.

Rather than the universal visible church being formed into particular churches, churches are formed by believers covenanting together.

3. No greater church than a congregation, with all authority at the congregational level.

Their churches are independent, more or less, although there is a place for associations and synods (especially useful with respect to ordination), although associations beyond the local church lack church-power. 

4. Government by the congregation, led by officers.

Members vote on receiving, dismissing, and disciplining members, as well as calling men to office or removing them from office. Churches are led and taught by these officers. Originally Congregationalist churches had ministers, ruling elders, and deacons, but ruling elders gradually disappeared, leaving only ministers/elders and deacons. 

History

Notable English Congregationalists include William Ames, Thomas Goodwin, John Owen, and Isaac Watts. Notable American Congregationalists include the Pilgrims and New England Puritans, John Cotton, John Eliot, Thomas Hooker, the Mathers, Jonathan Edwards, Timothy Dwight, Nathaniel Taylor, D.L. Moody, C.I. Scofield, and Harold John Ockenga.

1620 - The Pilgrims arrived in Plymouth.

1640s - Westminster Assembly, a mostly Presbyterian assembly that included some Congregationalists like Goodwin.

1648 - The Cambridge Platform adopted in Massachusetts, which affirmed the Westminster Confession of Faith except as dealt with church government and discipline.

1658 - The Savoy Declaration, a modified version of the Westminster Confession, was produced by English Congregationalists. 

1662 - The Half-Way Covenant was adopted in many churches of New England.

1680 - The Reforming Synod (MA), which approved the Savoy Declaration with a few minor edits.

1708 - The Saybrook Platform (CT), which included the confession of 1680 (the slightly altered Savoy Declaration).

1730s - The Great Awakening began (e.g. Jonathan Edwards, Old Light / New Light split). 

1766 - American Presbyterians and CT Congregationalists form an association with a regular convention for better communication between them and for a united stand for the gospel and religious liberty and against the imposition of a bishop.

Late 1700s - The “New Divinity” develops among New Light Congregationalists

1801 - The Plan of Union with Presbyterians for westward expansion (until 1837 and 1852)

1800-1825 - Unitarian controversy; about 100 churches, mostly near Boston, break away.

1807 - Andover Seminary was founded in response to a Unitarian divinity professor at Harvard.

1810 - American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions was founded (one of many voluntary societies created in that era).

1817 - Timothy Dwight, grandson of Edwards, minister, Yale president, dies.

1818-1819 - Churches disestablished in CT and NH.

1822 - Nathaniel Taylor became professor of divinity at Yale, promoting “New Haven Theology.”

1833 - Churches disestablished in MA.

1853 - The American Congregational Union formed.

1865 - The Burial Hill Declaration of Faith (preparation for the denomination that formed in 1871).

Late 1800s - D.L. Moody and C.I. Scofield active.

1871 - National Council of Congregational Churches of the United States.

1913 - The Kansas City Statement (watered down, no Calvinism, a more liberal position).

1931 - CCC (Congregational Christian Churches) was formed through a merger of the national (predominately northern) denomination with the General Convention of the Christian Church (predominately a southern denomination).

1948 - CCCC (Conservative Congregational Christian Conference) was formed due to theological concerns with the Congregational Christian Churches.

1955 - NACCC (National Association of Congregational Christian Churches) was formed out of opposition to the merger that created the UCC.

1957/1961 - UCC (United Church of Christ) was formed through a merger with the Evangelical and Reformed Church (a denomination of German heritage).

What We Have in Common

With liberal Congregationalists, not much. Historically, with traditional Congregationalists, we have a great deal in common (e.g. doctrines of God’s sovereignty, covenant theology, Reformed worship), which is why Presbyterians and Congregationalists often worked together from at least the late 1600s through the mid-1800s.

Positive Traits We Can Appreciate

• They had all the positives of Puritanism: practical and zealous, with Reformed doctrine.
• Their emphasis on godly community, reform of church and society according to God‘s word, election sermons, missions, and an educated ministry.
• Their ability to achieve these things in New England.
• The importance of settled, churchly, Sabbatarian habits.
• Seeking both a godly commonwealth and a pure and zealous church (resisting, for a time, sectarian and broad church tendencies)

Where We Differ

While they hold to church membership of those who sufficiently prove themselves to be regenerate, we hold to church membership of those who profess faith and their children.

While they conceive of churches organized only as gathered local churches by church covenants, we conceive of the visible church as universal and particular, regional and local, united by profession of faith. 

While they hold churches to be basically independent, we hold the visible church to be local and regional, with local and regional governments.

While they hold to government and discipline that is congregational, based on and limited by their church-covenants, we hold to government and discipline that is by elders (teaching and ruling) called by the people.

Other differences result from the fact that congregational church government is not as effective at securing doctrinal unity, and so congregationalism general has more doctrinal diversity (despite its confessions and statements).

"As to my subscribing to the substance of the Westminster Confession, there would be no difficulty: and as to the Presbyterian government, I have long been out of conceit of our unsettled, independent, confused way of church government; and the Presbyterian way has ever appeared to me most agreeable to the word of God, and the reason and nature of things…"
- Jonathan Edwards (Letter from him to John Erskine, July 5, 1750)

"Had New England, with her compact and homogenous population, and all her other advantages, enjoyed the benefit of a regular Presbyterian government in the church, it would, in all human probability, have been the noblest ecclesiastical community in the world." 
- Charles Hodge

Anglican and Episcopalian

This is part two in a series on denominational traditions. You can find the first part here: Reformed and Presbyterian. In this post, I will look at the Anglican and Episcopalian denominational tradition.

While this denomination is no longer as strong, visible, and united as it once was in the USA, it is rather important historically. Its ways are often a default in English-speaking countries, either directly or with modification. The word "Anglican" refers to what is English, and in particular the Church of England and other churches with the same formularies for doctrine, worship, and government. The word "Episcopal" refers to their church government by bishops and was used by the church in America after independence from Great Britain.

The historic formularies of the Anglican tradition are:

• The 39 Articles (1571). This is a basic Reformed confession of faith, based on the 42 Articles by Thomas Cranmer.
• The Book of Common Prayer (1662). The 1662 edition is the classic version, based on earlier versions by Cranmer, and later editions have been produced. 
• The Ordinal (1662). This is the form for ordinations.
• The Two Books of Homilies (1547, 1563, 1571). This is a collection of sermons by Thomas Cranmer, Matthew Parker, and John Jewel. There are 12 sermons in the first book and 21 sermons in the second book. 

Some would also include Nowell’s Catechism. There is a little version included in the Book of Common Prayer and a longer version outside it. 

Notable figures include Thomas Cranmer, Hugh Latimer, John Jewel, Richard Hooker, William Perkins, George Herbert, Alexander Whitaker, James Ussher, George Whitefield, John Newton, J.C. Ryle, J.I. Packer, lay authors like Jane Austen, T.S. Eliot, and C.S. Lewis, and many political leaders like George Washington. Many hymn writers have been Anglican, such as Reginald Heber, a pastor in England and a missionary bishop in India who wrote hymns like "The Son of God Goes Forth to War," "Holy, Holy, Holy," "From Greenland's Icy Mountains," and "Brightest and Best of the Sons of the Morning." 

Timeline

600s - The Church of England is founded with the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons through Celtic and Roman missionaries (although it could arguably be dated earlier since Christianity had become established among the Britons during the time of the Roman Empire). 

1530s - Church of England becomes independent of Rome during the reign of Henry VIII. 

1549 - The first Book of Common Prayer, published in English during the reign of Edward VI. 

1550s - Mary Tudor attempts to bring England back to Rome, executing leading Protestants like bishops Hugh Latimer, Nicholas Ridley, and Thomas Cranmer.

1558 - Protestantism reestablished under Queen Elizabeth.

1607 - Church of England established in North America at Jamestown, although without a bishop in America until the 1780s. 

1611 - The King James Version of the Bible is published.

1633 - William Laud becomes Archbishop of Canterbury, hostile toward Puritanism, and a trend away from Reformed doctrine is underway.

1640s - Government by bishops is abolished, Laud is executed, and the Westminster Assembly attempts a further reform of the Church of England, bringing it into greater unity with the Church of Scotland.

1662 - Government by bishops is restored and the classic version of the Book of Common Prayer is published following the restoration of the monarchy. The Act of Uniformity forces out many of the most Puritan-minded ministers from their pulpits. The Reformed presence becomes diluted in the church.

1730s-1770s - The Great Awakening and the ministry of Anglican ministers George Whitefield, John Wesley, and Charles Wesley. 

1700s - In America, Anglicanism was different in the southern colonies than it was in the northern colonies. In the south, it was more “low church” in worship and government and patriot-sympathizing during the War of Independence. In the north, in reaction to the Congregationalists, it was more “high church” in worship and government, pressing for an American bishop, and more loyalist during the war.

1784-1789 - Following disestablishment, much of the Anglican church in the USA is reorganized as the Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA (some of it breaks away as the Methodist Episcopal Church). The Protestant Episcopal Church adopted its own version of the BCP in 1789, with other editions in 1928 and 1979. A modified version of the 39 Articles was adopted in 1801.

1800s - The Anglican Church spreads throughout the world as missionaries are sent out, especially to lands where the British empire extends. Three camps emerge in the church: low church (evangelical), broad church (latitudinarian), and high church (stressing ritual and episcopacy).

1833 - The "Tractarian" or Oxford Movement begins with the publishing of the first "Tracts for the Times." This movement by high church members of the Church of England stressed continuity with the medieval English church in beliefs and practices, reinterpreted the 39 Articles, and developed into Anglo-Catholicism. Some of its leaders, like John Henry Newman, later joined the Roman Catholic Church.

1867 - The Anglican Communion is established as a communion of national churches in the Anglican tradition (today it has 85 -110 million members), with their bishops meeting every ten years at Lambeth Conferences (advisory rather than legislative).

1873 - The Reformed Episcopal Church forms in the USA in response to the growing influence of the Oxford Movement in the Episcopal Church.

1976 - The Episcopal Church in the USA approved the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate and moved toward adopting a new BCP (1979). This prompted the creation of several small breakaway denominations.

2008 - GAFCON (Global Anglican Future Conference) is founded as a coalition of conservative Anglican churches at its first conference in Jerusalem in response to growing liberalism, and especially the acceptance of same-sex unions, in some parts of the Anglican Communion. A majority of the Anglican Communion also belonged to GAFCON, and GAFCON also came to include a few churches not recognized as part of the Anglican Communion, such as the ACNA. 

2009 - The Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) forms in response to moves in the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church in the USA toward blessing same-sex unions. The Reformed Episcopal Church was a founding member of the ACNA and its four dioceses are dioceses of the ACNA. In both the ACNA and GAFCON, there is a commitment to Christian sexual ethics and creedal orthodoxy in the Anglican tradition, but there is diversity on things like women's ordination, with some jurisdictions opposing it and others practicing it.

2025 - [Update:] On October 16th (the anniversary of the martyrdoms of Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley; and the day after I posted this blog post), GAFCON announced a reordering of the Anglican Communion based on the Bible, rejecting the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council, and the Primates Meeting as instruments of communion, since they had failed to uphold the doctrine and discipline of the Anglican Communion. It re-ordered it by restoring its original structure as a fellowship of autonomous provinces bound together by the Formularies of the Reformation, so that GAFCON is now the Global Anglican Communion.

Original Distinctives:

• Reformed in doctrine. 
• Episcopal in government. 
• Uniform in worship according to the BCP (moderately Reformed in content). 
• National churches independent of Rome.

Current Distinctives:

• “Three streams” of protestant/evangelical, Anglo-Catholic, and holiness/charismatic.
• Emphasis on the creeds, tradition, and catholicity, but also hard to pin down and somewhat conflicted about its identity.
• Liberalism in the The Episcopal Church and much of the Church of England, but more conservative in the ACNA and the global south (e.g. Nigeria).
• Episcopal in government, with women’s ordination practiced in some jurisdictions but not others.
• Traditional worship in the BCP tradition (along a spectrum from low to high to Anglo-Catholic).

Church Government by Bishops

Some of them hold government by bishops to be essential and by divine right, while others hold it to simply be a good way to do church government. In their system, there are three orders of ministry: deacons, priests, and bishops. 

Deacons are ordained to preach and to assist in worship as well as to help look out for the sick and poor. Ordination as a deacon is required for ordination to the priesthood.  

Priests (presbyters) are ministers of the word and sacraments. Most priests are pastors of churches and might have a specific title such as rector, vicar, or curate. A rector is a pastor in charge of a parish. Historically, if the parish had more than one congregation, he might have vicars to pastor the other congregations. He might also have curates to assist him in his congregation. Another way the distinction is made is that the rector is the pastor of a self-supporting church, while a vicar is the pastor of a supported mission. 

Bishops have the authority to ordain ministers and to oversee the churches and ministers in their regional diocese. An archbishop is a bishop who oversees multiple dioceses and their bishops. Some denominations like the ACNA also have councils, composed of both clergy and laity.

Additionally, there are lay officers called vestrymen, some of whom are churchwardens. The vestrymen function somewhat like ruling elders and deacons in the Presbyterian system.

What We Have in Common

Francis Makemie, known as the father of American Presbyterianism, wrote to Anglicans in Barbados in 1697, “And first, I shall inform you, what they [Presbyterians] believe and do, in Unity with the Church of England, whereby every serious and intelligent Reader, may readily perceive two things 1. That we are Protestant Brethren, and in Unity with them in the main, great and Substantial points of the Christian and Protestant Religion; and therefore deserve not to be treated, as many ignorantly do, and particularly in this island. 2. That of all Protestants that differ from them, we differ in the least and smallest matters.”

At least with confessional Anglicans, we have in common the reception of Scripture as the word of God and the complete rule of faith and life; the creeds, Ten Commandments, and Lord’s Prayer; the historic Protestant doctrines and a basically Reformed perspective, such as on the sacraments (including infant baptism); and the sabbath. 

Where We Differ

Francis Makemie wrote to Anglicans in Barbados in 1697 that Presbyterians differed from the Church of England in “1. In Common Prayer and Ceremonies. 2. In your Canons. 3. In Your Government or Prelacy. 4. In your Discipline and Censures.”

With confessional and evangelical Anglicans, our differences are mostly details in liturgy and the form of church government. While we are not oppose to all use of written forms, we object to being tied to written forms and we want ministers to be able to use their gifts in prayer and preaching and to have some ability to adapt to the circumstances. Unlike Anglicans, we do not read Apocryphal books in worship (although we both agree that they are not canonical Scripture). We object to their additional ceremonies in baptism like the sign of the cross and to kneeling at the Lord’s Supper. We have parents present their children for baptism rather than godparents. Episcopal church government by bishops is not warranted by Scripture and destroys ministerial parity and can give rise to other evils, such as mixing of church and state.

But with other Episcopalians and Anglicans, we have more differences. Some are Arminian, some are charismatic, some practice paedocommunion, some are Anglo-Catholic, some are liberal, and some practice women’s ordination. 

Thomas Gataker on Seeking a Good Wife

Thomas Gataker (1574-1654) was a Puritan minister in the Church of England and a member of the Westminster Assembly. In 1623, he published two wedding sermons, one of which was entitled, "A Wife In Deed" and based on Proverbs 18:22, "He that findeth a Wife, findeth Good; and obtaineth Favour of God." You can read the sermon at this link. In contains many quotable portions. For example, he wrote,

There is much want of comfort then in Solitude; much Comfort in Society. But there is no Society more near, more entire, more needful, more kindly, more delightful, more comfortable, more constant, more continual, than the Society of Man and Wife; the main Root, Source and Original of all other Societies: Which of all others therefore Man is naturally most inclined unto…

He said that a good wife is 

The best Companion in Wealth;
The fittest and readiest Assistant in Work;
The greatest Comfort in Crosses and griefs;
The only warrantable and comfortable Means of Issue and posterity;
A singular and sovereign Remedy ordained by God against Incontinency;
And the greatest Grace and Honour, that can be, to him that hath her.

The portion I particularly want to share in this post is what he said about seeking a good wife. (In all of these quotes I modernize the spelling, but keep original capitalization and italics. I am also not including the marginal references, which you can find in the original.) He wrote, 

But how may a man come by such a Wife, as is here spoken of? may some say: such a one as shall be a means of so much good to him that hath her?

She must be sought; saith Solomon. For finding implieth seeking. And He that seeketh, findeth; saith our Saviour. We must not think, because Solomon elsewhere saith, that Houses and inheritance are of the Fathers, but a good Wife is of God; that therefore no industry is to be used on our part, but that men should lie still, or sit them down, expecting that God should drop Wives down out of the clouds for them, as Towns were said to come into Timotheus his toils, while he slept. No; unless we seek, we are not like to find. And if by seeking we may find, if after much search made, we may light on such an one, we are well.

Such a Wife then must be sought.

And so sent Abraham his Servant to seek a Wife for his Son Isaac. So Naomi telleth Ruth her Daughter in Law, that she will seek out some fit match for her.

There is good Reason to seek such an one in two Respects:

First in regard of the Rarity, the Difficulty. Because such are not easily found. Where may we find such a Man? saith Pharaoh of Joseph, implying that such an other as he could very hardly be found. And, Where may a Man find such a Woman? saith Solomon. As he saith elsewhere of a faithful Friend; Many men will boast, each one of his honesty; but where shall a man find a Friend truly Faithful; one that indeed deserveth that name? So many Women may promise great matters of themselves, or others undertake for them: But it is no easy matter, for all that, to find out a good Wife, one that answereth the Name she beareth. Many Priests, and yet Few Priests too; saith one of the Ancients: many in Name, but few in effect. So many Women, and few Wives, may one well say; few such, among many, as Solomon here entreateth of. Good Wives are rare Creatures, as well as trusty Friends are. And though I dare not say of them, as Elihu of an able Pastor, Solomon of a Wise Man, and some other of a true Friend; One such of a thousand. Yet may I well and safely say, that as well here as else-where, The greater Part exceedeth the better: there is more drossy matter than pure metal; more pebbles than pearls. As the Cynic sometime sought for a Man in a multitude of Men: so may such a Wife as Solomon here speaketh of, be sought, yea and scarce found sometime, among a multitude of Women.

Secondly, In regard of the worth and dignity. It is well worth a man's labour. He need not think much of his search, if he have good success in it. As the difficulty of finding requireth it; so the dignity of the thing sought requiteth it. It is no wisdom indeed to seek after toys and trifles, matters of no moment, that will not recompense a man's pains, when without much difficulty they cannot be had. But a worthy Woman is a matter of worth. She is well worthy the seeking. She is a greater blessing than either House or Inheritance: and her price is above Pearls. And if there be so much seeking generally on all hands after the one, much more may there justly be as much after the other.

But how must she be sought then?

I answer: First by due and diligent consideration of, and careful search and inquiry into the nature, quality, and disposition, and into the life, courses and conversation, of the party motioned or affected for Marriage: whether she be so qualified as a Wife ought to be, and as is fit for one to be that should be thy Wife. For fitness in special, as well as goodness in general, is one main ground of the good and benefit that a Wife is to bring to him, whom she is matched unto.

Secondly, by using the help and taking the advice of Friends. A course especially to be embraced and entertained of those that are themselves unexperienced, or that are yet under the power of others. So did Jacob herein follow his Father Isaac's advice; contrary to the practice of his Brother Esau. And Ruth was content to be ruled by her Mother in Law Naomi, though having not the power over her of a natural Parent.

Thirdly, by seeking unto those that are the Parents or Governors of such as they affect or desire, being yet under the power of such. So did Abraham's Servant deal with the Friends of Rebekah. And Shechem (though he had been before indeed too forward) with the Brethren of Dinah, and with her Father Jacob, by his Father Hamor; the very light of Nature leading and directing them thereunto.

Fourthly and principally by Prayer to God. As did Abraham's Servant, when he was sent to seek a Wife for his young Master: And as Isaac did when he dismissed his Son Jacob with Instructions and charge what course to take concerning a Wife.

For (and so pass we to the next Point) God is the principal Donor here. He that will find a Wife, saith Solomon, must obtain her of God. And, House and inheritance are of the Fathers; but a prudent Wife is of God. From God therefore it is that a Good Wife must be had. 

Reformed and Presbyterian

We recently concluded a series on denominational traditions during our midweek study. I plan to begin a series of blog posts using my notes from that series. I begin with our own denominational tradition: Reformed and Presbyterian. 

History

During the 16th century Reformation in the Western church, the Protestants gradually formed into two groups: Lutheran and Reformed. The Reformed churches include the Continental Reformed churches (Swiss Reformed, German Reformed, Dutch Reformed, French Reformed (Huguenot), and Hungarian Reformed) and the British Reformed churches. Among the British Reformed churches, the Presbyterians represent the mainstream of the Reformed tradition. The Anglican (Church of England) and Congregationalist churches are basically Reformed, but since they differ from most other Reformed churches on things like church government, they will be covered as their own denominational traditions. Often "Reformed" is used to refer to all these churches (or at least Continental Reformed and Presbyterian churches), but in some contexts "Reformed" refers to the Continental Reformed churches in particular.

The distinction between Lutheran and Reformed became noticeable at the Colloquy of Marburg in 1529. There the Reformed theologians like Ulrich Zwingli and Martin Bucer were able to agree with Lutheran theologians like Philip Melanchthon and Martin Luther on many things, but not on the manner of Christ's presence in the Lord's Supper. Bucer continued to strive for Lutheran-Reformed unity, but this distinction would be formalized by latter doctrinal statements like the Lutheran Formula of Concord in 1577 (referring to concord among Lutherans). Meanwhile, it was not guaranteed that the Reformed churches, spread throughout various countries and territories, would be united. But this unity was formed and established in the 1500s. One example of this is the Consensus of Zurich in 1549 between Heinrich Bullinger and John Calvin on the Lord's Supper.

The Reformed churches adopted various confessions of faith and catechisms, but these expressed the same Reformed theology. Swiss Reformed churches adopted the Second Helvetic Confession of Faith (1566). The French Reformed churches adopted the Gallic (French) Confession of Faith (1559). The Hungarian Reformed churches adopted the Heidelberg Catechism and Second Helvetic Confession in 1567. Both German and Dutch Reformed churches came to adopt the “Three Forms of Unity”: the Belgic Confession (1561), the Heidelberg Catechism (1562), and the Canons of Dort (1619). The Canons of Dort were produced by the Synod of Dort, held in 1618-1619 to address the Arminian controversy.

The Church of England broke from Rome in the 1530s, became more Reformed in the reign of Edward VI (1547 to 1553), became Roman Catholic again under Queen Mary, and then mostly Reformed again in 1558 under Queen Elizabeth, adopting the 39 Articles (1571), yet retaining government by bishops and the Book of Common Prayer, so that the Puritans within that church sought greater reforms.

In 1560, Scotland adopted the Scots Confession of Faith, written by John Knox and five other men named John. The Book of Discipline (1560) defined the kirk’s presbyterian government (this was expanded in a second book in 1578). The Book of Order (1556) brought the Genevan liturgy to Scotland. The King's Confession, which became the core of the Scottish National Covenant, was signed in 1580.

The Westminster Assembly met in the 1640s. It consisted of 119 ministers of the word representing all the counties of England and Wales, along with 30 representatives from the English parliament. After the Solemn League and Covenant was made in 1643, commissioners sent by the Scottish church and parliament joined the assembly to advise it. The Westminster Assembly produced for the churches of the three kingdoms (England, Scotland, and Ireland): the Directory for the Public Worship of God, the Form of Presbyterial Church Government, the Confession of Faith, and the Shorter and Larger Catechisms (all these documents, and many of the other doctrinal statements mentioned above, can be found here). Nevertheless, the Church of England returned to its older forms after the Restoration in 1660, tolerating dissenters.

The first Presbytery was held in America in 1706, organized by Francis Makemie. It was helpful that the work of the Westminster Assembly had produced uniform standards for like-minded believers from England, Scotland, and Ireland, allowing them to form churches together. American Presbyterianism grew in America, especially in the Middle and Southern colonies, with close relations with the Congregationalists in New England. It formed the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the USA in 1789 with a version of the Westminster Confession and Catechism slightly modified on church-state relations. French Reformed immigrants usually joined Presbyterian or Anglican churches. Dutch Reformed churches were first organized in New York, and German Reformed churches were first organized in Pennsylvania, with later waves of immigrants in the 1800s. 

Today in America, there are a number of Presbyterian denominations (OPC, PCA, EPC, PC(USA), RPCNA, ARPC), as well as denominations with Dutch Reformed roots (URCNA, CRC, RCA) and German Reformed roots (RCUS, UCC). The PC(USA), RCA, and UCC are liberal mainline denominations, the EPC and CRC are moderate confessional denominations in which the ordination of women ministers and elders is allowed, and the rest are conservative confessional churches that are members of the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council (NAPARC). You can learn more about American Presbyterian history here and here.

Reformed and Presbyterian churches sent many missionaries around the world. It seems there are now more Presbyterians in Mexico than there are in the USA, more Presbyterians in Brazil than there are in Scotland, and more Presbyterians in South Korea than there are in all these other four countries combined. The OPC maintains ties with many likeminded Presbyterian and Reformed denominations across the world. 

Distinctives

Presbyterianism is best defined by the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms. Together with the Three Forms of Unity, they express a summary of Reformed Theology. Much of what we believe and practice is shared by other Christians. Here are a few distinctive positions or emphases: 

Covenant Theology

• The covenantal unity of Old and New Testaments (Gen. 1-3, Luke 1, Gal. 3, Col. 2). They are united in the unfolding of one covenant of grace following man's fall, administered differently before Christ (the old covenant) and after Christ (the new covenant). For more on covenant theology, see here and here. 
• The implications for the sacraments (Rom. 4:11, Gen. 17:7, 10, 1 Cor. 11:25, Gal. 3:27-29). The sacraments are covenant signs and seals, united with the word, to be used with faith. Infant baptism also follows from covenant theology. The pattern in both the old and new administrations is to include the children of believers.

God’s Sovereignty

• in history: his eternal decrees and his works of creation and providence (Eph. 1:11)
• in salvation: predestination, effectual calling, the “five points of Calvinism” (John 6, 10)
• in ethics: sufficiency of Scripture, Christ over all, and the abiding authority of the moral law over all, useful to convict us of sin, to curb wickedness, and to direct the believer in godly living (1 Tim. 3:16, Matt. 5:17-20) 

Church Government by “Presbyters” 

• The equality of ministers of the word (no higher office except for Christ the head).
• Elders of the people (ruling elders), who also share in the governing of the church.
• Unity of the visible church, with higher governing assemblies for larger regions.
• Deacons for the ministry of mercy and care for the needy.
• See Acts 6:2-4; 14:23; 15; Eph. 4:10; 1 Cor. 12:28; 1 Tim. 5:17.

Worship Regulated by Scripture

• The "regulative principle": God may be worshipped only as he has prescribed in Scripture (Lev. 10:1-3). We need warrant from Scripture for our worship, not only a lack of prohibition, since it is God’s worship (we are not to presume what pleases him). 
• That said, “there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God … common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed” (WCF 1.6). Those general rules of the word include “Let all things be done unto edifying” and “Let all things be done decently and in order” (1 Cor. 14:26, 40)

American Presbyterian History

Last year I gave a series of lessons on American Presbyterian History, which you can find at this link. I have also adapted some of this material as posts here on this blog. To make it easy to find them, here are links to these posts on American Presbyterian history: 

Francis Makemie (1658-1708): Presbyterian Missionary to America

Presbyterians and the American War of Independence

The Founding of Princeton Seminary

19th Century Presbyterians and Abortion

A Christian Nation? - American Presbyterians (1850-1950)

19th Century American Presbyterian Missionaries

Presbyterians, Creation Days, and Evolution

A History of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church

Presbyterian Reunions and Divisions of the 20th Century

The 21st Century: American Presbyterian Churches Today

The Founding of Princeton Seminary

In every age, there had been a need to train new ministers of the gospel. There has been a need, as Paul told Timothy, to entrust the gospel to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also (2 Tim. 2:1-2). One important institution in this effort in the history of American Presbyterianism was Princeton Theological Seminary. For over a hundred years, it would be a bulwark of Presbyterian orthodoxy, sending forth pastors, theologians, and missionaries to America and beyond.

The Need for a Presbyterian Seminary

In the early 1800s, a need was discovered for a Presbyterian seminary. This need came from: 

1. The increase in population and churches, and the shortage of ministers to meet the need.

2. The decreasing percentage of college graduates going into the ministry from places like Yale College and Princeton College, with ministerial training at colleges becoming marginalized.

3. The apparent inability for training under individual ministers after a college education to keep up with demand.

The common practice had been for men to get a college education and then to do further private theological studies under a minister or professor. A seminary would basically continue this model, except that it would be more centralized with approved professors devoted to that work, with greater resources. The professors would continue to both teach and mentor their students. It was an institution devoted to training future ministers. After passing a final exam at the end of three years, students would receive a certificate from the board and professors “with which they shall be remitted to their several presbyteries, to be disposed of as such presbyteries shall direct.”

4. The lack of a institution for ministerial training committed to confessional Presbyterianism.

While Princeton College was heavily dominated by Presbyterians, it was not run by the Presbyterian church, nor did the professors commit to teach in accord with the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms.

The Congregationalists provided generally like-minded theological education at places like Yale, but were not committed to Presbyterian distinctives and were looser in their commitment to the Westminster standards.

The Congregationalists had recently set an example by establishing Andover Seminary (1807) in reaction to Harvard College appointing a Unitarian as its professor of divinity. Princeton College was not that bad and was still run by Presbyterians, but there were doubts as to whether it could successfully ensure a steady stream of doctrinally orthodox and able ministers (its campus culture was not great in the first decade of the 1800s).

The Founding of Princeton Theological Seminary

These needs and reasons were discussed at the General Assembly and were the theme of some influential sermons at the General Assembly by Ashbel Green and Archibald Alexander. In 1809, an overture for the founding of a seminary was considered. The committee proposed three plans to send to the presbyteries: (1) one seminary centrally located, (2) two seminaries for the north and south, or (3) a seminary for each synod. In 1810, it was decided to establish one centrally located seminary for the denomination. In 1812, the General Assembly voted to locate the theological seminary at Princeton, NJ, elected its Board of Directors (21 ministers and 9 elders), and chose its first professor, Archibald Alexander. The seminary began that year in August, with three students, meeting in the professor's house. In October, Ashbel Green became president of Princeton College, seeking to renew it and work together with the seminary. Alexander and Green had both been pastors in Philadelphia before taking up these roles.

Archibald Alexander was soon joined by a second professor, Samuel Miller, and ten years after the seminary's founding they were joined by a third professor, Charles Hodge. These men would work well together and prove influential in American Presbyterian history. What follows is a brief summary of their lives. A good book on the history of "Old Princeton" is the two volume Princeton Seminary by David Calhoun. You can find the writings of these men online at Log College Press at these links:

Archibald Alexander (1772-1851)

Samuel Miller (1769-1850)

Charles Hodge (1797-1878)

Archibald Alexander

1736 - Archibald’s Scots-Irish grandfather arrived from northern Ireland.

1772 - Archibald Alexander was born outside Lexington, Virginia, in the Shenandoah Valley.

1774 - William Graham moved to Lexington as a pastor and school teacher.

1788 - Archibald becomes a private tutor near Fredericksburg, VA. Conversations with others there and Puritan books led to a spiritual awakening. While assurance came and went for a time, he later looked back at this time as the time of his conversion.

1789 - Archibald traveled with William Graham to Hampden-Sydney College and the revivals taking place in that region. After going through doubts and struggles about his spiritual state, he made his profession of faith by the end of the year.

1790 - Archibald began studying for the ministry under Graham at Liberty Hall (now called Washington and Lee University).

1791 - Archibald was sent (as a ruling elder) to the General Assembly and then licensed to preach.

1792 - He served as an itinerant preacher in Virginia. “In the next fifteen months, he preached 132 sermons, sometimes two hours or more in length. For three years he was continually traveling, often preaching to little groups of six or eight, and sometimes to large gatherings of hundreds” (Calhoun, Princeton Seminary, vol. 1).

1794 - He was ordained and became the pastor of several churches in southern Virginia.

1797 - In addition to his pastoral duties, he became the president of Hampden-Sydney College (at the age of 24).

1802 - He married Janetta Waddel, daughter of Rev. James Waddel.

1807 - He became the pastor of Pine Street Church (3rd Presbyterian) in Philadelphia.

1812 - He became the first professor of Princeton Theological Seminary in New Jersey.

1815 - He, along with his students, assisted in the revival at Princeton College under Ashbel Green.

1823 - He published his first book, Outlines of the Evidences of Christianity.

1851 - He died at home at age 79, having served as professor to the end. Having struggled with health in middle age, expecting an early death, he had a surprisingly active old age and long life.

Archibald and his wife had six sons and a daughter, including James Waddel Alexander (1804–1859), a professor and Presbyterian pastor in New York City; William Cowper Alexander (1806–1874), a lawyer and state senator; Joseph Addison Alexander (1809–1860), professor at Princeton Seminary and Bible commentator; and Samuel Davies Alexander (1819-1894), a Presbyterian pastor in New York City.

J.W. Alexander wrote a biography of his father and wrote this about his father's ways at home:

He was addicted to sacred music, and as both he and Mrs. Alexander were gifted with clear and pleasing voices, the hours of family intercourse were enlivened by many a psalm and sacred song … Nothing more characterized him than his fondness for communicating instruction, on every subject, even the most elementary, within his reach. It might be the alphabet, or Hebrew and Syriac grammar, or geometry and surveying, in which he was fully versed, or metaphysics; he was unwearied and delighted, if only he had willing learners; and he had the art of making every learner willing … Except in hours of devotion, his study was always free to his children, even the youngest; noise made no difference; their books and toys were on his floor; and two or three would be clambering upon him, while he was handling a folio or had the pen in his hand … Before dismissing the matter of family training, we ought to mention his constant and animated conversations with his children. It was his solace, at home and by the way. Without the slightest appearance of plan, but with an easy and spontaneous flow, he was, during some hours of every day, pouring forth a stream of useful information, on all subjects, but chiefly on religion. The whole wealth of his extended reading and observation seemed at one time or another to be distilled in these familiar interviews.

Samuel Miller

1710 - Samuel’s grandfather arrived from Scotland in Boston; he married a descendant of the Pilgrims. 

1769 - Samuel Miller was born in Dover, DE, the eighth child of Rev. John and Margaret Miller.

1788 - He made his profession of faith and began studies at the University of Philadelphia, having been homeschooled until then. He graduated the following year with “first honor.”

1789 - With encouragement from his parents and Rev. Ashbel Green, he began studying theology under his father.

1791 - Samuel was licensed to preach and studied under Charles Nisbet in Carlisle, PA.

1793 - Samuel was ordained and installed as an associate pastor for the unified Presbyterian congregations in New York City.

1801 - Samuel married Sarah Sargeant; they would be married 49 years and have ten children. (His grandson, Samuel Miller Breckinridge, was a ruling elder who died on the floor of the 1891 General Assembly arguing for the veto of the appointment of a liberal professor at Union Seminary.)  

1803 - He published A Brief Retrospect of the Eighteen Century, a two volume overview of the previous century expanded from a sermon he gave on January 1, 1800.

1807 - In response to aggressive polemics from northern Episcopalians, he wrote in defense of Presbyterian church government, Letters concerning the Constitution and Order of the Christian Ministry, as deduced from Scripture and Primitive Usage. A sequel followed in 1809 and he also began preaching and writing on the divine appointment, duties, and qualifications of ruling elders.

1813 - He was chosen by the General Assembly as the second professor for Princeton Seminary, the professor of Ecclesiastical History and Church Government. He and Archibald Alexander were quite different in many ways, but they worked together as friends until they died.

1827 - His book, Letters on Clerical Manners and Habits.

1831 - His book, The Warrant, Nature, and Duties of the Office of the Ruling Elder.

1835 - His book, Presbyterianism the Truly Primitive and Apostolical Constitution of the Church of Christ.

1837 - His book, Infant Baptism Scriptural and Reasonable: and Baptism by Sprinkling or Affusion, the Most Suitable or Edifying Mode.

1849 - His book, Thoughts on Public Prayer.

1850 - Samuel Miller died at home at the age of 80.

Charles Hodge

1730s - Charles’ Scots-Irish grandfather arrived from northern Ireland in Philadelphia.

1797 (Dec. 27) - Charles Hodge was born in Philadelphia to Hugh and Mary Hodge (Mary had moved there from Boston).

1798 - Charles’ father died from yellow fever, having fought against that disease as a doctor.

1812 - Mary moved with her two sons to Princeton, NJ for their education. Their pastor, Ashbel Green, moved at the same to from Philadelphia to become president of Princeton College.

1815 - While Charles had been believing and pious from a very early age, the outbreak of a revival at the college caused him to reevaluate his faith. Charles concluded that his faith was genuine and he publicly professed his faith on January 15, 1815, the beginning of a year of revival that would see one-third of the 105 students make professions of faith by April.

1816 - He entered Princeton Seminary. He graduated and and was licensed to preach in 1819 and was ordained in 1821.

1822 - He was elected Professor of Oriental and Biblical Literature at the seminary and married Sarah Bache, a godly, beautiful, and learned great-granddaughter of Benjamin Franklin. The two of them had been companions since they were around 14. They would have eight children.

1825 - He founded a journal, Biblical Repertory (renamed in 1837 as The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review).

1827-1828 - Charles studied abroad in Germany to better engage the threat of Higher Criticism.

1835 - His book, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans.

1840 - His book, The Constitutional History of the Presbyterian Church in the United States. His title changed to Professor of Exegetical and Didactic Theology.

1841 - His book, The Way of Life.

1849 - His dear wife Sarah died.

1852 - He married Mary Hunter Stockman, a widow and a friend of Sarah’s and the family.

1873 - His three volume, Systematic Theology was completed.

1874 - His book, What Is Darwinism?, in which he critiqued Darwinism.

1878 - He died at the age of 80, serving as professor until his death like his predecessors. He was succeeded by his son, Archibald Alexander Hodge. Another son, Caspar Wistar Hodge Sr., and a grandson, Caspar Wistar Hodge Jr., would also be professors at the seminary. His grandson Thomas L. Hodge was a founding member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in 1936. 

Revolutionary War Veterans Buried in St. Charles County, MO

Patriotism is a virtue, an extension of the command to honor father and mother. We are to gratefully honor our mother country, our patria. And as we are grateful for our country, it is good and right to gratefully remember those who placed their life on the line to preserve her liberties and secure her independence. Here are some of the veterans of the American War of Independence buried in St. Charles County, Missouri.

Jacob Zumwalt (O’Fallon)

Jacob Zumwalt was the son of German immigrants who had come from Strasbourg to Virginia. He fought and was wounded at the battle of Point Pleasant (1774) during Lord Dunmore’s War. He then served as a private in the Virginia Militia during the War for Independence. He and five brothers moved first to Kentucky and then to the Louisiana Territory (what became Missouri). He settled here in 1798. The territory was purchased by the USA in 1804. In 1807, the first Methodist Communion in the region was held at his house. His house would be used as a fort in the War of 1812. It has been reconstructed on its original site, which is now Fort Zumwalt Park.

Jacob Zumwalt - Find a Grave  

John Castlio (Wentzville)

John Castlio served during the War of Independence in the Virginia Militia under Capt. Benjamin Logan in Kentucky (Kentucky was then part of Virginia). He later moved with his family to what is now Missouri in 1806. The Castlio house, on the hill overlooking Dardenne Creek along present day Highway DD, was fortified during the War of 1812 and his son John was an early elder at Dardenne Presbyterian Church. His grave is on the property of Holt High School.

John Castlio - Find a Grave 

Warren Cottle (St. Charles)

Captain Warren Cottle was native of Massachusetts who moved to Vermont. There he served as a captain in the militia during the war. One account says that he “was Captain of the 4th Company Infantry in South Woodstock and was associated with the Vermont militia exploits of the well-known Allens of Vermont.” He later moved his family to this area when it was still Spanish territory. Some of his brothers settled near what became Troy, while he and his sons settled near Dardenne Creek. There he built a mill and there his grandson Lorenzo later founded the town of Cottleville.

Warren Cottle - Find a Grave 

John Pitman (Cottleville)

"John Pitman served during the Revolutionary War under George Rogers Clark and fought with Daniel Boone at the battle of Boonesborough. He served as St. Charles County representative to the Missouri Constitutional Convention for statehood, and served as first tobacco commissioner. He had come to St. Charles County with his family in 1811 from Kentucky following along the same trail as did Daniel Boone and his family. He died Jan. 1, 1839, at the age of 85." (MidRivers News Magazine) 

John Pitman - Find a Grave

Samuel Wells (O’Fallon)

Samuel Wells was born in Virginia in 1754. In 1775 he moved with his parents and nine younger siblings to Kentucky. In 1780 he served as a Lieutenant under Colonel George Rogers Clark. In 1781 he served as a Captain under Colonel John Floyd, saving the Colonel’s life at Floyd’s Defeat. During the war, his father was killed and his brother was taken prisoner. 

After the war Samuel served in Kentucky’s House of Representatives. During the War of 1812 he fought with distinction at Tippecanoe and became the Colonel of the 17th U.S. Infantry and then of the 11th Calvary Regiment. In 1817 he and his family moved to St. Charles County, Missouri. Their home was on what is now the Fred Weber quarry along Highway 70, and he owned 2,400 acres north and west of Peruque Creek. He died at home in 1830 and his grave is in O’Fallon, MO. You can find more on his history at this link. 

Samuel Wells on Find a Grave 

Joseph Baugh (Defiance)

Joseph Baugh (1758-1846) was born in Powhatan County, Virginia and was living there when the War for Independence began. During the years 1777-1781 he served six terms of militia service, each of them 2-3 months in length. On one of these he fought British troops under General Benedict Arnold and on several of these he was stationed in Williamsburg, VA. He was stationed there during the siege of Yorktown with troops whose job it was to supply the French army. During his service he saw Marquis de Lafayette, Baron Von Steuben, and General Washington.

After the war Joseph moved to Richmond, VA and then to Madison County, KY (near Berea, KY). In 1817 he moved to St. Charles County, MO with his wife and children. Joseph died there in 1846 at the age of 87.

His pension application from 1843 can be read at this link. 

Joseph Baugh - Find a Grave 

Zachariah Moore (Defiance)

Zachariah Moore was born  in Frederick County, Maryland in 1762. He enlisted in 1782 in the Fifth Maryland Volunteers and served as a sergeant. He moved to Missouri in 1810 and settled on Darst Bottom, along the Missouri River. He died there in what is now Defiance, MO on August 28, 1837. He was a farmer and a Baptist. One of his daughters married John Wilson Boone, a cousin twice removed of Daniel Boone.

Zechariah Moore - Find a Grave 

David Darst (Defiance)

David Darst was born in 1757 in the Shenandoah valley of Virginia to parents who had come from southwestern Germany. He first served in the 1st Independent Company of Dunmore County (VA) Militia. Then he served in Captain Henry Prather’s company under Colonel George Rogers Clark during the Illinois campaign of 1778-1779, which included the taking of Kaskaskia and the battle of Fort Vincennes. In 1780 he served in Clark’s campaign against the Shawnee.

David Darst moved to Kentucky in 1784 and married Rosetta Holman. Then in 1798, he moved with his wife and seven children to the area around modern-day Defiance, MO next to the Missouri River, which became known as “Darst Bottom.” David died in 1826.

One of David’s sons, Abraham, married a granddaughter of Daniel Boone (Tabitha Callaway) in 1810. Abraham and five of his sons fought for Texan independence in the 1830s. Another of David’s sons, Jacob, died in the defense of the Alamo.

David Darst - Find a Grave  

Louis Blanchette (St. Charles)

Louis Blanchette was a fur trader born in Quebec who became the founder of the city of St. Charles, settling there along the Missouri River in 1769. This was soon after the French lost their territory east of the Mississippi River to the British and had given the land west of the Mississippi to the Spanish. As a member of the St. Louis Militia Infantry Company, Blanchette fought at the Battle of St. Louis in 1780. While Spain was not formally allied with the USA, it had made common cause with the Americans by declaring war on the British and giving some assistance on the frontier. Thus, the British and their native allies attacked St. Louis, but were repulsed by the defenders. Blanchette went on to serve as a local commandant until his death in 1793.

Louis Blanchette - Find a Grave