Near Emmaus

Category Archives: Baptist


by 41 Comments

Wrestling with the ecclesiology of Ignatius of Antioch (or, do I need a Bishop?!)

ignace

Bishop Ignatius of Antioch

I’ve been a low church evangelical for many years now. I entered Christianity through a sectarian Pentecostal group (some doubted we should celebrate Christmas because it was of “pagan origin”, so you imagine the type of ecumenism I was taught). I have thought about the teachings of Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Anglicanism/Episcopalianism and there are times when I find these groups quite attractive and other times when I find these groups to be concerning. Currently, I worship with a (modern, not Amish-like) Mennonite church, which I like because of their commitment to serious discipleship, and their emphasis on the Kingdom of God and the reconciling hope of their eschatology. Yet I worry at times that Mennonites are similar in some ways to my Pentecostal friends in that there is a lack of catholicity with little emphasis on the Lord’s Supper/Communion/Eucharist tradition that has enriched the church for hundreds of years.

As I have mentioned (see here) I have decided to participate in a group called “Read the Fathers”. One figure whose writings are listed early is Ignatius of Antioch (CE 35/50-98/117), a Bishop in the early church who is said to have been one of the more immediate successors of the Apostle Peter and a student of the Apostle John. I haven’t studied this figure enough to have an opinion on such claims, but that he was writing not too long after documents like the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation were composed demands attention.

Is this gathering of U.S. Catholic Bishops the assembling of "the church"?

Is this gathering of U.S. Catholic Bishops the assembling of “the church”?

There have been several statements made in his epistle that seem to foreshadow the teachings of the more developed church, the ecclesiology to which aforementioned groups like Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans appeal. As someone who is worshipping with Mennonites, who has been educated by Baptists and Reformed thinkers, who has taught in churches with roots in Lutheranism and Pentecostalism, and who (admittedly) prefers “low church” Christianity (though I have grown fond of some form of liturgy and practices such as following a form of the liturgical calendar), I thought I’d post some excerpts here for conversation.

The first to grab my attention is from Ignatius’ Epistle to the Ephesians (V) where he writes:

“Let no man deceive himself: if any one be not within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of God. For if the prayer of one or two possesses such power, how much more that of the bishop and the whole Church! He, therefore, that does not assemble with the Church, has even by this manifested his pride, and condemned himself. For it is written, “God resists the proud.” Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God.”

This seems Eucharistic (though I am trying to avoid anachronism). The Bishop performs the rite at the alter providing the bread to the people, and to deny the assembly is of grave concern. He writes later (XIII):

“For when ye assemble frequently in the same place, the powers of Satan are destroyed, and the destruction at which he aims is prevented by the unity of your faith. Nothing is more precious than peace, by which all war, both in heaven and earth, is brought to an end.”

And then (XX):

“…breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, but [which causes] that we should live for ever in Jesus Christ.”

What we have in this epistle is the need to gather with the church, the importance of the Bishop, and the centrality of the Eucharist in worship. I struggled even more with a statement he made in his Epistle to the Magnesians (II):

“Since therefore I have been permitted to see you in the person of Damas, your godly bishop, and the worthy presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius, and my fellow-servant, the deacon Zotion, of whom may I have joy, because he is subject unto the bishop as unto the grace of God, and to the presbytery as unto the law of Jesus Christ.”

The Bishop of one church represents the whole local church to the other church through that local church’s Bishop. Later in the epistle he writes (XII):

“…that in everything which you do, you may be prospered in flesh and spirit, by faith and love, in the Son and Father and in the Spirit, in the beginning and in the end, along with your bishop who is worthy of all honor, and the fitly-woven spiritual coronal of your presbytery, and the deacons who are according to the mind of God.  Submit yourselves to the bishop and to one another, as Jesus Christ [was subject] to the Father [after the flesh], and the Apostles to Christ and the Father, that there may be union both of flesh and spirit.”

Submitting to the Bishop brings unity, and it models Jesus’ submission to the Father, and the Apostles to Christ and the Father. He writes in his Epistle to the Trallians (II), “For, since you are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ, you appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order, by believing in His death, you may escape from death.”

Subject to the Bishop as to Jesus Christ? 

Submit to the Bishop as to Christ? Always?

Submit to the Bishop as to Christ? Always? What if my Bishop was John Shelby Spong?

Now, as I said, I want to avoid anachronism. I realize that a “Bishop” doesn’t seem to be as authoritative as it might come to be later. There doesn’t seem to be Archbishops. It could be argued that at this stage in the history of the church a Bishop was like the “Sr. Pastor” over the church in a city. There was no acknowledgement of anything like denominations, so you wouldn’t have a Lutheran pastor, a Presbyterian pastor, and so forth and so on. You’d have one, single pastor (Bishop) who oversees other leaders (Presbyters and Deacons). We know from the emergence of groups like the various gnostic sects that this idea is challenged, and that catholicity is “in flux” for the perspective of historicism, but for those of us who affirm that Spirit’s guidance in developing the church to become what most of us would consider “orthodox” (e.g., Trinity, deity of Christ, nature of Christology, function of canonical books) what do we say to this (and other statements by Ignatius in other epistles)?

Also, for pragmatic purposes, in light of Ignatius’ words, what do you think he would have said if someone said, “My ‘Bishop’ is John Shelby Spong! Should I remain under his authority?” How would Ignatius have advised people under the episcopal rule of Spong? or Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori? or an Arian Bishop or a gnostic Bishop?

Your thoughts on this subject are welcome, whether you be of a tradition with Bishops or without Bishops. What do you think of the need for Bishops today? What do we do if we think Bishop lead churches have strayed from the Gospel? 

About these ads


by 21 Comments

Rethinking the Mode of Baptism

Since relocating to Missouri, I’ve had to rethink my own denomination, and now, I’ve also had to rethink the mode of baptism.

I went by Covenant Theological Seminary, which is PCA.  I had the opportunity to visit with Prof. Robert Yarbrough, formerly of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.  He has been at Covenant Seminary for over a year now.  We had just enough time to talk about Infant Baptism.

Prof. Yarbrough was formerly ordained in the Southern Baptist Denomination.  He moved his ordination to Presbyterian Church of America (PCA).  As someone who does missionary work, Yarbrough now reflects with gratitude.  He told me that he has been able to work with not only those who subscribe to Infant Baptism but also with those who subscribe to believer’s baptism.

My Appreciation

Prof. Yarbrough gave me the classic covenant argument for Infant Baptism.  Over the years, I’ve come to appreciate this aspect of the practice. Yarbrough found himself stressing the need to understand covenant theology.  In fact, he recommended three books for me to explore the matter further.

So I went to the bookstore and found a book by Doug Wilson on the subject.  I began to browse through it.

And yes, I’ve come to see that immersion is not the only accepted mode of baptism in the New Testament.  This is clear from how the Baptism of the Spirit is portrayed in the book of Acts (2; 10-11).

My Departure

While I appreciate Prof. Yarbrough’s passionate argument, and that of other Presbyterians that I’ve encountered in St. Louis, there’s a major point of departure that I’ve found.

I get the infant inclusion in covenant through the practice of Infant Baptism (as I said above, I’ve since come to appreciate this).

But when I discovered that a person who was baptized as an infant has no need to be baptized as an adult when he or she comes to faith in Christ because the Infant Baptism counts, my appreciation ended and my departure began.

But I will not belabor the issue here.


by 16 Comments

Walk On: A Guide to Exiting from Oneness Pentecostalism (Pt. 5)

[If you haven’t read the previous posts in this series you can find them here: Pt. 1 here; Pt. 2 here; Pt. 3 here; Pt. 4 here.]

The other day someone commented on one of the posts in this series saying that my arguments against Oneness Pentecostalism were not very good. He said that I was creating a “straw man” while negatively painting the movement with a “broad brush”. He has misunderstood what I am trying to do.

I said this in the introductory post:

Let me provide a disclaimer from the very beginning. I am not writing this post and the next few in order to try to apologetically disprove Oneness Pentecostal dogma. In fact, I will be ignoring comments that try to bait me into such debates. I have written plenty elsewhere saying openly why I disagree with their teachings.

Likewise, I have no illusions that these posts will “convert” anyone. I have met some people who have told me that my story gave them the strength to leave, but I know that there are many others whom I have failed to convince, including some family. If you are happy where you are as a Oneness Pentecostal, or if you are needing to be “convinced”, then this is a dead end.

So if you are an apologist for Oneness Pentecostalism you will find these writings frustrating because I am not trying to show that Oneness Pentecostalism is misguided. I’ve written elsewhere in an attempt to do that very thing. What I am writing here presupposes a level of agreement between me and my readers. No, you don’t have to be fully convinced that it is time for you to exit Oneness Pentecostalism, but I assume that you, the reader, already have thought about it for a while and that you are seriously weighing your options. Whether or not you leave is between you and God. I am writing for those who either have made the choice to reintegrate into the broader Christian family or who will in the near future.

That being said, let me get to the main subject of this post. One thing that Oneness Pentecostalism does share with most every other “type” of Christianity is a underlying tribalism. We all want to be “in” and not “out”. We want to belong. Sadly, this means that we are often forced to choose another group so that we do not have to feel like Lone Rangers.

There is nothing wrong with finding a place to belong. There is nothing wrong with affirming a creed or confession. Two bloggers that write here have recently aligned themselves with large groups holding very historic confessions. JohnDave Medina has returned to Roman Catholicism and Josh Smith has entered into the Anglican fellowship. They are both former Oneness Pentecostals.

I have remained unaffiliated though I have had times where I was drawn to Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, and I even thought ever so briefly about the Reformed. I once considered becoming part of the Assemblies of God so I could retain a Pentecostal identity. I have been going to a seminary that has Baptist roots, so I thought I may become a Baptist (probably wouldn’t be too hard to make this transition now). I discovered that for the time being I was happy committing as deep as a local independent church would ask of me. Unlike my fellow bloggers I am not part of a larger group.

What I do fear is that while some people can be removed from the sectarianism of Oneness Pentecostalism, some cannot have the sectarianism removed from within them. So they are suddenly as militantly for this group or that group as they were for Oneness Pentecostals a few months earlier. While this may be my committed ecumenism speaking, I ask you to be careful not to chose a group merely to belong.

I say this because your identity must be grounded in Christ. You must see yourself first and foremost as a Christian before you say you are a Roman Catholic, a Presbyterian, or a Methodist. You need to learn to love the people of God broadly before aligning with a group for pragmatic or polemical reasons.

There is a purging that must occur. While not all Oneness Pentecostal congregations are suspicious of other Christians a great many are. There is a good chance that if you fellowshipped with the church down the street it was through minimal interaction. Whatever you do, don’t leave where you are only to go somewhere similar.

Also, there are many Oneness Pentecostals who had to accept what their pastor taught lest they be isolated. You had to affirm particular views on particular passages. You didn’t study these things to see if they were true because in part you feared your conclusions. If you did study it was only to learn how to “defend” yourself against Trinitarians.

If you pray and study and one day realize you belong amongst the Southern Baptist then so be it. But don’t choose to be Southern Baptist because you need a “team”. Don’t choose to be Southern Baptist because you need an “us” to oppose “them”. Do not choose to be Southern Baptist simply to belong. Why? Because one day you will wake up and realize you are in a place that is vaguely familiar. You have doubts, you need answers, and you aren’t sure what to do. Too much could be at stake to ask the questions floating through your mind, so you will shut up and live with the tension. Tension it will be.

This is all I have to say on this subject. In my next post I will address something a bit more concerning. I will be writing on the pendulum swing that I have experienced and seen experienced by other former Oneness Pentecostals in the area of morals and convictions.


by 3 Comments

Estus Pirkle Weighs In On the Hell Issue

It is really a shame that with all of the talk happening around Hell recently, a very prominent, sensible voice has been forgotten. That voice would be of the late Estus Pirkle, who had this vision for the eternal fate of sinners:  

Alternatively, many of the readers of this blog can place their hope in someday spending eternity in this magnificent place: 

Well this certainly helps put things into perspective! I know where I want to go!


by Leave a comment

The Catholicity of the Church (from a Baptist Perspective)

Juan Sanchez, a Baptist pastor, argues for the catholicity of the church in his post titled: Ancient Future Church: Catholicity. As a preview to a good post let me share some of his conclusions. First, he presents what catholicity prevents the church from being:

1. The true, catholic church is NOT American or British or German or Western or Eastern . . . (1 Cor. 1:1-2).

2. The true, catholic church is NOT white or black or Hispanic or Asian . . . (Galatians 3:23-26).

3. The true, catholic church is NOT Baptist or Presbyterian or Methodist, etc. . . . (Ephesians 4:1-6).

4. Finally, Focus on the Family, FCA, YMCA, Political Action Committees are NOT true, catholic churches. They may be helpful parachurch organizations, but they are NOT the church.

Second, he presents what catholicity affirms the church as being:

A true, catholic church is one that is founded/formed by the gospel of Jesus Christ in the power of the Spirit and lives its life in light of that gospel gathering people from every tribe, tongue, nation and family. Consequently, as true manifestations of the heavenly assembly, . . .

1. A true, catholic church will cooperate with other manifestations of the true, catholic church in mission.

2. A true, catholic church will fellowship with other manifestations of the true, catholic church.

3. A true, catholic church will encourage and pray for other manifestations of the true, catholic church.

To read the whole post click here.


by 2 Comments

N.T. Wright: Fully Augustinian, Not Reformational

During the SBTS panel discussion on N.T. Wright’s Justification: God’s Plan, Paul’s Vision professor Mark A. Seifrid states that it is true that Wright is not Pelagian. He affirms that Wright is “fully Augustinian” because Wright sees salvation as being the work of the Holy Spirit, but Wright “is not Reformational” (begin at 31:50).

OK, church historians and historical theology students, what does this mean?