Why I am a Baptist

Some Christians seem impatient with the idea of a distinctive theological position for the local church. Today there are pressures to make common cause with other churches on the basis of very limited and minimal statements of faith. There seems to be the assumption that the distinctive position of the local church is a secondary issue which should not really interfere with the great work of the gospel. Reformed Baptists have a very high view of the local church and believe that it is the only institution that has scriptural warrant for promoting the cause of Christ in the earth. It is therefore essential that the church is established according to Scripture and that the doctrine of the church cannot be secondary to any other body of truth in the Bible. As we shall see, the doctrine of the church affects even our understanding of the gospel.

I am approaching the distinctive position of Reformed Baptist Churches under three main headings, each of which has great implications for the business of our Lord Jesus Christ in the earth. They are:

1. The importance of non-conformity

2. The true nature of the New Covenant

3. The independence and potential of the local church

The history of the evangelical Non-Conformists (or Separatists) in England is fascinating. In the 17^th century this country was blessed with many saints of God who realised they could not be part of the state religious system. They saw that the union of church and state, stretching right back to the time of Constantine, was unbiblical and a serious corruption of the cause of Christ. They saw too that there was no such thing, in the purposes of God, as a Christian country. The idea of an earthly nation being truly God’s own nation belonged to Israel in the Old Covenant and not the church of Christ on earth. Of course, the numbers of Nonconformists increased greatly at the time of Great Ejection of 1662.

Not all evangelical churches desired to be Separatists. Many insisted that the Church of England was unreformed and that it should be replaced, as a national church, by a Presbyterian system, like the position of the Reformers in Geneva. In Scotland that eventually became the case. Such people believed that the state should maintain purity of religion in the land and that the state should punish heretics. They also accepted the authority of the secular government in their church affairs. Eventually, within the Church of Scotland, there was a great body of evangelical churches that could no longer accept the state having any involvement in the appointment of their leaders, and thus we have the Great Disruption of 1843.

This is the Presbyterian position as expressed by the Westminster Confession. This Confession, under the chapter dealing with the civil magistrate, says this:

Many Baptists will be astonished to read this. Of course, there is no parallel paragraph in the 1689 Confession. For the civil magistrate to have the power to convene church synods and to carry the responsibility of suppressing heresy and ensuring that the ordinances of God are duly administered and observed, is a recipe for disaster. It has always been a key element of Baptist theology that the local church is a quite separate institution from the state with the secular authorities playing no part in the affairs of the churches. The state, therefore, cannot validate the appointment of ministers nor can it regulate any aspect of the life of the churches. On the other hand, the churches cannot appeal to the state to suppress heresy.

As a Baptist, I could not enter into an alliance with a group of churches that would see the secular authorities having any involvement in the affairs of the church.

Churches cannot insist that laws be passed to deprive unbelievers, heretics or adherents of false religions of their civil, secular rights, nor can churches promote political parties or movements. There are the most fundamental differences between the church and the world, and they do not co-operate in any official or organisational way. The individual believer has his personal obligations to the state, and he has his supreme obligations to Christ and his churches. He must be careful to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s. That is a key element of Baptist theology and one that cost our Baptist forefathers very dearly.

It follows that Baptist churches must think very carefully before they embark upon campaigns to persuade the government to pass or to withhold various laws. It is one thing for the individual believer to use his democratic rights as a citizen of this country to lobby his MP or the government, it is quite another for a local church to take up a campaign. Once the local church is seen as a campaigning body with secular, political intentions it has compromised its great calling to preach the gospel to every creature. Also, a Baptist church cannot lend weight to any inter-church body that offers to speak to government on its behalf. The church is simply not in that business. Its business is the promotion of the kingdom of Christ through the proclamation of the glorious gospel. There are no references whatsoever, in the New Testament, to local churches adding their weight to any political movement.

There were three main streams of evangelical thought that emerged from English Puritanism. They were the Presbyterians (defined by the Westminster Confession), the Independents of the Savoy Declaration and the Particular Baptists, ultimately represented by the 1689 Second London Confession. Each of these groupings was truly evangelical and, throughout subsequent history, each group was blessed with some very outstanding and godly men.

It is also important to observe that the assemblies that originated the confessions of the Independents and the Baptists were at pains to demonstrate that, in many of the great truths of the gospel, they stood on the same ground as the Presbyterians. The Baptists, however, took a stand very significantly separate from the other two in the matter of God’s covenant.

The first statement in this section of the 1689 Confession is identical to its counterpart in the Westminster Confession. Both documents proceed to describe the covenant that was transacted within the Persons of the Trinity called the Covenant of Grace. But, while the 1689 Confession tells us that God has gradually revealed the nature of this covenant throughout Old Testament history until we have the full light of the gospel in the New Testament, the Westminster Confession makes the following assertion:

VI. Under the Gospel, when Christ, the substance, was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper: which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.

Certainly, Baptists do not believe in two covenants of grace, and they definitely believe that, whenever a soul has been saved, in Old Testament or New Testament times, it has been on account of the Covenant of Grace. But that is not the same as saying the covenant that God made with the Hebrew people (an earthly nation) at Sinai was an administration of the Covenant of Grace. Yet that is the position of our Presbyterian Brethren and also those who are the descendants of the Independents.

Jeremiah looked forward to the gospel age and said (31:31): Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah… . This, of course, is a major theme in the book of Hebrews. The writer of that book goes to great lengths to demonstrate that the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are quite different, and that the Old Covenant has passed away. In Hebrews 8:6 we are told that the Lord Jesus is Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. The writer’s arguments come together with great force in Hebrews 10 where he describes the law as having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things… . He says that and that the Lord Jesus Christ has taken away the Old Covenant that he might establish the new (Hebrews 10:9). Nowhere does the New Testament say that the Old Covenant is an administration of the covenant of grace. The Old Covenant had ordinances that could never take away sin. It was addressed to an earthly nation and concerns their relationship with God as his earthly, elect people. Its promises and warnings are all to do with their private and national life.

Now, why is this important?

Because if the Old Covenant was just an administration of the Covenant of Grace, certain principles that are basic to the Old Administration must also be there in the New. We mention two in particular:

1. The Old Testament congregation of Israel was a spiritually mixed multitude.

If the Old Testament is merely a different, an old administration of the Covenant of grace, the church can also be a mixed multitude and we can resort to the idea of the visible and invisible church. As Baptists, however, we believe in a church that consists of converted men and women. The New Testament does acknowledge that false brethren can and will infiltrate the churches but that is far from saying that the churches do not have a clear obligation to enquire concerning the real spiritual condition of those who are seeking to join them, and to strive after a converted church membership. I am well aware that evangelical Presbyterians may well strive to discern the condition of those who are welcome to the Lord’s Supper but they still view it as unrealistic to strive for a converted membership.

2. An Israelite was received into the Old Covenant community as a baby, at circumcision. This also can be carried over to the New Administration of the covenant according to the Presbyterians and Independents. One can therefore receive the child of a believing couple into the New Covenant community and conduct a form of baptism for babies. We note that the Presbyterian Confession and the Independent Declaration both say that immersion is not necessary, sprinkling will do. Now, in the New Covenant where our relationship with God is defined exclusively on the basis of saving faith and where the realities of salvation are not outward and physical but entirely spiritual, the notion of baptising those who are only infants, even though their parents may be true believers, is inconsistent with the gospel. There can be no special status for the children of believers except that, as they grow up, they have the great privilege of being instructed in the faith, brought up in the fear and admonition of the Lord and being the object of the earnest prayers of their parents and other believers. To bring them to the assembly of the saints and to baptise them, or sprinkle them, is far outside the whole theology of the gospel. Yet this is the practice of Presbyterians and Independents. Incidentally, nowhere in Scripture is a parallel drawn between circumcision, the sign of the Old Covenant, and baptism.

Baptists are convinced that the Scripture teaches that those who gladly receive the Word and therefore turn in repentance from the old ways of sin to the Lord Jesus Christ, should be baptised as the outward sign of the inward grace of God. This is not a minor matter as some would have us believe it. It is a question of whether or not we believe that God’s merciful dealings with sinners is an inward and spiritual work or depends upon outward ceremonies. It further raises the whole issue of obedience to the command and commission of Christ, and conformity to the practice of his apostles.

Once again, this cannot be viewed as unimportant. Its implications are far reaching. I wonder how many people will be condemned to everlasting destruction because they paid no heed to the gospel, assuming that the sprinkling they received as a baby has guaranteed the well being of their souls?

It is here that the great distinction between the Baptist theology of the church and the position of other groupings becomes very great.

Baptists believe in two usages for the word church: the universal church of Jesus Christ and the local church. That is the position of the 1689 Confession.

Baptists are sure that the pattern for the local church is well established in Scripture. It consists of those who have professed repentance and faith, who are living lives consistent with that profession and have been baptised. Nothing could be clearer than the practice instituted by the Apostles in Acts 2. We believe that the practices of local church life and order are thoroughly presented to us in the New Testament. Indeed, that must be so since the local church is central to the purposes of God, and Scripture must be our sufficient guide in all matters of his kingdom.

We further believe that Christ is the head of each local church and that any external authority is unacceptable. Note the care that our forefathers took over this in the 1689 Confession:

That is Baptist churchmanship. There can be no ecclesiastical power, synod, council, or Episcopal system that claims authority over the churches. We should not allow our churches to join any movement, union or association that even tends towards exercising such authority. Failure to hold this position has brought untold damage to many churches throughout the history of the gospel.

Finally, we believe that, under the blessing of God, the local church has immense potential to transact and further the business of Christ in the world. As the one institution that Christ has established, it must be capable of great things. We do not need to build societies or any other organisations with their own bureaucratic systems. Let the churches go forward in faith and accomplish great things for the Lord!

It is a great mystery that godly men, who are convinced of the total integrity of Scripture, differ radically on points of doctrine, and especially on the doctrine of the church. We must respect all our brethren who insist that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, but we must be truly committed to our distinctive doctrines, uphold them and unashamedly teach them to those coming behind us.