Baptist Ordination Practices Examined (VI)

Dr. Hiscox, in defining new testament ministerial "ordination," wrote:

"In Acts 14 : 23 it is said of Paul and Barnabas, "when they had ordained (cheirotoneesantes) them elders in every city," etc. This much-quoted word, which has been relied on to prove a ritualistic ordination, by the "laying on of hands," the best scholarship decides to mean the stretching out of the hand or the lifting up of the hand as in voting. The meaning of which here is, that the Apostles secured the election of elders by the vote of the churches, with no reference to ceremonial induction into office."

That is the primitive Baptist view and is what is clearly the meaning of the text. This is what Dr. Gill also said, as we noted in the second chapter.

Hiscox continued:

"The word used in Titus 1 : 5, "ordain elders in every city," is katasteesees, which means to set, to place, to constitute, to set over. And which Robinson defines, "to constitute, to make;" and Green, "to place, constitute, set, appoint."

Hiscox then gives "The Testimony of Scholars" of which I will give a sampling, as these (again, all highlighting and emphasis are mine):

Dr. Dexter, with reference to these cases, says: "There being no hint in either case of any thing of a character like what is commonly called ordination in our time." Fairly translated, and unmodified by any coloring from subsequent unscriptural ecclesiastical usage, these texts would never have suggested any such act as that which is called ' ordination' by the common speech of men." Congregationalism, pp. 138, 139.

Dean Alford says:

"The word (Cheirotoneesantes) will not bear Jerome's and Chrysostom's sense of ' laying on of hands,' adopted by Roman Catholic expositors. Nor is there any reason for departing from the usual meaning of electing by show of hands." Comments on Acts 14 : 23.

DR. Hackett renders the phrase:

"Now having appointed for them elders in every Church," which he interprets thus; "having appointed for them by their outstretched hand." Comment in loco. Dean ALFORD renders the passage, Titus I : 5, "And mightest appoint, city by city, elders." He sees no ceremonial ordination in it.

Next, Hiscox says this about the several citations of scholars:

"A want of space forbids further citation of authorities. Nor is it needful. New Testament ordination was an election, an appointment to office, and had no reference whatever to any formal induction into office; did not imply any ceremonial investiture, or setting apart to the functions of that office. The New Testament calls an election to office, ordination; we call the setting apart of those elected, ordination. Those who are jealous for New Testament models, should correct their phraseologies by the New Testament standard.

It may be fairly asked admitting that ordination in the New Testament sense was an election, an appointment - Were not those, thus elected, set apart by formal ceremonies to the discharge of their official duties? This we can neither affirm nor deny. We simply do not know. There is neither precept, example, nor manifest inference to decide the question. It has usually been taken for granted that the primitive ministry was inducted into office by formal services, and that "prayer with the laying on of hands," was the essential part of such ordination." 

So, how did so many Baptists get away from this simple teaching? How did they imbibe episcopal and presbyterian ideas about ordination? In looking at the history of the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists one can see how their "associations" were nothing but a kind of presbytery.

Hiscox continued:

"But this has been accepted as scriptural, not because it is found in the Scriptures, but because Prelatical and Presbyterial authorities have interpreted the Scriptures by their own ecclesiastical usages, rather than adjusted their usages to the New Testament teaching." 

Amen to that! This is what I am seeking to call the attention of Baptists to see.

Hiscox continued:

"They have seen Episcopal and Presbyterian ordination in the New Testament because they saw it in their Church standards and practices. Their scholars have largely so interpreted the text, and Baptists have accepted their conclusions without even their justification."

Yes, and this is a common practice in so many circles, when it comes to bible interpretation. "Baptists have accepted their conclusions without even their justification."  This is not "Baptistic."

Hiscox continued:

2. The Laying on of Hands. But does not Paul expressly declare to Timothy that he was ordained and set apart to the work of the ministry by the laying on of his hands and the hands of the Presbytery? No; he makes no such declaration. Does he not enjoin Timothy not to ordain any man hastily by suddenly laying hands on him? No; he makes no such declaration, as we shall see.

The subject of "the laying on of hands" must be treated very briefly in this place. It was an old Jewish and common Oriental custom, by which benedictions were conferred or invoked, and other symbolical acts performed. Our Lord laid His hands on the sick to heal them; on the little children to bless them. The Apostles did the same. But in the apostolic church this act was chiefly associated with the special impartation of the Holy Spirit. The Charismata was thus conferred. Peter and John laid hands on the converts at Samaria, and they received the Holy Ghost. So did Paul on the twelve disciples at Ephesus. Ananias laid his hands on Saul at Damascus that he might receive his sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. Jesus, after the resurrection, conferred the Holy Ghost by breathing on His disciples. And His farewell blessing, when He ascended, was conferred by the lifting up of His hands.

Now, the apostolic precedents relied on to enforce ceremonial ordination by the laying on of hands, are the following:

1. The ordination of the Seven as related in Acts 6: 1-6. The true ordination, i. e., the election in this case was by the "whole multitude," "the multitude of the disciples."

But this case is not in point, and constitutes no argument; since this setting apart was to a secular office and not to a spiritual ministry; to the serving of tables and not to preaching of the Word. An induction into the Diaconate and not into the Episcopate. Moreover, this act was by inspired Apostles, who have no successors. Neither the Diaconate, the Episcopate, nor the Presbyterate can claim to be the official successors of the Apostolate. Presumably this act was for their especial endowment by the Charismata. It has no authority unless it be in the ordination of deacons."

But, do not our Hardshell brothers often say that "the ministry," separate and distinct from the congregation, are "successors" to the apostles in regard to ordination? Baptists do not believe, however, that the apostles have successors.

Hiscox continued:

2. The next precedent relied on is the case of Barnabas and Saul, sent forth to the Gentiles by the Church at Antioch, Acts 13 : 1-3.

But this was not an ordination in any technical sense. Both these men had been engaged in the active work of the ministry for years not less than eight or nine, possibly twelve, according to the best chronological data. They were not here inducted into the ministry, but designated to a new field of work. Moreover, this designation was by the special and express dictation of the Holy Ghost, showing that it was not a common and customary, but an extraordinary and wholly exceptional thing, and therefore not an imitable example. Also, it is wholly undetermined who laid hands on them, whether the prophets, the elders, or the disciples generally.

The burden of proof is on those Baptists who think the laying on of hands in Acts 13 is an ordination service. It is not an ordination service, however.

Hiscox continued:

3. The next case usually quoted to the same end, is Paul's injunctions to Timothy; "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery." 1 Tim. 4 : 14. Also, "Wherefore, I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands." 2 Tim. 1 : 6.

These passages are held to prove primitive ordination by the laying on of hands. This inferential reasoning is quite of a piece with that which proves primitive infant baptisms from the fact of household baptisms. The fact is, the Apostle makes not the least allusion to ordination in these citations. He speaks expressly and only of "the gift of God " (to Charisma tou Theou), which had been bestowed by the laying on of hands. It would do no more violence to the text to infer that Paul laid his hands on the disciples to ordain them, or that Peter laid his hands on the converts at Samaria for the same purpose, than to say that the above texts refer to Timothy's ordination.

To say the very most for those who insist that these passages refer to ordination, it must be confessed the foundation is too slender and uncertain to allow of resting on them any doctrine, or imposing any ceremony that shall be regarded as essential to the validity of ministerial acts. It is not strange that many interpreters, looking at these passages through their own standards and usages, should see ordination recognized where the Apostle seemed to see nothing but extraordinary spiritual gifts imparted by the imposition of hands.

4. We come lastly to mention the text much relied on to prove ceremonial ordination as existing in the apostolic Church; and while it fails to substantiate that doctrine, it is undoubtedly the strongest citation for that purpose that can be made from the New Testament. It is 1 Tim. 5:22. "Lay hands suddenly on no man." This is interpreted to mean, "do not ordain and put into the ministry any man, hastily." If it does refer to ordination, the inference would be strong though not conclusive that a custom prevailed, of inducting men into the sacred office by the imposition of hands. But does it refer to ordination? It has generally been so interpreted. But we learn to distrust the scholarship which interprets the word of God under the bias of ecclesiastical prepossession.

Well, amen to that!

Hiscox continued:

Dr. Wm. B. Johnson, one of the most honored of American Baptists, says:

"As there is not a solitary case in the New Testament of ordination to the ministry by imposition of hands, I cannot suppose that the direction of Paul to Timothy, to lay hands suddenly on no man, does refer to imposition of hands in ordination." The Gospel Developed, pp. 155, 156.

Dr. J. B. Jeter, a man acute, discriminating and conservative, says:

"In the primitive age very little stress was laid on the ceremonies attending the induction into office. The Apostles laid on their hands several times to confer the gift of the Holy Ghost; but never in confirmation of an appointment to office except in the case of the Seven." "There is no scriptural proof that any elder or bishop of any Church was ordained by the laying on of the hands of an Apostle, or of any Christian minister." "In the apostolic times ordination was simply an appointment to office." "A formal ordination service is not essential to the performance of ministerial duties; but it is eminently becoming and useful. The appointment of a Church is the essence of ordination." Religious Herald, editorial of May 21, 1876.

I agree completely. We cannot base the whole ordination practice by presbyteries on "a text so variously understood"!

Hiscox continued:

In the modern Roman Church imposition of hands is deemed essential in the sacraments of ordination, confirmation, and baptism. Also in the Anglican and other Episcopal churches it is similarly used. In other Protestant churches, our own included, it retains its place only in ordination, in all of which it is insisted on with a tendency to sacramental effect.

Ordination, therefore, by public prayer and the imposition of hands by other ministers, is not essential to the genuineness of ministerial character or the validity of ministerial acts. It does not make a minister any more than inauguration makes the president. He is president, dejure and de facto, by virtue of his election, with all the rights, powers and privileges which belong to the office, with or with out an inauguration. Such is the relation of ordination to the ministry. It is their inauguration, making public the election, with the approval and commendation of those who take part in the services. And this only.

Isaac Backus, clarum et venerabile nomen among Baptists, said:

"And ordination of ministers is no more than swearing them to be faithful in that office. Their being furnished with grace and gifts for it is the most essential thing in the affair."—Hist. N. E. Churches, p. in. Phil, ed., 1833.

In our next posting we will continue our citations from Hiscox and our analysis of those NT texts that are supposed to teach ministerial ordination by presbyteries.

This Is How You Counsel The Lost

1834-1892

"The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and we are not saved." Jeremiah 8:20

Not saved! Dear reader, is this your mournful plight? Warned of the judgment to come, bidden to escape for your life, and yet at this moment not saved! You know the way of salvation, you read it in the Bible, you hear it from the pulpit, it is explained to you by friends, and yet you neglect it, and therefore you are not saved. You will be without excuse when the Lord shall judge the quick and dead. The Holy Spirit has given more or less of blessing upon the word which has been preached in your hearing, and times of refreshing have come from the divine presence, and yet you are without Christ. All these hopeful seasons have come and gone--your summer and your harvest have past--and yet you are not saved. Years have followed one another into eternity, and your last year will soon be here: youth has gone, manhood is going, and yet you are not saved. Let me ask you--will you ever be saved? Is there any likelihood of it? Already the most propitious seasons have left you unsaved; will other occasions alter your condition? Means have failed with you--the best of means, used perseveringly and with the utmost affection--what more can be done for you? Affliction and prosperity have alike failed to impress you; tears and prayers and sermons have been wasted on your barren heart. Are not the probabilities dead against your ever being saved? Is it not more than likely that you will abide as you are till death forever bars the door of hope? Do you recoil from the supposition? Yet it is a most reasonable one: he who is not washed in so many waters will in all probability go filthy to his end. The convenient time never has come, why should it ever come? It is logical to fear that it never will arrive, and that Felix like, you will find no convenient season till you are in hell. O bethink you of what that hell is, and of the dread probability that you will soon be cast into it! 

Reader, suppose you should die unsaved, your doom no words can picture. Write out your dread estate in tears and blood, talk of it with groans and gnashing of teeth: you will be punished with everlasting destruction from the glory of the Lord, and from the glory of his power. A brother's voice would fain startle you into earnestness. O be wise, be wise in time, and ere another year begins, believe in Jesus, who is able to save to the uttermost. Consecrate these last hours to lonely thought, and if deep repentance be bred in you, it will be well; and if it lead to a humble faith in Jesus, it will be best of all. O see to it that this year pass not away, and you an unforgiven spirit. Let not the new year's midnight peals sound upon a joyless spirit! Now, now, NOW believe, and live.

Well, my PB brothers, when you counsel the truly lost (if you ever do), counsel them in this manner. If you do not, you will merely be trying to alleviate symptoms of the disease rather than affecting a cure of the disease itself. Do not tell the lost sinners, who hear you preach, that the remedy for their moral sickness is in keeping God's law. Yet, is this not what you tell them? Is it not because you believe that you cannot preach the gospel to the spiritually and morally dead?

Spurgeon had no problem saying to the most wretched of sinners "believe, and live." Further, he was no "Arminian" in doing so!

If I were still pastoring and had lost people come to me for counsel with their sins and troubles, why would I not go straight to the heart of the problem? Why would I want to alleviate symptoms without going straight at the cause? But, sadly, my Hardshell brothers, because they believe that they cannot preach to the spiritually dead, cannot advise the spiritually dead about how to live! Incredulous!

(From Spurgeon's "Morning and Evening" for evening of December 31)

A Gospel Without Exhortation?

Elder (Dr.) John McClaren Watson

1798-1866

Watson wrote:

"A gospel without exhortation; without a call on the sinner to repent and believe; a gospel which does not in word address itself to all; is not the gospel which Christ ordained subordinately for the bringing in of his "other sheep."" (page 86 of "The Old Baptist Test")

What made me think again about this citation from Watson was from listening to sermons recently by Elder Bradley. I was happy to see him talk about the reasons lost people give for not accepting biblical truth and I thought about the many unregenerate souls who would be hearing him preach. I was hopeful that he was not going to restrict his address to those who were already regenerate. I was hopeful that he would give some gospel invitations to the lost, to whom at times he seemed to be speaking. But, though he came to places where the opportunity afforded itself for a direct address to the spiritual wretches in regard to what they must do to be saved, giving them direction, he failed to do it. This disappointed me. He had what Watson called a "gospel without exhortation," a message "without a call on the sinner to repent and believe." He seemed afraid to do so. He told how the sinner is lost, how he could do nothing towards his salvation, that it was all of the Lord. That was all good. But, he should not have left the sinner in that state of mind. He should have, like Spurgeon (whom Bradley admires), exhorted him to go to Christ, to receive him, and to submit to his lordship.

Paul said to one lost soul, who came asking "what must I do to be saved?"- "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31)

Watson also said:

"Let us take a practical example. We have it on record in the 13th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. When Paul and Barnabas preached at Antioch of Pisidia, had any of our ultra brethren been there and heard their zealous appeal to all those present, they would have called them Arminians." (ibid)

"Let us see: The zealous preacher calls on all to repent, earnestly, faithfully and I may add, gospelly, but alas! the old brother whose head has got wrong, whose heart has grown cold, says all cannot repent, some have not the power to do so. How does he know? Peradventure the Lord has given the power to repent to the very ones whom he has in his feelings excluded.." (page 87)

"Who of us are...sinning in propagating Protestant heresies, or Old Baptist ultraisms. We can readily see the absurdities of Romanism, the errors of many Protestant sects, and avoid them, but we do not recognize, as heresies, those hurtful ultraisms which are eating, as doth a canker, upon our very vitals as a denomination-a denomination which very justly boasts of its antiquity, and of having never acknowledged any other rule of faith and practice but that of the Bible. But some of our brethren are interpreting many of its blessed truths in such a way as to lead off their hearers from the Old Baptist platform of principles." (page 300)

My PB brothers, preach to the lost! Yes, tell them they can do nothing without Christ, but know that God will go out with your exhortation, in the case of the elect, and you will be used, like Ezekiel in raising the dead bones, to raise sinners from the grave of sin. But, don't leave the sinner hanging in despair. Tell him he must believe in Christ and become one with him if he would be saved.

The first edition of The Old Baptist Test (1855) can be read here and the revised second edition (with introduction by Elder (Dr.) R.W. Fain, 1867) can be read here.

Wretched Saved?

  "...how anyone can legitimately say that such adjectives as "wretched, miserable, poor, and blind, and naked" can be said to be appropriate for only the born again children of God, is truly amazing. It is no "argument" at all either for the Hyperists to say that this letter, and these words, are addressed to church members. This proves nothing unless it can be proven that churches are always composed only of those who are truly regenerate. Clearly the invitation is to those in the visible assembly who did not have Christ within them supping and dwelling with them!"

(From my posting "Anti Invitationalism Gone To Seed?" in The Baptist Gadfly for April 22, 2008 - see HERE)

This indictment of the Hyper Calvinist interpretation of Rev. 3:20 is similar to other interpretations where the Hardshells take texts with such adjectives, describing unregenerate souls, and affirm that they rather describe regenerate souls! See "Them That Are Lost" Are Saved?" HERE and "Was Balaam Saved?" HERE as examples.

If those addressed in Rev. 3:20 are they who had experienced amazing grace, why are they still wretched? Those addressed are denominated "wretched" (among other things). So, they must still be lost, if Newton is right in his famous words "amazing grace that saved a wretch like me."

If you are a wretch, you are lost. If you have been saved, you are no longer a wretch. Newton was saved from his wretchedness by amazing grace at the time of his conversion to the Lord, when he believed in Christ and turned from his sins.

My Hardshell brothers will want to say that the man who "feels" wretched, feels miserable, feels to be poor and blind and naked is really not what he feels to be (by the Spirit's teaching, right?), but is really not wretched, not miserable, not blind, not poor, etc.!

Well, who is telling the truth, the Spirit or the Hardshells? Was the Spirit lying to the sinner who sees himself a wretch and lost as a result of the Spirit's work?

See my postings "Hardshells Make The Spirit A Liar" HERE and "What do you say?" HERE for further elaboration on this point.

Conversion or Regeneration?

Amazing grace! How sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me!
I once was lost, but now am found;
Was blind, but now I see.

When the infamous sinner John Newton penned the words of this famous song, was he celebrating the grace of God in his regeneration or his conversion, or both? I bet our Hardshell brothers will not want to answer this question! What think ye?

Another good question would be - "is conversion by amazing grace as regeneration?"

(Note: I just listened to a good sermon by Elder Bradley on "Amazing Grace" - listen here)

Is Faith The Gift Of God?

The following is taken from my posting in The Baptist Gadfly titled Grudem on Regeneration.

The view of Grudem and semi-Pelagianism is that "ability" is born of God in the sinner, not faith (1 John 5:4). 

According to this theory, faith is therefore not the "gift" of God, but is a subsequent act by the "able" sinner who has already been "born again." For all practical purposes, the sinner is already saved and theoretically could do without believing. Faith in Christ adds nothing for his spiritual state, according to this theory.

Is faith or power to have faith the gift of God? What would our Hardshell brothers say? Do they not sometimes give a novel definition of "faith" that says it means "ability to have faith"? Elder Zach Guess said  "Faith" is "the ability to believe." (see here) Did I not show how untenable is such a definition of "faith"?

Seasoned Preachers

I have listened to several old PB ministers over the past couple years, preachers who I once knew personally 30-40+ years ago, and I have been amazed at the preaching done by some of these men who have reached their seventies and eighties. Father did his best preaching the last few years of his life, in his seventies and early eighties. So too has Elder Sonny Pyles and Lasserre Bradley Jr. I also recently heard Elders Paul Trautner and Charles Smith, two of my fathers in the ministry when I was with the Hardshells, and they both are up in their eighties and both had an air about their preaching that was different from what they exhibited when they were in their middle ages. I owe this to their seasoning, to them being mellowed by experience. Listen to the old preachers. They have much wisdom to impart to you.

Elder Pyles Battling Cancer

It has come to my attention that Elder Sonny Pyles is suffering from cancer. Please pray for him. His daughter posted information about him here and here. Though we have criticized Sonny's views on some points of doctrine, nevertheless we love him for Christ's sake.

Laying On Hands & Bidding Godspeed

Nearly all commentators and bible scholars give, as one of the purposes of "laying on of hands" in both old and new testaments, is to approve, to "bless," or speak words wishing or promising success. Likewise, "bidding God speed" (II John 1:10-11 kjv) is also a way to give approval or to acquiesce. It was an ancient way for one to "endorse" another person and his beliefs or teachings.

Thus, to my thinking, "do not lay hands on anyone quickly" (I Tim. 5:22) has the meaning "do not give approval, endorse, or bless anyone quickly" and carries the same idea as "do not bid God speed."

Baptist Ordination Practices Examined (V)

Dr. Edward T. Hiscox wrote a large work titled  "The New Directory for Baptist Churches" (see here). It is a book that every pastor and teacher should read. In this book we find some very good teaching on the ordaining of men for the pastoral office. In this posting we will begin giving citations from chapter XIV titled "Ordination." (beginning on page 344).

Hiscox sets forth the following propositions that summarize the New Testament doctrine of ordination as it applies to pastors. He wrote (emphasis mine):

“PROP. I. That the ordination of the New Testament was an election, or appointment, to the ministerial office, and not a ceremonial setting apart, or consecration to that office.

“PROP. II. That there is no proof in the New Testament that persons chosen to the office of elder, pastor or bishop in the apostolic churches were designated for, or inducted into, that office by any formal service or ceremony whatever.

“PROP. III. That, though the laying on of hands was common on many occasions, as an ancient Oriental Jewish and early Christian form of blessing, especially in the bestowment of the gifts of the Spirit, yet there is neither precept nor precedent in the New Testament to require its use in the ordination of Christian ministers.”

Prop. IV. That, while some public service of inauguration and designation for one who first enters the ministry, or at any subsequent entrance upon a new field of labor, would be very appropriate and becoming as expressing the approval and fellowship of other ministers and the churches, yet such service is not of divine authority, and cannot be made obligatory or essential, either to the lawfulness of ministerial standing or to the validity of ministerial acts.

Prop. V. That if such ordination or recognition services be held, their form and order are matters of liberty and choice with those concerned in them, since they are prescribed by no Scriptural authority.

PROP. VI. That, since all ecclesiastical authority resides in the local, visible Church according to the New Testament polity, therefore the right to set apart, as well as to elect, belongs to the Church alone, and the only sphere of Council or Presbytery action is that of advice to, and cooperation with, the Church, being in no sense authoritative or essential.

PROP. VII. That while, for the sake of order and propriety it is becoming for accredited ministers to conduct all public religious services on ordinary occasions, yet ceremonial ordination is not essential to the ministry of the Word, nor to the administration of the ordinances; therefore, a Church without an ordained minister may, with the strictest propriety, direct a private member to administer the ordinances, conduct its services, and preside in its assemblies; and, indeed, this should be done for the edification of the body.

PROP. VIII. That reordination, in the case of ministers who come to us from other evangelical denominations, is a matter of Christian liberty, optional with those concerned, but cannot be made essential to ministerial character or the validity of ministerial acts, though it may with propriety be made to conform to prevailing custom, for the sake of uniformity in usage."

I believe these propositions also and so should everyone. I covered some of these points in my series on Hardshell Landmarkism. I do not believe that I can add anything to what Hiscox has said in the above. They are sufficient.

Under "WHAT IS ORDINATION?" Hiscox wrote:

"This question, to be clearly answered, needs definition and limitation. Ordination means different things to different minds, and according to different ecclesiastical standards. It is defined to be the act and form of setting one apart to the work of the Christian ministry; or induction into the sacred office. Or, in a little more formal and churchly language it is "the act of conferring holy orders, with prayer, and the imposition of hands." If, however, a more comprehensible explanation be desired, as to both the form and substance of it, we must keep in mind the point of view from which it is contemplated.

First, there is the ordination of present usage as held and practised by the various Christian denominations, with great diversity of subjective import and ceremonial observance.

Second, there is the ordination of history which found its highest conception and most complete expression in the mediaeval Latin and Greek churches, which held it as a sacrament, invested it with the sanctity of inspiration and surrounded it with the pageantry of an imposing ritualism.

Third, there is the ordination of the New Testament, which differs from both the others and which alone need command the regard or research of those churches who claim to draw both the form and spirit of all life from that sacred fountain of ecclesiastical order and authority.

Our inquiry, then, is narrowed to this question, What is the "ordination" of the New Testament? The English words ordain and ordained, are used with some frequency in the sacred writings, and render several Greek words, but constitute, as every careful reader knows, no argument for ceremonial ordination, as now or formerly practised."

In the next posting we will continue to review the worthy things Dr. Hiscox has written on this most important subject. I am happy to share his research with our readers.

What Depraved Man Lacks

What Depraved Man Lacks (what he is "without" - Rom. 1)

1. Without godliness (God likeness)
2. Without righteousness
3. Without excuse
4. Without understanding
5. Without cleanliness (purity)
6. Without honor (that comes from God)
7. Without honorable passions
8. Without judgment (discernment)
9. Without humility and meekness
10. Without obedience or faithfulness (loyalty)
11. Without natural affection
12. Without mercy and compassion
13. Without softness of heart
14. Without willingness to please God (stubborn or obstinate)

Romans 1, like other passages, gives us a list of sins that result from man's depravity.

1. Unrighteousness (adikia) - The word is the opposite of justice. It is the evil man who robs all of their rights. Since he is focused on himself, he disregards the rights of others.

2. Fornication (porneia) - all aspects of sexual immorality or what is against the laws given by God to regulate it.

3. Wickedness (poneria) - The desire to harm another person, to deliberately corrupt or inflict injury.

4. Coveteousness (pleonexia) - A simple definition is greed, though not limited to money. It literally means “to have more.” It is the lust to get and possess that allows a person to trample over others to obtain what they seek.

5. Malice (kakia) - A defect or badness in character. It is the opposite of goodness or excellence.

6. Murder (phonou) - Not just the physical act, but also the intent of the heart - Matthew 15:19-20

7. Strife (eris) - Quarreling, discord, contention typically resulting from a desire for prestige.

8. Guile (dolou) - It refers to the bait used for fishing and means trickery, deception, craftiness or treachery.

9. Evil dispositions (kakoetheias) - The word literally means ill-natured. This is the attitude that tends to put the worse connotation on the actions of others.

10. Whisperers (psithuristas) - This is the gossip or the talebearer. This is the coward who defames another behind his back.

11. Slanderers (katalalous) - A defamer, someone who maligns another’s character. Where a whisper does it in hidden fashion, the slander does it openly.

12. Haters of God (theostugeis) - God represents restrictions on behavior and the hater of God wants to do as he pleases. A godless world is preferable to such people. Lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God - II Timothy 3:4.

13. Insolent (hubristas) - It describes a man who is so proud he is willing to defy God. He is confident in his own power. It also describes a man who is wantonly cruel and insulting. A violent man who finds delight in hurting others.

14. Proud (huperephanous) - Literally “I appear above.” In other words, a person trumpets himself above other people.

15. Boasting (alazonas) - Refers to wandering salesman saying boastful, but false, things about his wares. An imposter, a charlatan, or a braggart. Thus it is the attitude of pretending to have what you do not to gain an advantage.

16. Inventors of evil things (epheuretas kakon) - This is related to “malice” above, but here the person does not just turn toward evil, he seeks out new sins. Old sins are no longer thrilling, so he seeks out new thrills in new sins.

17. Disobedient to parents (goneusin apeitheis) - Contrary to the command to honor your parents, this rebels against his parents rules. It literally means a person unable to be persuaded by his parents. Someone who is stubborn and inflexible.

18. Without understanding (asunetous)- Literally “unintelligent”, stupid, foolish.

19. Treacherous (asunthetous) - Literally, “covenant breaking,” without faith, unable to be relied upon or trusted.

20. Without natural affection (astrogous) - Being without the natural love between parents and their children.

21. Irreconcilable (aspondous) [Not in all manuscripts]- Not willing to make peace or come to an understanding.

22. Unmerciful (aneleemonas)- Without pity or compassion, cruel

(Taken from my posting On Total Depravity)

Not So, Brother Hassell! (4)

For the previous postings in this series see here, here, and here.

"For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." (Rom. 8:13-14 kjv)

Said Hassell: "If the conclusion in these sentences means eternal punishment, then Arminianism is true." One of those sentences was "if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die" from the above passage.

Hassell argued that the use of the word "if" by Paul in the above words denoted a condition and says that this fact was enough to show that the death threatened for living after the flesh could not be eternal death. I have already shown in the preceding posting how this clearly contradicted what Hassell had elsewhere written on the nature and effects of regeneration and concerning perseverance.

Further, Hassell in other places did not argue this way on the use of the word "if." 

If the use of the word "if" denotes that the thing being conditioned cannot be eternal life and salvation, then we have some serious problems.

The Problems

"But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead." (Rom. 4:24)

How can one escape damnation if he has not the righteousness of the Lord Jesus imputed to him? And, to whom is it imputed? Is it conditional? Yes, "if we believe."

But, Hassell's proposition about the word "if" makes the consequences of not believing in Jesus a mere temporal loss! But in reply we say -

if what is here consequentially lost by unbelief (non imputation of righteousness) is merely temporal, then logically we must say that what is consequentially gained by belief (imputation of righteousness) is also merely temporal! Thus, the consequence of Hassell's proposition as it relates to this text is that unbelief does not damn and belief does not save.

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and (if) shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." (Rom. 10:9)

Again, same retort as above. Faith in Christ and his resurrection (the essence of the gospel message) are conditions for salvation. Saying this by no stretch of the imagination supports Arminianism, as Hassell falsely reasons.

"And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister..." (Col. 1:2123)

"But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end...For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end; While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation." (Heb. 3: 6, 14-15 kjv)

"For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." (II Peter 1: 8-11 kjv)

"For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries." (Heb. 10:26-27)

"See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven:" (Heb. 12:25)

There is simply no way to honestly make the consequences connected with these "if" statements to be temporal, denoting either temporal salvation or temporal punishment. It would seem to be a waste of time to wrangle with those who would deny their clear eternal significance.

Except and If

In the NT the Greek word translated "except" is ean mē and is what is called a conjunction particle.

The KJV translates Strong's G3362 ('except') in the following manner: except (33x), if not (16x), whosoever not (with G3739) (5x), but (3x), if no (1x), not (1x), before (1x). The best word besides "if not" are "unless."

Notice these passages with "except" (keeping the words "if not" and "unless" in mind as synonyms)

"Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." (Luke 13:3,5)

"Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." (John 6:53)

"Except you believe that I am, then you will die in your sins." (John 8:24)

"Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 18:3)

Again, you cannot make "have no life in you" to refer to regenerate people, or to affirm that the consequence of having no life is a mere temporal calamity.

Good Comments On Rom. 8:13

In regard to the text "if you live after the flesh you shall die," Barnes wrote (highlighting mine):

Ye shall live - You shall be happy and saved. Either your sins must die, or you must. If they are suffered to live, you will die. If they are put to death, you will be saved. No man can be saved in his sins. This closes the argument of the apostle for the superiority of the gospel to the Law in promoting the purity of man. By this train of reasoning, he has shown that the gospel has accomplished what the Law could not do - the sanctification of the soul, the destruction of the corrupt passions of our nature, and the recovery of man to God.

"Either your sins must die, or you must." Amen! God help us to keep putting to death the flesh, the old man, the one we left buried in the waters of baptism. Another commentator (JFB) said - "If ye do not kill sin, it will kill you." It is a "fight to the death"! You cannot win by your own wit, will, and strength. Only in the Lord Jesus Christ can you prevail.

Gill wrote:

For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die - Such persons are dead, whilst they live, and shall die a second or an eternal death, if grace prevent not. It may be asked, whether one that has received the grace of God in truth, can live after the flesh; flesh, or corrupt nature, though still in such a person, has not the dominion over him: to live in sin, or in a continued course of sinning, is contrary to the grace of God; but flesh may prevail and greatly influence the life and conversation, for a while; how long this may be the case of a true believer, under backslidings, through the power of corruptions and temptations, cannot be known; but certain it is, that it shall not be always thus with him.

Was Hassell more knowledgeable in the Scriptures than Gill? He thought so, it seems. He said that if eternal damnation were under consideration, then it supported Arminianism. Gill, supporting Arminianism! Gill gives the real old or primitive Baptist position.

JFB's commentary has these good words:

and he uses the word "mortify" (put to death) as a kind of play upon the word "die" just before. "If ye do not kill sin, it will kill you." But he tempers this by the bright alternative, that if they do, through the Spirit, mortify the deeds of the body, such a course will infallibly terminate in "life" everlasting.

Wuest's commentary:

For, assuming that you are living habitually under the dominion of the sinful nature, you are on the way to dying. But, assuming that by the Spirit you are habitually putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

We should note that both "if" clauses are first class conditional sentences ("if you are living according to the flesh" & "if by the Spirit") which assume the actuality of the thing stated. In other words the conclusions following the "if" statements are assumed to be true and logically follow. Their solemnity corresponds to the seriousness of the action in the “if” clauses.

Note that in 8:13a the life of the flesh is the death of man but in 8:13b, the death of the flesh is the life of man. Chew on that awhile!

Not only are the if clauses first class conditions, but both are present tense linear. In the words "if you live after the flesh" the word "live" is present tense and may be translated "if you are living after the flesh." Also, "you shall die" is also present tense and may be translated "you are being about to be dying." Also, in the words "do mortify the deeds of the body" the mortification (killing) is linear and progressive. The words "you shall live" is futuristic middle voice and translated "you shall be living." Again, there is much to chew on here! But space is limited.

Interesting also is the fact that "as many as are led by the Spirit" (vs. 14) is also present tense, but in this case it is not in the active or middle voice, but in the passive voice! A better way to express it is to say "as many as are being moved or pushed along by the Spirit." Thus, the effect of this being moved along (or "led") is that they do not walk after the flesh (vs. 1) nor live after the flesh (vs. 13).

The view of Hassell, that affirms that eternal death cannot be the thing warned against, makes me think of the words of the Serpent in the garden who said "You shall not surely die." Paul says "if you are living after the flesh you will be dying" but Hassell says "you shall not die, at least not eternally."

Babylon Rising

This is a map of the Babylonian Empire at the time of Daniel and the Captivity.

This part of the world is now the center of attention. It is no accident.

As this part of the world contains the "fertile crescent" area of ancient Sumeria, along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, it has an important place in both history and in biblical texts, including prophecies of the last days. It was where Eden was located. It is the area of mankind's origin and will be the area of his greatest judgment. It is both the "cradle" and "grave" of civilization.

Who can doubt that many texts talk about the nation of Israel and the land of Israel as important in latter day times and events?

Who can doubt that the "megalopolis" of "Babylon," that great commercial city of Rev. 18, plays an important role in the end time? Babylon includes modern day Iraq.

Who can doubt that the Euphrates river plays a role at the time of the end per Rev. 16:12?

I look for the outcome of the present conflict in this area (Kurdish areas included) to see the UN create an "International City" or Zone and empower this city to control world trade (no longer by the WTO) and commerce. It will solve the economic difficulties of the people in the region, bring temporary peace and prosperity, and help to bring about a one world government, now the dream of today's "globalists."

Let us, as we see these things come to pass, be strengthened in our faith and ready ourselves for that day.

Seven Ages of the Church

I believe in the prophetic nature of the seven epistles to the seven churches of Revelation chapters two and three. In defense of this view, let me cite from the learned J.A. Seiss and his famous book "The Apocalypse" (see here). Seiss said (emphasis mine):

"These Churches are seven. And if this number has the significance which I have assigned it, and which seems to be admitted by all who have looked into the subject, it gives us the key to the true significance of these Churches. It assigns to them the unmistakable character of completeness. As “the seven Spirits which are before the throne” are the one Holy Spirit, in all the fulness and completeness of His offices and powers in this dispensation, so “the seven Churches” are the one Holy Catholic Church, in all the amplitude and completeness of its being and history, from the time of the vision to the end.

Nor does this conflict with the fact that these were literal historic Churches, existing, at the time the apostle wrote, at the places which I have described. They were Churches of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, etc., as really as our St. John’s is a Church of this present Philadelphia. But there were other Churches then existing, at Collosse, Antioch, Alexandria, Corinth, Rome, and elsewhere, some of them larger and more powerful than some of those named. Why, then, were these not taken into the account? Did they not need instruction, and rebuke, and encouragement, and warning, as well as the favoured seven? The only explanation is, that they were somehow included in the seven. They were not specifically and locally addressed, because what concerned their estate, and the mind of Christ with reference to it, are embraced and expressed in the seven. In other words, these seven Churches, in their names, in their graces, in their defects, in their relations to Christ, and in His promises and threatenings to them severally, comprehend everything found in the entire Church, as it then existed, or was to exist. Seven, by common consent, is just the number to express this idea... I must, therefore, insist that this doctrine of numbers, if we had nothing else, settles upon these seven Churches a representative comprehensiveness which embraces the entire fulness of the Church of all time.

And as I am bound to believe that Christ’s words, so solemnly and significantly given, are entitled to all the fulness of meaning of which they are capable, I must conclude, from this sevenfold charge concerning these seven epistles, that these seven Churches of Asia, as here described, were meant to be paradigmatic of the whole Church, every Church, and every member of the Church, and Christ’s judgment of them, then and thereafter, up to and inclusive of His final apportionment of rewards and punishments to each.

The same may be argued from the word mystery, as applied to these Churches and their angels. It intimates, from the start, that there is something more intended than is seen upon the surface; and what that something is, we find in the view I have given. And, indeed, the nature of the vision in which John received these epistles, assumes that not these seven Churches alone, but in them the entire Church, is to be contemplated. The angels of other Churches, and other ages, are as much stars in Christ’s right hand as these seven, and why should we think to leave them out of the solemn representation?

In the first place, the seven Churches represent seven phases or periods in the Church’s history, stretching from the time of the apostles to the coming again of Christ, the characteristics of which are set forth partly in the names of these Churches, but more fully in the epistles addressed to them. There has been an Ephesian period — a period of warmth and love and labour for Christ, dating directly from the apostles, in which defection began by the gradual cooling of the love of some, the false professions of others, and the incoming of undue exaltations of the clergy and Church offices. Then came the Smyrna period — the era of martyrdom, and of the sweet savour unto God of faithfulness unto death, but marked with further developments of defection in the establishment of castes and orders, the licence of Judaizing propensities, and consequent departures from the true simplicities of the Gospel. Then followed the Pergamite period, in which true faith more and more disappeared from view, and clericalism gradually formed itself into a system, and the Church united with the world, and Babylon began to rear itself aloft. Then came the Thyatiran period — the age of purple and glory for the corrupt priesthood, and of darkness for the truth; the age of effeminacy and clerical domination, when the Church usurped the place of Christ, and the witnesses of Jesus were given to dungeons, stakes and inquisitions; the age of the enthronement of the false prophetess, reaching to the days of Luther and the Reformation. Then came the Sardian period — the age of separation and return to the rule of Christ; the age of comparative freedom from Balaam and his doctrines, from the Nicolaitans and their tenets, from Jezebel and her fornications; an age of many worthy names, but marked with deadness withal, and having much of which to repent; an age covering the spiritual lethargy of the Protestant centuries before the great evangelical movements of the last hundred years, which brought us the Philadelphian era, marked by a closer adherence to the written word, and more fraternity among Christians, but now rapidly giving place to Laodicean lukewarmness, self-sufficiency, empty profession, and false peace, in which the day of judgment is to find the unthinking multitude who suppose they are Christians and are not.

This was written by Seiss at the end of the 19th century. We have been in the Laodicea period since some time after his death.

Seiss continued:

The details in these outlines I leave till we come to the more direct exposition of the epistles themselves, but will yet observe, on this point, that everything which marks one of these periods pertains also, in a lower degree, to every period. It is simply the predominance, and greater or less vigour, of one element at one time, which distinguishes the seven eras from each other. The seven periods, in other words, coexist in every period, as well as in succession, only that in one period the one is predominant, and in another the other.

In the next place, the seven Churches represent seven varieties of Christians, both true and false. Every professor of Christianity is either an Ephesian in his religious qualities, a Smyrnaote, a Pergamite, a Thyatiran, a Sardian, a Philadelphian, or a Laodicean. It is of these seven sorts that the whole Church is made up, the several marks and characteristics of each of which will be brought out hereafter.

Nor are we to look for one sort in one period, or in one denomination, only. Every age, every denomination, and nearly every congregation, contains specimens of each. As all the elements of the ocean are to be found, in more or less distinctness, in every drop from the ocean, so every community of Christian professors has some of all the varied classes which make up Christendom at large. One may abound most in Ephesians, another in Smyrnaotes, another in Thyatirans, and others in other kinds; but we shall hardly be at a loss to find all in all. There are Protestant Papists, and Papistical Protestants; sectarian anti-sectarians, and partyists who are not schismatics; holy ones in the midst of abounding defection and apostasy, and unholy ones in the midst of the most earnest and active faith; light in dark places, and darkness in the midst of light."

I encourage others to read what others have written on this subject. Seiss gives good reasons for viewing the seven letters as prophetic.

Baptist Ordination Practices Examined (IV)

In "The Meaning of Ordination" by Wm. Loyd Allen (see here), another good article on this subject, Allen wrote (emphasis mine):

"Baptist ordination, however, is not an exact reproduction of any New Testament or Early Church practice. The New Testament gives no comprehensive instructions for ordination. The doctrine and practice of ordination has continued to evolve over the centuries, resulting in a variety of forms with a multiplicity of meanings.

From the New Testament to the end of the Middle Ages, the meaning of ordination moved toward an ever more exclusive and hierarchical rite designed to establish the primacy of the clergy over the laity. By the sixteenth century, the Roman Catholic tradition viewed ordination as an indelible mark granted by God and conferred by ordained clergy upon those whom the clergy approved for entry into elite ministerial society."

I wish that the Baptists who practice ordination after the manner of the Catholics and others who promote an episcopal, rather than a congregational, form of government, would stop it and see how their dividing of the clergy from the laity in this manner has been a slippery slope.

Allen continued:

"In this system, ordination served as certification for the clergy, the sole representatives of the body of Christ able to mediate divine grace to the laity. The belief that ordination bestows some special and sacred status beyond that of the ordinary Christian still has currency among many Christians today.

The Protestant Reformation refuted this claim, emphasizing the doctrine of the priesthood of believers over against the hierarchical medieval view of ordination.

The original Baptists in the first decade of the seventeenth century defended the equality of each member of the body of Christ against the historic claims of clergy privilege made by the bishop led Anglican Church. These earliest Baptists formed congregations of baptized believers who covenanted to share equal authority and responsibility in the body of Christ.

These Baptist churches, governed by congregational polity as dictated by the equal status of each baptized member, chose and authorized congregational leaders not as lords over them, but as servant ministers. Divine authority in Baptist beginnings did not trickle down from ordained clergy to the common Christian, but flowed upward through the members of the congregation to its chosen leaders. The very term ordination was avoided for several decades in the two original Baptist groups, Generals and Particulars, in favor of terms such as ‘set apart,’ ‘called,’ and ‘appointed.’[1]

Eventually, with considerable influence from Calvinist sources, the majority of Baptist churches standardized and promoted ordination practices. The institutionalization of Baptist life intensified the regularization of ordination. The Philadelphia Baptist Association’s 1742 Confession, for example, harking back to the ordination article of Congregationalist’s 1658 Savoy Declaration, describes Baptist ordination in a form familiar to us Baptists two and a half centuries later: Christ-called, Spirit-gifted pastors and deacons chosen by church vote and set apart by prayer and the laying on of hands.

The similarities within Baptist ordination views should not be allowed to obscure the great variations played upon the theme. Indeed, some Baptists have refused to play along at all, referring to ordination as a ritual rendered null and void by the priesthood of believers. Charles Spurgeon, the most celebrated Baptist pastor of the nineteenth century, is popularly believed to have said that ordination consisted of “laying idle hands on empty heads.”

The diversity of Baptist views on ordination is hinted at by the many questions answered either yes or no depending upon which group of Baptists is asked. Who may properly be ordained: Women? Divorced persons? Twice married widowed candidates? What is the place of the ordination council; is it only a formality? What is symbolized by the laying on of hands, and should only previously ordained members be invited to do it? What academic credentials are necessary, if any? What ministers other than pastors and deacons are eligible? This list can and does go on and on within the Baptist tradition."

The whole paraphernalia of today's practice by Baptists having denominational ordaining councils "authorizing" the choice of a congregation and giving "credentials" is contradictory to their belief in local church government, the priesthood of believers, and other important biblical doctrines. The article by Allen should be endorsed by all Baptists.

In another good Internet article titled "ORDINATION - A Protestant Stronghold among Baptist Churches" Robert J. Sargent (here) writes upon this subject with some points worthy of citation. Sargent wrote (emphasis mine):

"If scriptural ordination is essentially a vote to appoint or choose a man, where did all the false notions and ceremonial traditions about it come from? To answer this, we turn to history.

As many ancient churches drifted away from the simplicity that is in Christ, the concept of a sacerdotal priesthood began to emerge. It started, first with the division of God’s people into the clergy (kleros) and laity (laos) classes (in violation of the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers), then with the further division of the clergy‐class into a hierarchy.

In the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox religions, ordination is known as Holy Orders and is considered a sacrament (a means of grace). The cheirotonia, or the laying on of hands by the bishop, is held as the most solemn moment of the ordination ritual and the essential act in the sacrament, because it is at this moment that priestly power is imparted and the apostolic connection is made. From that point, the priest is able to act in the person of Christ and to administer the sacraments. Ordination is seen as an indelible mark conferred upon those who enter an exclusive society of clergy.

The rite of ordination as practiced by most of the Protestant daughters of Rome finds its roots in their Catholic heritage. Protestants may have moved in a “back to the Bible” direction, but in most mainline denominations ordination continues to be the ceremonial initiation of someone into the ministry, and ordained ministers are the ones considered qualified to minister the Word of God and the sacraments.

Ancient Baptists were sometimes called Acephali, which means “headless.” Their enemies called them this because they refused to adopt any form of ecclesiastical hierarchy. Baptists had their pastors, but they were seen Biblically as the shepherds, rulers, and guardians of individual congregations. In the 17TH century, English Baptists avoided the word ordination altogether — preferring words such as “set apart” and “appointed” when referring to their leaders. Over time, however, the influence of Protestant (particularly Calvinistic) thought led many Baptists to adopt more formal ways to credential their ministers.

Protestant thinking has always been the bane of Bible‐believing Baptists. The notions of a circumscribed, life‐tenured, “ordained ministry” and the necessity of a ceremonial component to ordination are more Protestant than Bible. This is why most Baptist ordination certificates (incorrectly) state that the man is ordained to the GOSPEL MINISTRY rather than to the office of pastor. It is CHRIST Who puts a man into the ministry (I Timothy 1:12); a church puts him in the office.

Many years ago I remember being told about George Beauchamp Vick (1901‐1975), pastor of Temple Baptist Church in Detroit, Michigan for 40 years, and founding president of Baptist Bible College in Springfield, Missouri. It was quite a marvel to some that he was never ordained! After all, he was such a great preacher and a wonderful pastor — how could this be? What was meant by this was that Vick never had a group of ordained preachers lay hands on him. So, was he ordained or not?"

"English Baptists avoided the word ordination altogether"! Let us be Baptists today and have nothing to do with the practice of having denominational "presbyteries" to "ordain" men.

Baptist Ordination Practices Examined (III)

For the previous two entries in this series see here and here.

In "THE MEANING OF ORDINATION: A MODEST PROPOSAL" by Stanley K. Fowler* (see here - emphasis mine), we have some important insights on our subject.

(*Stanley K. Fowler serves as Professor of Theology and Academic Dean of Central Baptist Seminary in Gormley, Ontario)

Wrote Fowler (emphasis mine):

"Many Baptists (and others) are taking time in 1992 to remember the work of Charles Haddon Spurgeon, the great Victorian preacher who died exactly 100 years ago. One aspect of his ministry which is unknown to many is the fact that he never received ecclesiastical ordination. I remember that this fact was pointed out to me years ago by one of my pastors, who commented that Spurgeon viewed ordination as the imposition of "empty hands on empty heads." When I later read Spurgeon's sermon on 1 Tim 4: 14, I realized that his rejection of ordination was based on much more than a witty comment containing more truth than we may want to admit. In point of fact, his argument was that New Testament examples of ordination (e.g., the ordination of Timothy) refer to the actual bestowal of spiritual gifts through apostolic hands, which may be acceptable to modem Anglicans and Roman Catholics, but is not the meaning of ordination in the Baptist tradition. For Spurgeon, therefore, the New Testament ritual is not the same thing as the modem Baptist ritual, and thus the former can hardly serve as the basis for the latter."

I totally agree that "the New Testament ritual is not the same thing as the modem Baptist ritual" as it respects many Baptist groups, though thankfully not all. It is certainly true with regard to those called "Primitive Baptists."

Gill and Spurgeon, and the many Baptists who followed them in their views on this subject, were not guilty, however, of not following the NT. They in fact spoke out against the ritual adopted by many Baptists. The "ritual" of "ordination" or "laying on of hands by presbyters" among PBs is not in keeping with Baptist teachings (as we will see) but is based upon a false view of the clergy in relation to laity, an error among Presbyterians, Catholics, and other Protestant groups.

Fowler continued:

"Perhaps, then, it is time to take another look at our practice of ordination, and to ask whether it is Biblical, extra-Biblical, unbiblical, or some combination of the above. (Amen to that! Who is willing to throw off tradition and look at the thing honestly and from the word?) The current practice in my own circles is roughly this: Ordination is a public recognition that a man is gifted and called by God for pastoral ministry. It recognizes, but does not convey, God's gifts of grace which empower for such ministry. It normally occurs after a few years of pastoral service, not at its inception. It is an act of the congregation which the man is serving, but the process includes an ordination council called by the church. This council is composed of pastors and laypersons from other churches within the denomination, who question the candidate on his conversion, call to ministry, and doctrinal convictions. The council recommends (usually) that the church proceed, and the formal ordination occurs in another service, in which there is a ritual laying on of hands by congregational leaders, ordained members of the council, or a combination of the two. How does this correlate with New Testament teaching and examples?

Since when does a local church need an "ordination council" from other churches to "approve" her appointments?

Fowler continued:

"It soon becomes obvious in this survey of usage that there is no technical term for "ordination" in the New Testament. What we have instead are various words denoting appointment or installation. The word has taken on a technical sense for us due to its current usage, but this does not match the New Testament pattern. Therefore, if one is going to argue that our present practice is mandated by Scripture, the argument will have to be based on examples or principles, not on terminology.

Forget the "technical definition" or what it means to be "ordained." How does the bible define being ordained to the pastorate or ministry?

Fowler continued:

"It is also clear that in Biblical terms, "ordination" is meaningless apart from a specific object. In other words, one is ordained to be something, whether an apostle, an elder, or some other kind of servant of God's kingdom. "To be ordained" is an incomplete idea in Biblical terms. This should be kept in mind in the current debate about the role of women in ministry. One ought not ask, "Should women be ordained?" The question is, ordained to what? Furthermore, each of the relevant Biblical texts uses "ordain" to describe the entrance into a particular ministry, not some form of recognition which occurs only after a period of probation. Indeed, each of the Greek words translated "ordain" is very broad in its meaning, but each denotes the introduction into a state of affairs, not a later confirmation of it. In New Testament terms, when a church appoints a man as pastor, that church has "ordained" him to be a pastor."

Finally, if I am right in arguing that what we Baptists call "ordination" is not really what the New Testament means by that term, then we ought to admit that our practice is actually a granting of denominational credentials, which may be justified on pragmatic grounds."

I totally agree with Fowler and his words are a good follow up to what has already been presented on the subject in the preceding posts, and also a good introduction for the remainder of our remarks on this subject. Since when does a church need to obtain "denominational credentials" for her appointed leaders? That is more akin to Episcopalianism and Presbyterianism, or perhaps we should say "Nocolaitanism"?