Credobaptism

Introduction.

“Us simple folk” are more likely to refer to “believer’s baptism” or “believer’s immersion” than to credobaptism – but credobaptism is good terminology, and sits well across from the more common or popular term “pedobaptism.”

Credobaptism (from the Latin word credo meaning “I believe” + baptism) is the practice of baptizing only those who make a conscious credible profession of faith. Believer’s baptism.

Pedobaptism, or paeodobaptism (from the Greek word paido meaning “child” + baptism) is the practice of baptizing infants or small children (usually on the credit of their parents being believers). Infant baptism.

More important than the right terminology is the right theology. Credobaptism is right biblical orthodoxy (right belief), biblical orthopraxy (right practice), and biblical orthokardy (right heart). Orthodoxy is always essential for Orthopraxy (2 Timothy 3:16-17; Romans 3:4; James 1:22-25); Orthopraxy is always essential to Orthokardy (Hebrews 8:5; John 14:15); Orthokardy is always essential to Orthodoxy (John 4:24; 13:35; I Corinthians 13:1-3). 

Credobaptism is Biblical.[i]

The biblical theology, orthodoxy. Credobaptism fits the doctrine of salvation, soteriology, and the doctrine of the church, ecclesiology. Salvation is by grace through faith, with a good confession required prior to baptism. The church is a congregation made up of a regenerate (born again, believing) membership. No fuzzy math is needed to fit credobaptism with these theologies.

The biblical example, orthopraxy. Throughout the New Testament there are clear examples of the baptism of adults who responded in belief to the preaching of the gospel. This is indisputable, even by those who practice pedobaptism. Infant baptism is at best inferred – but the inferred passages do not stand up to scrutiny. See “Household Baptisms” and “Unbelieving spouses and unbaptized children.”

The biblical unity, orthokardy. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. In Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and much of the Protestant tradition, there are multiple baptisms – baptism of unknowing infants and baptism of professing believers; baptism by sprinkling, baptism by pouring, and baptism by immersion. The heart of the matter should dwell in unity.

Biblical theology and practice settle the matter. However, there are two supporting legs that fit properly into the biblical theology and practice.

Credobaptism is Practical.

The believing person submitting to baptism acts in a manner in response to God, answering a good conscience before God (1 Peter 3:21).[ii] That person will understand the purpose of baptism (Acts 8:37), encounter the rite in an experiential way (Acts 8:38), and remember the experience (Acts 8:39). Both the conscience and conscious are involved. There will be no mental void where baptism is concerned. You will not have to be told by someone else that you were baptized. The baptism of believers is meet, fitting, “suited to every sinner’s case.”[iii]

Credobaptism is Historical. 

Credobaptism is the historic New Testament practice – and the historic practice of the early churches before the rite was corrupted. It continued to be historical in churches that practiced it, even when most others had departed from biblical faith and practice. 

In some of the early sources such as the Didache, believer’s baptism can be seen, even though little additions were beginning to creep in.[iv] For example, that the persons being baptized are volitional believers is assumed, in that they are commanded to fast before they were baptized (Didache, 7.4).

The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus shows the build-up of non-biblical practice, while still maintaining a general baptismal base practice that arises from believer’s baptism. The catechumens were asked about their belief in God the Father, their belief in God the Son, and their belief in God the Holy Spirit.[v]

“That the churches of the post-apostolic age did not long remain faithful to apostolic precept and example in all respects [not just baptism, rlv] would be generally admitted.” (A History of Anti-Pedobaptism from the Rise of Pedobaptism to A.D. 1609, Albert Henry Newman, page 1)

Conclusion.

“Infant baptism was an inevitable consequence of the acceptance of the magical efficacy of water baptism itself to impart salvation. One countervailing error that slowed its introduction was the idea held and taught by some that ‘mortal sins’ committed after baptism could not be forgiven. Quite a reason to delay baptism to the expected end of life!”[vi]

This is not to say that every denomination that practices pedobaptism believes there is magical efficacy of salvation in the water. However, the origins of it are inexplicably tied to such superstitions, and the maintenance of the practice reveals a deficiency in applying sola scriptura to an extra-biblical, emotional, incremental, and traditional practice.

Credobaptism stands on solid ground. The Bible supports it. It is, unsurprisingly, universally recognized as scriptural by all Christian churches that practice some form of baptism. All other forms are on shifting sand.

---

[i] Most Bible students are forced to admit this – unless they have jettisoned baptism altogether. Baptism of believers is obvious, exampled, and necessary. Baptism of infants has no biblical example, is unnecessary, and must be extrapolated (after a fashion) from the old covenant circumcision.
[ii] The person about to submit to baptism or the person who has just been baptized is called a “baptizand.” That terminology is not in common use among most Baptists, at least in my experience.

[iii] Baptism is delayed until a credible profession of faith (credobaptism vs. pedobaptism) but not delayed after a credible profession of faith.
[iv] However, the additions likely were not in the original document.
[v] The three questions before baptism were: “Dost thou believe in God, the Father Almighty?” “Dost thou believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was born of the Holy Ghost, etc.?” “Dost thou believe in the Holy Ghost…?” The baptizand was required to answer in the affirmative, “I believe.”
[vi] Source lost, unknown (Or else I wrote this, but I do not remember that I did.)

Born of God

John 1:11-13 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

The sinner must be born. But born how?

This text sets up a contrast between the human and the divine in salvation, the new birth. A threefold negative denies any recourse to any human source.

1. Not of blood. (cf. Acts 17:26; Matthew 3:9)
2. Nor of the will of the flesh. (cf. John 3:6; Matthew 6:27)
3. Nor of the will of man. (cf. John 5:40; 6:44)

This threefold cord is too strong to be broken. It will not allow for salvation by any human means. The Jews prided themselves on being the descendants of Abraham. Even children of Christian parents may take false refuge in that type of relationship. Three times we are told that being born sons of God is not of man. Man cannot breed or birth his own salvation. Man cannot bring forth his own salvation. Man cannot buy or borrow his own salvation. It is not by human descent, human desire, or human development. Man cannot save himself. Salvation is of the Lord (Jonah 2:9; Ephesians 2:8-9).

In stark contrast to the threefold denial, John confirms, but [born] of God. Salvation is a divine work, not a human achievement.

John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

• as many as received him
• to them gave he power (to become the sons of God)
• them that believe on his name

Born of God!

“Ye must be born again.” (John 3:7)

So grows the Lotus

Back in May of 2014, I wrote about “Tulips, Roses, Poinsettias and Lilies: a veritable theological garden.” Now ten years later, I have discovered a new flower growing in the acrostical soteriological garden – the Lotus.

Apparently “LOTUS” is the brainchild of Daniel Weierbach, pastor of Open Door Baptist Church in Prattville, Alabama. According to his book LOTUS: A Free Grace Response to TULIP (Daniel Weirbach, 2024), Weierbach wanted to create a five-letter acronym, based on flower name, that would “counter” the Calvinistic acronym TULIP, point-by-point, in sequential order. Here grows the Lotus:

• Liable Depravity - Each person is liable for their own sin, but not so depraved that they can’t choose to believe in the Gospel.
• Occupational Election - Election is never unto salvation, but is to an office, position, service, or blessing.
• Total Atonement - The death of Jesus Christ was sufficient to pay for the sins of the entire world, not only the “elect.”
• Unlimited Grace – God’s grace is unlimited in the sense that it extends to all people who have to decide to receive or reject it.
• Security of the Saints -A Christian has eternal security because of the power and promise of God.

The Lotus’s weak version of depravity encapsulates the spirit of the age, and sets the flower in array against the Bible itself. I quickly lost interest in any beauty it might have.

While looking into the LOTUS, I ran across another acrostic – PROVIDE. Not a flower this time, but evidently created by Southern Baptist theologian Leighton Flowers.

• People sin: Which separated all from fellowship with God.
• Responsible: Able-to-respond to God’s appeals for reconciliation.
• Open door: For anyone to enter by faith. Whosoever will may come to His open arms.
• Vicarious atonement: Provides a way for anyone to be saved by Christ’s blood.
• Illuminating grace: Provides clearly revealed truth so that all can know and respond in faith.
• Destroyed: For unbelief and resisting the Holy Spirit.
• Eternal security: For all true believers.

Provisionist Southern Baptists and Independent Baptists seem to be going of the cliff in rejecting total depravity. Regardless of any abuses of the terminology, we are totally depraved sinners whose only hope is Jesus Christ and not ourselves. Separated from God. No way back on our own. All of us. Totally. Hereditarily.

Theologically, LOTUS and PROVIDE seem to be two peas in a pod.

Baptists in 1790, North America

On my shelf, relaxing from a long respite of being opened, I found The Annual Register of the Baptist Denomination in North-America to the First of November, 1790 waiting to reveal to state of Baptists in America in the end of the 18th century (John Asplund, Lafayette, TN: Church History Research and Archives, 1979, first printing 1791).

 
Asplund wrote that he had “traveled about 7000 miles, in about 18 months, chiefly on foot,” to try to gather information on all the Baptist churches. He visited about 215 churches and 15 associations, and said he was personally acquainted 250 ministers. This information he thought “may safely be depended upon in general,” though “a few Churches and Ministers may be omitted.” Asplund’s Register gives us a snapshot of what the Baptists looked like in the United States in 1790. The churches were by a large majority Regular or Particular Baptists. There were exceptions here and there, but the bulk adhered to an idea of Particular Redemption, as opposed to General Provision.

The breakdown in the back of the book follows thusly:

• Seventh Day Baptists 10 churches, 887 members
• Six principle Baptists 18 churches, 1599 members
• Open communion Baptists 15 churches, 1714 members
• General Provision Baptists 30 churches, 1948 members
• Regular or particular Baptists 795 churches, 58398 members

Viewed on a percentage basis, 795 of 868 churches (91.5%) were Regular (Calvinistic) Baptists. Within this 795, there were some members and ministers that held a general provision sentiment. This is mainly in Virginia and Kentucky, and after nearly 50 years of Separate Baptist influence.

Concerning associations Asplund lists 34, plus the General Committee in Virginia and the Seventh Day Baptists, who had no association. Of these 36, seventeen held the Philadelphia Confession, and eight more held Calvinistic principles but had not adopted the confession. The 7th-Day Baptists are identified as being Regular Baptist except for the issue of the Sabbath. Six others had not adopted the confession because some of their churches held general provision. Viewed associationally, 32 of 36 associations (nearly 90%) were Calvinistic, or mostly so.

This snapshot gives indication that the majority of early American Baptists were what we consider “Calvinists.” This does not preclude variation within the Calvinistic views – from “High Calvinism” to Fullerism to holding general provision Baptists as members in Particular Baptist churches. Nevertheless, the vast majority of these churches represented themselves “Particular” Baptists.

Inclusivism in religion

Inclusivism in religion by definition is “the view that all religions have a partial truth” – that in the relationship between religions, while there may be a set of beliefs that is absolutely true, all religions are at least partially true. Exclusivism, on the other hand, asserts that there is only one true way of belief and all other religions are in error.[i] For example, exclusivism in Christianity states that the Bible is God’s truth and Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation. Inclusivism finds good in all religions, with the result that one may be “saved” by whatever way he or she seeks for or relates to God. Inclusivism in practical terms, among those I know who are inclusivists, usually resorts toward the end of the spectrum that all beliefs are equally valid.

I find it interesting how broad and how narrow the inclusivist view can be. Inclusivism stresses that all beliefs are equally valid, but will not validate the exclusivist view. Therefore, anything and everything that seeks God can be good, except the view that there is only one God and one way to seek him! How inclusive is that?

The Bible teaches there is only one true God (e.g. Deuteronomy 6:4-5; Isaiah 37:16) and that there is only one way to know the true God, through Jesus Christ (e.g. John 14:6; Acts 4:12). For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

Selah.

---

[i] Not that every single thing they say or teach is in error, but specifically the way to God.

Baptist Universalism

What is universalism?[i] By “universalism,” I mean a teaching that in some way Christ’s death guarantees salvation for every member of the human race – past, present, and future.[ii] Or, at the least, that every member of the human race will ultimately be saved, however it is accomplished.[iii] Dictionary.com defines “Universalism” as “the doctrine that emphasizes the universal fatherhood of God and the final salvation of all souls.” Universalism is the belief that, in the end, all men will be saved.

A friend suggested something of which I had never given thought, writing, “I acknowledge the Calvinist heritage of the doctrine [of universalism].” This is interesting. Universalism shares with Calvinism some sort of idea of “unconditional election” and “irresistible grace.” Universal salvation is not based on human choice but God’s choice. The “grace” may not be “irresistible” until after an individual’s death, but ultimately it is irresistible because all individuals – atheists, agnostics, other religions, unbelievers – will be saved whether they want to be or not![iv]

Two prominent Baptists in U. S. history, Elhanan Winchester (1751-1797) and Hosea Ballou (1771-1852), adopted the theory of Universalism. Winchester was originally a Calvinist, and moved from Particular Redemption to General Redemption to Universalism. Winchester remained what Nathan Finn called a “Revivalistic Universalist.” Ballou on the other hand seems to have developed his universalism from his Calvinism and moved to a more rationalistic version of universalism. Probably most Baptists who embrace universalism move on elsewhere, and do not remain Baptist in persuasion. However, I am aware of a few kinds of Baptist Universalists.

1. Primitive Baptist Universalism. Held by several Appalachian Primitive Baptist Associations who embraced universalism. Howard Dorgan wrote about them in In the Hands of a Happy God: The “No-Hellers” of Central Appalachia.

2. Interspersed Baptist Universalism. Held by individual Baptists or individual churches who are dispersed within Baptist churches and/or Baptist denominations that do not hold universalism.

3. Functional Baptist Universalism. Held by individual Baptists in practice – that is, those whose theology may say otherwise but their lifestyles and life’s actions are lived as if in the end everyone will be saved.[v]

Primitive Baptist Universalism

The following articles of faith from the Washington District [Universalist] Primitive Baptist Association demonstrate their theology and their conservatism: (1) their conservatism in that their Abstract of Principles were only slightly changed from its original wording to show how they interpreted matters in a universalist way, and (2) their theology in that they did actually make a slight change from their previous abstract.

Article 10. We believe there now is a general judgment and the punishment of the wicked is everlasting and the happiness of the righteous is eternal. [i.e., the believe the judgment and punishment are in the temporal world.]

Article 11. We believe there will be a resurrection of the dead bodies of all people when Christ shall change these vile bodies of ours like unto His most glorious body.

The churches believe the atonement is for all humankind, that the “elect” are the true church (basically, the Primitive Baptist Universalist churches),[vi] that people experience their judgment & hell here on earth, that there is no hell in the afterlife, and that all people without exception go to heaven.

The split of Primitive Baptists over this issue occurred in 1924. According to various sources, there are either four or six “No-Heller” associations in Central Appalachia Washington District Association, Three Forks of Powell’s River Regular Primitive Baptist Association, two Elkhorn Primitive Baptist Associations,[vii] Stony Creek and Union. They likely no more than 2000 members, perhaps much less.[viii]

Interspersed Baptist Universalism

In our inclusivist age and society, it is likely that there is a high number of individuals in Baptist churches who hold a universalist theology. Developing any idea of numbers or percentages is well-nigh impossible. I have identified two churches in the American Baptist Churches of Massachusetts who hold dual-affiliation with the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA): The Federated Church of Sturbridge and Fiskdale, Sturbridge, MA and First Parish of Bolton, Bolton MA.[ix] Their affiliation with the UUA indicates they are no longer Baptist in much if any meaningful way, but they maintain a semblance of Baptist heritage by continuing to affiliate with the ABC of Massachusetts.[x]

Functional Baptist Universalism

For retired Baptist pastor William Thornton, it means those who “live as if somehow, someway, everyone will make their way to heaven. No one ever admits to this as a concrete belief…” I found the “Functional Baptist Universalists” described this way: “Christians who live, act, or function as though every person is bound for heaven. Their daily routines do not emphasize spiritual or eternal priorities. Though they regularly converse with friends and acquaintances on various subjects, they never discuss religion, God, or salvation.” For Christians who believe that God has already done all he can do and the salvation of lost souls depends upon them to not be evangelistic is a virtual denial of their theology. It is a practical acceptance of functional universalism.

Some links that might interest readers

• Elhanan Winchester: The Outcasts Comforted – Sermon on Universal Restoration (1782)
• Elhanan Winchester
• Hellers or No-Hellers?
• “It’s hell enough down here.” What do Primitive Baptist Universalists believe?
• Reconciling Conflicting Convictions on the Sovereignty of God and the Freedom of Human Beings: Three Centuries (16th-18th) of Baptist Universalism
• The Baptist Universalist by Robin Parry
• The Making of a Baptist Universalist: the Curious Case of Elhanan Winchester
• A Case For Christian Universalism (From A Non-Universalist)
• Universalism is the new Christian orthodoxy

---

[i] I have tried to follow Finn in using the terms “universalism” and “universalist” when referring to the theological position, and “Universalism” and “Universalist” when referring to groups that embraced the universal salvation and individuals who were the members of such groups. See “The Making of a Baptist Universalist: the Curious Case of Elhanan Winchester,” footnote 3.

[ii] This is in reference to soteriology. Some people who hold General Atonement refer to it as Universal Atonement. In reference to ecclesiology, “Universalism” often is used pejoratively regarding the universal church versus local church only.

[iii] Some Universalists move this completely out of the realm of Christian theology.

[iv] This is assuming an initially Christian version of universalism, of course.

[v] This is usually confined to those who hold the theoretical possibility that all men could be saved (general atonement), but make to attempt to reach them with the gospel or call them to repentance and belief. On the other hand, “Functional Baptist Universalism” could not apply to those who believe that God regenerates the sinner and repentance & faith are mere fruits of God’s act.

[vi] Johannes Steenbuch distinguished the Primitive Baptist Universalists idea of “saved believers” as those who “enjoy the comfort of knowing their salvation here and now, while unbelievers are still unaware that they are already saved in principle.”

[vii] Due to a split in the early 1980s.

[viii] In 2011 Bill Leonard estimated around 1,000. “Baptist scholar says remember Appalachia before it disappears,” Norman Jameson, The Christian Century, March 31, 2011.

[ix] Both these churches also affiliate with the United Church of Christ.

[x] For example, for the church in Sturbridge “All questions regarding the Sacrament of Baptism shall be left to the conscience of the individual member” – which includes being exempt from any type of baptism if that is one’s conviction.

Are Arminians “Saved,” reprise

In 2006 I created a brief post, Are Arminians “Saved”?. It included a link to a website called Outside the Camp. Apparently that link is not good any longer. For that reason, I am posting some material from an article on that site – “Three Reasons Why Arminians are not Saved,” by Christopher Adams. This is a good example of the flavor once available on “Outside the Camp.”

One of the most important issues faced by those who profess to believe the doctrines of grace (commonly called “Calvinism”) is how to relate to professing Christians who reject the doctrines of grace. Should they be approached as brothers in Christ? Should we take their “conversion experience” at face value? In answering these questions, the writer would like to submit the following “Three Reasons Why Arminians Are Not Saved.”

Reason Number One: Arminians are not saved because they worship an idol. By an idol, I mean “a god who cannot save.”...Arminians have fashioned a god in their own image. They are no more saved than the Jews who had done exactly the same thing.

Reason Number Two: Arminians are not saved because they do not believe the truth. This is related to the previous reason but has more to do with the evidence of a person’s salvation.

Any Calvinist who defends the salvation of Arminians must explain 2 Thessalonians 2:12, which says, “That they all might be damned who believe not the truth...”...Again, a saved sinner may not necessarily use all the same words that I have used here, but he will never believe the opposite of these doctrines, nor will he ever oppose them when confronted with them (1 Cor 2:12).

Reason Number Three: Arminians are not saved because they hate the truth. This reason also has more to do with the evidence of a person’s salvation...

The very fact that there is any debate over this issue indicates that the majority of professing Calvinist churches are not true churches at all.

The fact that Arminians are unsaved also leads us to a few conclusions:

1. We must not fellowship with Arminians...2. We must treat them as unsaved...3. We must be willing to exercise church discipline on those who turn out to be Arminians or consider Arminians to be their brothers in Christ...

These “Outside the Camp” people even come to the conclusion that “Calvinists” who think “Arminians” are saved, are not themselves children of God!

14 points of soteriology

Soteriological Subjects, point by point: Working approaches and working acrostics

5 biblical soteriological non-acrostic “Five Points”

• For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.
• I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.
• Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree.
• All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
• Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him.

The Seven Points of Vaughanism: Salvation shifted from man to God

1. Transmitted depravity and hereditary death: Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
2. Human inability: John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
3. Election, God given and Christ received: John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
4. Sufficient and efficient atonement: 1 Timothy 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
5. Faith, by grace a gift: Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
6. Inner witness: Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
7. Divine preservation: John 10:28 and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand

14 points of biblical salvation: rebellion, rescue, and redemption

First Seven Points of Vaughanism: man, imputed sinner; depraved, helpless, and hopeless

1. Universal depravity: all have sinned
2. Transmitted mortality: death passed upon all men
3. Depraved enmity: the carnal mind is enmity against God:
4. Persistent disunity: who were dead in trespasses and sins; but your iniquities have separated between you and your God
5. Inherent inability: No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him
6. Moral responsibility: except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish
7. Eternal equity: whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Second Seven Points of Vaughanism: man, rescued and secured

1. Eternal preparation (Revelation 13:8; Acts 2:23)
2. Complete satisfaction (John 1:29; Romans 3:26)
3. Distinct application (John 1:12; Galatians 3:22)
4. Effective persuasion (John 6:29; John 6:37)
5. Responsible cooperation (1 Corinthians 1:21; 2 Timothy 3:15)
6. Spiritual procreation (John 1:13; John 3:7)
7. Utmost preservation (Hebrews 7:25; 1 Peter 1:5)

A “non-standard” soteriological view is often caricatured as Calvinism by non-Calvinists, and as Arminianism by Calvinists. So be it. Nevertheless, I am satisfied with that ambiguity and think it may even be an indicator of being on the right track! I hold the following soteriological truths to be biblically-evident. God undertook from eternity to deliver man from sin. In time Jesus died as a sacrifice to save all who believe. The Spirit draws men to Christ. Under and only under that conviction they can become both willing and able to believe in Christ. All those who believe are born again, are justified through faith, and are kept by the power of God unto salvation.

Baptist bullies, boycotters, and babies

I have a great interest in history, and, as a Baptist, a great interest in Baptist history. On Facebook I am a member of a History of Baptists group.[i] For most of the time of my membership, it has been a quiet place. Members post biographies of Baptist people, history of churches, and such. Into the quietness recently roared the rancor of the good ole “Calvinism, Arminianism, and all-points-in-between” debate. Now it is clear that this topic has a legitimate place in the discussion of Baptist history. Moreover, you might assume that adult Christians who are interested in it from the vista of Baptist history might be able to discuss it decently. But no!

Were the 1689 London and 1742 Philadelphia Confessions of Faith “Calvinistic” in their soteriological perspective? Yes, no, maybe. Maybe we’ll never know![ii] After enough instigation and reaction, berating and complaining, the moderators have had enough and are considering taking the topic of “doctrine” off the Baptist historical table!

After pushback on some posts, some of the “Calvinists” apparently decided to “poke the bear.”[iii] Among the “Traditionalist” majority, a range of bullies, boycotters, and babies came to the fore.[iv] The bullies blustered and bragged. The boycotters gestured pulling their support from the group. The babies just whined and cried.

I doubt you have much interest in reading this rambling.[v] I wrote it to vent some feeling. I wish Baptists had fewer bullies, boycotters, and babies trying to get their way, and more advocates who acted like adults in whom the Spirit of God abides.[vi] Rather than demanding, manipulating, or whining, why not be ready to give a good answer based on the Bible (or history in this case, since the discussion is about Baptist history)?

---

[i] The name has been changed to protect the innocent and the guilty.

[ii] But of course they were. E.g. “Those of mankind that are predestinated to life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any other thing in the creature as a condition or cause moving Him thereunto.”

[iii] The majority of the membership appear to non-Calvinists, with a strong tasting of rabid anti-Calvinists.

[iv] Bullies: blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing persons who badger and intimidate smaller or weaker people. Boycotters: those who combine in abstaining from buying or using, or preventing dealings with, as a means of intimidation or coercion. Babies: immature or childish persons.

[v] But if you have gotten this far I guess you have!

[vi] To be clear, all Baptist bullies, boycotters, and babies are not “Traditionalists,” but in this case they were.

We are Barabbas

All four Gospels record what seems to be a matter incidental to the great story of the crucifixion of Jesus. Yet that incident plays an important role in the story, and teaches an important lesson. The Passover custom in Jerusalem called for the release of a prisoner, as a favor to the people (Mark 15:6). When Pilate would have released Jesus from the sentence of death, the Jews cried out for the release of a man named Barabbas and the crucifixion of Jesus instead (Cf. Matthew 27:20-23).

The name of Barabbas is mentioned 11 times in 10 verses of the Gospels. He is also alluded to once as a murderer in a sermon at Solomon’s porch in Jerusalem (Matthew 27:16, Matthew 27:17, Matthew 27:20, Matthew 27:21, Matthew 27:26, Mark 15:7, Mark 15:11, Mark 15:15, Luke 23:18, John 18:40, Acts 3:14). The name Barabbas corresponds in meaning to the person of Jesus Christ. The prefix “bar” (βαρ) means “son of” – as can be seen by comparing the following verses:  Matthew 16:17, John 1:42, Mark 10:46, and Acts 4:36. “Abba” (αββα) means father – as can be seen in the following verses: Mark 14:36, Romans 8:15, and Galatians 4:6. Barabbas was “a son of (the) father” in comparison and contrast to Jesus, The Son of God the Father, his only begotten Son (Cf. John 1:18, John 3:35, 1 John 4:14, 1 John 4:9).

Barabbas was a lawbreaker. He was a robber, murderer, and seditionist[i] (Luke 23:18-19, John 18:40, Acts 3:14). Barabbas was not just “alleged” or “accused” but guilty, worthy of death – by both Roman and Jewish law.[ii] Barabbas had been sentenced and held over for execution (Mark 15:7). Yet Barabbas, the guilty, goes free (Matthew 27:26).

Jesus was a law fulfiller (Matthew 5:17). Though he had gone about doing good (Acts 10:38), he was accused as guilty (Matthew 26:66). He was in fact without sin (Hebrews 4:15). Yet Jesus, the innocent, is crucified (Matthew 27:26).

We are Barabbas, the guilty. We are sons of our father, Adam (Romans 5:12). We are sinners (Romans 3:23), lawbreakers (James 2:10), thieves (John 10:1), murderers (1 John 3:15), and insurrectionists (Romans 8:7). We are guilty (Romans 3:19). We are in bondage (Hebrews 2:15, Psalm 102:19-20). We deserve to die and are sentenced to death (Romans 6:23, James 1:15, Hebrews 9:27). 

Jesus is our substitute. He is the Son sent by the Father to save us from our sins (1 John 4:14). The innocent was executed that we might be released. Jesus died in Barabbas’s place. Jesus died in the place of his people (Matthew 1:21, John 11:49-50). Though the effects of the substitution may be different, Jesus died in place of Barabbas, and in place of his people. We are Barabbas, the guilty set free.

“Himself he cannot save.”

Insulting foe, ’tis true;

The words a gracious meaning have,

Though meant in scorn by you.

“Himself he cannot save.”

This is his highest praise.

Himself for others’ sake he gave,

And suffers in their place.

(Thomas Kelly)

…who died for us… 1 Thessalonians 5:10

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God… 1 Peter 3:18

---

[i] In rebellion against civil authority

[ii] “Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death.” Numbers 35:31. The fact that Barabbas was being held for execution is evidence that he was guilty under Roman law, since these crucifixions took place under the authority of the Roman government.

What We Believe about Salvation, Liberty MBC

Liberty Missionary Baptist Church of Norton, Summit County, Ohio has posted What we believe about salvation on their site. It demonstrates that it is not just “Calvinists” who reject the “easy-believism” that is promoted by many modern Baptists.

In order to obtain true salvation there first must be a sense of trouble, conviction, and condemnation set up by God in the heart of the unsaved person. They must pray and seek God and repent of their sins until they know for themselves that God has forgiven and saved them. Man does not convict them and man cannot tell them when God forgives and saves them. God is all-powerful and can save the soul of one seeking Him any place, any time when God’s conditions are met. However, we give opportunity for those desiring to seek and find God to come to the front for prayer. The pew sitting in the front facing the congregation is referred to as the “mourner’s bench.”

The unsaved person does not obtain salvation simply by “accepting,” “believing”, “making a decision for Christ,” or “being baptized” as many teach today.

It is true that a person must “accept” and “believe” that Christ is who the Bible teaches He is. One must also believe that he is the rewarder of those that diligently seek him. This is a historical belief and is definitely required by one seeking God. When one is saved, he/she receives a new, regenerated soul as stated by Jesus in John chapter 3 and must be under those terms stated to Nicodemus by Jesus Christ, (born again). It is true that a person must “decide” to seek Christ; he/she must be determined to seek until he/she finds Him.

We do not believe in using “Repeat after me” prayers nor in reading scripture passages to them to convince them they have prayed, trusted, or believed. We condemn the practice known as “The Roman Road” and all other “easy believism” practices. These practices substitute a historical belief for a belief from the heart.

We do pray with the person seeking God and we do believe in encouraging them according to the leadership of the Holy Spirit.

When God saves the individual, the individual knows, without anyone telling them – including the preacher, loved ones, or any friend.

The Seven Points of Vaughanism

The history of Christianity and its simple gospel message seems to have long been cursed with a soteriological debate regarding Divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Many historians would trace its origins to Augustine and Pelagius over 1600 years ago. I say “cursed” not because the relationship of Divine sovereignty and human responsibility is unimportant. No, “cursed” because the debate has descended into theological bloviating on theological minutiae that the theological bloviaters do not understand – and do not understand that they do not understand! Trying to screw down their theology as tight as possible, they miss the command to simply preach the gospel and leave the salvation to God. No! We must know and understand the ordo salutis [i] and other depths that only God understands – and we must make sure everyone else understands what we don’t understand just the way we (don’t) understand it! Never mind that “the essence of Christian maturity” might be “to have a high tolerance for ambiguity.”[ii]

So into the fray steps this bloviater to bloviate about the subject. Like everyone else, I don’t much know what I’m talking about either, but I am satisfied with some of the ambiguities. That satisfaction does not mean that I can’t or don’t enjoy the discussion and debate. For many years I have been intrigued by it and its intricacies. I have posted on the soteriological positions of Calvinism, Arminianism, Traditionalism (or Extensivism), Unlimited Atonement, and other points in between. I have posted about tulips, roses, poinsettias, lillies, even daisies – so much so that some might say I am obsessed with “Five Points”.

Calvinism’s and Arminianism’s acrostics normally focus on five points – either the TULIP, its “synonyms” or its “antonyms.” I cannot be satisfied with the sufficiency of “five points,” so I have developed the “Seven Points of Vaughanism.”[iii] (While preparing for this post, I discovered that two years ago, in an attempt to make a brief soteriological statement, I had posted another seven points about which I had forgotten. I’ll compare these two later and see about a possible merger. J )

* The Seven Points of Vaughanism *

1. Hereditary depravity and hereditary death: Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
2. Human inability: John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
3. Human ability, God given and Christ received: John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
4. Sufficient and efficient atonement: 1 Timothy 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
5. Gracious faith, a gift: Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
6. Inner witness: Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
7. Divine preservation: John 10:28 and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

A “non-standard” soteriological view is often caricatured as Calvinism by non-Calvinists, and as Arminianism by Calvinists. So be it. Nevertheless, I am satisfied with that ambiguity and think it may even be an indicator of being on the right track! I hold the following soteriological truths to be biblically-evident. God undertook from eternity to deliver man from sin. In time Jesus died as a sacrifice to save all who believe. The Spirit draws men to Christ. Under and only under that conviction they can become both willing and able to believe in Christ. All those who believe are born again, are justified through faith, and are kept by the power of God unto salvation.

---

[i] The ordo salutis is Latin for “order of salvation.”

[ii] Don’t know the origin, but I have often heard this stated by radio preacher Steve Brown. Of the primitivistic (not just Primitive) Baptists in the Appalachias, Deborah McCauley writes, “they accept ambiguity – running deep and broad – as an indisputable fact of life. They do not feel driven to resolve it in their preaching with semantically fancy footwork that artificially overcomes ambiguity by forcing all the pieces to fit together neatly...” (Appalachian Mountain Religion: A History, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1995, p. 95). Roughly, “primitivism” believes that the New Testament provides a pattern for the church that can be reproduced by faithful adherence to the New Testament.

[iii] I used another spelling of our family name – Vaughan – simply because it yields itself to a three-syllable pronunciation of a theological system, Vaugh-an-ism, as does Calvinism. (“I’ll bet you think this song is about you, don’t you.” Carly Simon) The “seven points” are subject to revision as the Bible requires.