Having made some preliminary remarks on our topic and having looked at the history of the debate, we will now begin an examination of the scriptures and arguments involved in this debate. The first thing I wish to prove is that NT scripture often speaks of things that were done by a church, by the whole church, often by a vote or some way of determining the mind of the church, and this would include every member, including women. Further, if this is proven, the case for women voting is sustained, and verses that require a woman's silence do not preclude her voting in a church conference.
Example #1 - Choice of Deacons
"And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them." (Acts 6: 1-6)
The first thing to notice in analyzing this passage is to distinguish some of the various groups and sub groups mentioned in the passage. First, there is that large group of disciples ("the number of the disciples" and "the multitude of the disciples"). Regarding this group, women are clearly included. Second, there is the group within the larger group and referred to as "the Grecians," and that group of "their widows," in contrast to "the Hebrews" and by implication "their widows." Third, "the twelve" is mentioned, which is of course the apostolic group. Fourth, there is that group of disciples who are addressed as "brethren" (Greek "adelphoi"). Fifth, you have "seven men." Sixth, you have "the whole multitude."
In this selection of the first deacons, who did the choosing of them? Clearly it is the "brethren." Further, it is these "brethren" that the apostles addressed and charged with the task of choosing "seven men." So, thus far, the choosing of deacons was to be done by the male members, unless the Greek word "adelphoi" may signify the entire fraternity of the church, including men and women. Some Greek scholars argue that the plural "adelphoi" is often used in the epistles in such a sense. Others do not agree and contend that "adelphoi" never includes women. In this passage I think it is fairly certain that "brethren" or "brothers" does not include the sisters. It was the brothers in the church that the apostles addressed and gave the responsibility of choosing a man, or brother, from among them to be deacons. Thus, so far, there is nothing in this passage that shows that the entire church, with the women, were involved in this selection or nominating process (unless, as stated, "adelphoi" includes the sisters - for those who want to research this further see here).
The New International Version translates "adelphoi" as "brothers and sisters," giving the translation as "Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you." Other translations do the same. If this is proper, then such would lend credence to 1) women members/disciples being involved in the choosing of deacons, and 2) women being allowed to be chosen as deacons. The latter fact may be implied from the words "from among you." Is the idea "from among you brothers" (male members) or "from among you brothers and sisters" (male and female members)?
It is reasonable, however, that "adelphoi" cannot include sisters, at least in this passage, because the apostles mention choosing seven "men," from the Greek word "andros," a masculine noun meaning a male. So, even if we grant that "adelphoi" denotes the whole church, including female members, there is still the apostolic limitation of choosing from among the whole church "seven MEN," not seven men and women. And, the fact that only men were chosen gives strong support to the limitation of the choice being limited to "men," and that it was the "brothers," the male members who did the choosing. Had the apostles wanted the whole church, male and female, to do the selecting of the candidates, then clearly "adelphoi" must include the women and is being used as a synonym for "the whole multitude of the disciples." Also, had the apostles desired that women be deacons, or "deaconesses," then they would have used "anthropoi" rather than "andros." In other words, they would have said "choose seven people (humans, male or female)" instead of "choose seven men (males)."
In the Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges, they say this about the use of "adelphoi" in this passage - "One of the earliest names employed in addressing the members of the Church." Many Greek scholars agree that often "adelphoi" includes women. If this is the case in Acts 6, then clearly there is authority for women to be given a voice in the choosing of deacons.
But, even if we allow that Paul is addressing only the male members in his use of the word "brethren," and thus limiting the selection of deacons to the male members, nevertheless such a selection required the acquiescence of the whole church. This is obvious because 1) the apostles called the whole church together, male and female, and addressed them all ("the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said") and 2) the selection of the seven is said to have met with agreement from the whole church ("the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose").
In the statement "and they chose," does the pronoun "they" refer to "the brothers" (adelphoi) or to "the whole multitude"? Further, in the statement "they set them before the apostles," who are designated by the pronoun "they"? In the former case, if to the "whole multitude," which is unlikely, then 1) credence is given to the view that "adelphoi" does include sisters, and 2) then the entire church voted or had a voice in the choosing of these seven men. Thus, this in itself is sufficient justification for women being given a voice or vote when choosing deacons. In the latter case, it is doubtful that the whole multitude personally "set" the seven men before the apostles. It is rather probable that a few of the brothers actually ushered the seven men into the immediate presence of the apostles for them to lay their hands upon them. But, even in this case, it is a situation where the ushers were acting on behalf of the entire church and what is done by an agent may be said to be done by the principal.
Further, the word "pleased" is from the Greek word areskÅ and denotes what is approved or agreeable. How would one know if such "pleased" the whole church unless a vote of some kind were taken?
Keep in mind that Acts 6 and the choosing of these seven deacons is one of the passages that is used 1) to support congregational government, and 2) women participating in congregational voting. This is one of the verses that the Baptists who wrote the 1689 Confession referred to in upholding these views.
Saturday, July 8, 2017
Friday, July 7, 2017
Other Editors Invited
I have invited Elder Jeremy Sarber and Elder Stephen Emmons to become contributing editors on the Old Baptist Test blog. I hope they will accept and begin writing articles here. Brother Sarber has his own web site and so he may choose to keep his writings there. This blog exists to help people who are either presently in the Hardshell church or contemplating joining it. We average about 1500 visits per month on this blog and have a large readership from other countries, such as Russia and the Philippines, where the Hardshells have been proselyting.
I am getting older and my health is not what it once was. I am hoping that these younger ministers who have expertise regarding the "Primitive Baptists" will come forward and help keep this web site going after the Lord has called me home.
I am getting older and my health is not what it once was. I am hoping that these younger ministers who have expertise regarding the "Primitive Baptists" will come forward and help keep this web site going after the Lord has called me home.
May Women Vote In Church Decisions? II
Having in the previous posting given the reader an introduction into this series on the woman's role in the church, and on the question being studied, i.e. whether female members of the church of Christ may vote when a congregational vote is taken, we now will look at the issue historically to see what our Baptist forefathers believed relative to the subject and to learn what others who have studied the matter in depth have said on it. Further, I will at points say things relative to what "Primitive Baptists" (aka "Hardshells") have said on the issue. I do this for two reasons. First, because I was asked by a Hardshell to write this series, and Second, because my father and I disagreed on this subject. He held firmly to the view, as do other Hardshells, that women could not vote in the church. He also held the view that women should not have been given the right to vote outside the church in the political realm. Had he lived at the time of the women's suffrage movement in America he would have opposed giving women the right to vote.
The Second London Baptist Confession of 1689 is clear that the general membership of the church should participate in church governance by voting. Here is what it says (emphasis mine):
8._____ A particular church, gathered and completely organized according to the mind of Christ, consists of officers and members; and the officers appointed by Christ to be chosen and set apart by the church (so called and gathered), for the peculiar administration of ordinances, and execution of power or duty, which he intrusts them with, or calls them to, to be continued to the end of the world, are bishops or elders, and deacons. (Acts 20:17, 28; Philippians 1:1)
Notice that the confession places executive authority in the local church or in the congregation and that its officers are "chosen by the church," that is, by its "members," male and female.
9._____ The way appointed by Christ for the calling of any person, fitted and gifted by the Holy Spirit, unto the office of bishop or elder in a church, is, that he be chosen thereunto by the common suffrage of the church itself; and solemnly set apart by fasting and prayer, with imposition of hands of the eldership of the church, if there be any before constituted therein; and of a deacon that he be chosen by the like suffrage, and set apart by prayer, and the like imposition of hands. (Acts 14:23; 1 Timothy 4:14; Acts 6:3, 5, 6)
Notice from these words the congregational nature of the church avowed by the confession and how they affirm a woman's right to vote in their saying that elders are "chosen thereunto by the common suffrage of the church" and that "a deacon that he be chosen by the like suffrage."
Notice also how they assume that each church will have more than one elder and that ordinations do not require elders from other churches. They speak of the "imposition of hands of the eldership of the church."
In his book "Women Deacons and Deaconesses: 400 Years of Baptist Service" (see here), Charles W. Deweese wrote (emphasis mine):
"After reviewing English Baptist life in the 1600s, William Brackney concluded that
the role of women in the early Baptist churches tended to be passive and submissive to male leadership. The membership roles reveal large numbers of women in the early congregations (sometimes over 50 percent), and some churches elected female deacons." (pg. 52)
He wrote further:
"English Baptist historian John Briggs carefully studied primary sources relating to the feminine dimension in English Baptist life, many of which undoubtedly affected deaconess developments. He discovered evidence in the 1600s that women exercised informal leadership gifts in churches, actually became preachers, played key roles in the developing life of churches, suffered persecution because of their dissent, and "constantly encountered the problem of the Pauline prohibition--but against this were cited 'legitimising' scriptures such as Joel 2.28-29, John 8.36, and Galatians 3.28, a textual battle that still rumbles on (in 1986).
"Briggs claimed that "opportunities for women to participate in church life seem to have shrunk by the early eighteenth century, with some chapels even seating men and women separately," and women's right to vote in church life "was not the general practice." Still, Baptist women in the 1700s produced important writings, and participated in educational, business, and charitable enterprises." (page 54)
I think this shows that this issue, like the one dealing with the administrator of baptism, has been controversial among Baptists, even among Particular or Calvinistic Baptists. Were the Scriptures explicit on this matter, there would not be such difference of opinion. Each Baptist church must decide for themselves what they believe is the teaching of scripture. There are consequences for each side. If it is against scripture for women to vote or hold any office or perform any ministerial functions, then allowing such is sin and there will be adverse consequences. On the other hand, if women have such rights and privileges, then to deny them such is likewise sin and brings adverse consequences.
Leaving the history of the English Baptists of the 17th century, let us now look at some of the early American Baptists on the issue. The Kehukee Association in 1771 (see here) had this query.
Q'n - whether it is Lawfull for a woman to Vote in Conference or not.
Their answer was - Ans - it is not.
Morgan Edwards (May 9, 1722 – January 25, 1795), a leader among the Baptists in the oldest association in America, the Philadelphia Association, wrote:
“The Scripture forbids women to speak, ask questions, teach, dispute, rule, or vote in church.”
Edwards was born in Trevethin parish, Pontypool, Wales, and attended Bristol College, after which he began preaching in 1738. He pastored several small Baptist churches in England for seven years, then moved to Ireland, where he pastored for nine years. In May 1761 he immigrated to the American colonies, and became pastor of the Baptist church in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He may have been the first American Baptist historian. His major work, Materials Toward A History of the Baptists (1770) is an important source describing the Baptists in America. He later produced a companion volume, Materials Toward A History of the Baptists in New Jersey (1792)
In spite of Edward's view on women voting, he nevertheless was for having women deacons, and even women elders, although it must be said that the women in these positions were not of the same nature as that of the men. But, more on that perhaps later. So, I find it somewhat a mystery how Edwards could promote women in ministry in the church and yet oppose them voting.
Wrote Dr. J. Michael Raley (see here):
"The women of Philadelphia's First Baptist Church, for example, voted in church business meetings from the church's founding in 1698 until 1761, when the men inexplicably excluded them, contrary to longstanding custom. The issue simmered until early 1764, when the men, pressed by the women, formally addressed the question, "Whether women have a right of voting in the church?" The men replied that, whereas the question of Woman suffrage was clear enough in civil affairs (where women possessed no such right), whether or not a woman had the right to participate in the decisions of her local church could be determined only from Scripture. The men, however, were unable to find such a right explicitly stated in the Bible. Instead, they cited 1 Timothy 2 (especially vv. 11-12: "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.") and 1 Corinthians 14 (especially vv. 34-35: "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. . . . for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.") Their written answer combined these two passages in an abbreviated, yet even more restrictive rendition "I suffer not a woman to usurp authority; but command that she be in subjection, as also saith the law" as evidence of "the subordination [of women] which the gospel hath established in all the churches of the saints."
Again, all this is simply more evidence that the subject is not an easy one and that it has been one that has been controversial among Baptists. Let each person study the matter and become fully persuaded in his or her own mind. Further, the kind of division that occurred in the Baptist church in Philadelphia has also occurred in other churches.
Raley continued:
"Although the men promised the women that their "suffrage or disapprobation shall have their proper influence" and, further, "to invite them when anything is to be transacted which touches the interest of their souls," in practice they continued to exclude the women from church decisions. Incensed, the women of the church promptly informed the men of their "Mistake." Above all, they reaffirmed their "former Rights," albeit in a manner consistent with the teachings of the Apostle Paul: "We do assure the brethren we will not attempt to teach or usurp any authority in the church of God; neither would we be so ignorant as to shut our eyes at all times, when our rights, which we never did any thing to forfeit, are denied us." Still the men refused to give ground; as a result, these Philadelphia women subsequently boycotted the business meetings of their church in protest. The minutes of the church's business meetings thereafter through at least 1814 record only men as having been in attendance."
Who was activated by the Spirit of God in this debate? The men who thought they were upholding Scripture by barring women from having a voice in matters or the women who wanted to have a voice? Further, it seems like the church under consideration in the above were trying to find a common ground, trying to give women a voice, though not a full vote.
Raley continued:
"In New Jersey, where women did in fact exercise the franchise in local elections from 1790 until 1807, women also voted regularly in the business meetings of many Baptist churches. In 1819, an intense debate over the issue took place at Piscataway's First Day Baptist Church. The members concluded "by a large majority that the sisters have an equal right, in all cases with the brethren, in voting, speaking and governing the church.""
One can find churches in history that were on either side of this question.
Raley continued:
"In the Southern states, where male hegemony arguably was even more firmly entrenched than in the North, women nevertheless voted in Baptist churches prior to the Civil War.
A more conservative Southern authority on Baptist church discipline, A. S. Worrell, opposed allowing women to vote in their churches. "I know of but few Churches where it is customary for any considerable number of females to vote," he wrote. "Perhaps in the majority of our Churches they do not vote at all..." Worrell considered even raising a hand to vote in a church session to be a form of speech; women, therefore, could only vote by "speaking" in the church, something that the Apostle Paul had proscribed. Allowing women to vote in their churches, moreover, threatened to subject the male membership "to the government of woman, the opposite of what was designed by their Maker." Even worse, "where the Church has a majority of women as members, they could rule everything at pleasure." Worrell's admission, however, that women were voting in large numbers in but few southern Baptist churches that perhaps in the majority of them they were not allowed to vote at all together with his lengthy diatribe against women voting in the church, actually suggests that women were voting, at least in small numbers, in many Baptist churches in the antebellum South."
Of course, how many were for or against women voting in the church cannot be used as reason for its acceptance or prohibition. We do not judge truth by whether it is believed by the majority. Oftentimes the truth on a matter is held by the minority. Again, the purpose of this historical review of the matter is to get us to see how this matter has never had unanimous agreement but has always been a controversial issue, and that the reason for this is in large part due to the lack of biblical specificity and clarity on the question.
My father, Elder Eddie K. Garrett, Sr., as stated, was a strong advocate that women could not vote in the church. He opposed other "Primitive Baptist" churches who allowed women the vote. He also opposed Hardshells having women as "clerks" of the church. How many Hardshell churches agree with father? I have no figures, but based upon my years with them, I would guess that most Hardshell churches allow women the vote and to speak in conference.
Elder James Taylor in "Primitive Baptist Doctrine and Practice" under "Church Government," wrote (see here):
"Primitive Baptist government is congregational. All baptized members of each individual church are allowed to vote in church conference and partake of the Lord's Supper."
Again, I think this is the majority view.
In "Women, Work and Family in the Antebellum Mountain South," By Wilma A. Dunaway (see here), this historian writes:
"Antebbellum churches were dominated by male preachers, church boards, and teachers. Even women's Sunday school classes and prayer meetings were led by males, and churches often segregated seating patterns by gender...I have found no record of women voting in Appalachian churches, except among the Primitive Baptists and the Moravians." (page 444)
Dunaway also wrote:
"The male-dominated trials all but excluded women from the proceedings. Women voted in the more lay-oriented churches, such as the Primitive Baptist church. However, in those churches, where women had the vote, a quorum was determined by the presence of male members. Thus judgment by female peers was offset by the guarantee of male presence and authority. Women did not vote in the evangelical church trials although they were present in the congregation during the hearings. Baptist supporters of the right of women to vote in the church argued that the principle of equality demanded it. Furthermore, church suffragists believed that if women were denied the vote they would not then be responsible for the purity of the church. The latter argument hit at the crux of female church membership. If women did not participate in the exercise of discipline, how could they constitute a church?"
I think there are some strong arguments here in favor of women voting in the church.
Dunaway also wrote:
"Opponents argued that women's incompetence made them unfit to vote. It was claimed that women were by nature emotional and prejudiced and therefore could not maintain church purity. The right of women to vote raised the specter of the "unnatural" rule of women, and it was feared that voting in church would lead to national or state franchise. Participation in the exercise of discipline meant stepping out of women's "natural" domestic sphere. Anti-suffragists claimed support for their position in the Pauline and Petrine injunctions against women speaking in the churches. Did women have the right to constitute a church? Opponents of the vote for women argued that the "whole church" was a figure of speech which referred to men who voted and to women who acquiesced "in feeling" to the vote. Women's responsibility for the purity of the church was limited to the exercise of influence, pious example, and conversation." (pg. 13)
I think the arguments by the anti women vote side, as expressed in the above, are repugnant. From my own experience I have known Christian women who were more sound in Bible doctrine and practice than many men. But, the scriptural argumentation will be examined in upcoming posts.
The Second London Baptist Confession of 1689 is clear that the general membership of the church should participate in church governance by voting. Here is what it says (emphasis mine):
8._____ A particular church, gathered and completely organized according to the mind of Christ, consists of officers and members; and the officers appointed by Christ to be chosen and set apart by the church (so called and gathered), for the peculiar administration of ordinances, and execution of power or duty, which he intrusts them with, or calls them to, to be continued to the end of the world, are bishops or elders, and deacons. (Acts 20:17, 28; Philippians 1:1)
Notice that the confession places executive authority in the local church or in the congregation and that its officers are "chosen by the church," that is, by its "members," male and female.
9._____ The way appointed by Christ for the calling of any person, fitted and gifted by the Holy Spirit, unto the office of bishop or elder in a church, is, that he be chosen thereunto by the common suffrage of the church itself; and solemnly set apart by fasting and prayer, with imposition of hands of the eldership of the church, if there be any before constituted therein; and of a deacon that he be chosen by the like suffrage, and set apart by prayer, and the like imposition of hands. (Acts 14:23; 1 Timothy 4:14; Acts 6:3, 5, 6)
Notice from these words the congregational nature of the church avowed by the confession and how they affirm a woman's right to vote in their saying that elders are "chosen thereunto by the common suffrage of the church" and that "a deacon that he be chosen by the like suffrage."
Notice also how they assume that each church will have more than one elder and that ordinations do not require elders from other churches. They speak of the "imposition of hands of the eldership of the church."
In his book "Women Deacons and Deaconesses: 400 Years of Baptist Service" (see here), Charles W. Deweese wrote (emphasis mine):
"After reviewing English Baptist life in the 1600s, William Brackney concluded that
the role of women in the early Baptist churches tended to be passive and submissive to male leadership. The membership roles reveal large numbers of women in the early congregations (sometimes over 50 percent), and some churches elected female deacons." (pg. 52)
He wrote further:
"English Baptist historian John Briggs carefully studied primary sources relating to the feminine dimension in English Baptist life, many of which undoubtedly affected deaconess developments. He discovered evidence in the 1600s that women exercised informal leadership gifts in churches, actually became preachers, played key roles in the developing life of churches, suffered persecution because of their dissent, and "constantly encountered the problem of the Pauline prohibition--but against this were cited 'legitimising' scriptures such as Joel 2.28-29, John 8.36, and Galatians 3.28, a textual battle that still rumbles on (in 1986).
"Briggs claimed that "opportunities for women to participate in church life seem to have shrunk by the early eighteenth century, with some chapels even seating men and women separately," and women's right to vote in church life "was not the general practice." Still, Baptist women in the 1700s produced important writings, and participated in educational, business, and charitable enterprises." (page 54)
I think this shows that this issue, like the one dealing with the administrator of baptism, has been controversial among Baptists, even among Particular or Calvinistic Baptists. Were the Scriptures explicit on this matter, there would not be such difference of opinion. Each Baptist church must decide for themselves what they believe is the teaching of scripture. There are consequences for each side. If it is against scripture for women to vote or hold any office or perform any ministerial functions, then allowing such is sin and there will be adverse consequences. On the other hand, if women have such rights and privileges, then to deny them such is likewise sin and brings adverse consequences.
Leaving the history of the English Baptists of the 17th century, let us now look at some of the early American Baptists on the issue. The Kehukee Association in 1771 (see here) had this query.
Q'n - whether it is Lawfull for a woman to Vote in Conference or not.
Their answer was - Ans - it is not.
Morgan Edwards (May 9, 1722 – January 25, 1795), a leader among the Baptists in the oldest association in America, the Philadelphia Association, wrote:
“The Scripture forbids women to speak, ask questions, teach, dispute, rule, or vote in church.”
Edwards was born in Trevethin parish, Pontypool, Wales, and attended Bristol College, after which he began preaching in 1738. He pastored several small Baptist churches in England for seven years, then moved to Ireland, where he pastored for nine years. In May 1761 he immigrated to the American colonies, and became pastor of the Baptist church in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He may have been the first American Baptist historian. His major work, Materials Toward A History of the Baptists (1770) is an important source describing the Baptists in America. He later produced a companion volume, Materials Toward A History of the Baptists in New Jersey (1792)
In spite of Edward's view on women voting, he nevertheless was for having women deacons, and even women elders, although it must be said that the women in these positions were not of the same nature as that of the men. But, more on that perhaps later. So, I find it somewhat a mystery how Edwards could promote women in ministry in the church and yet oppose them voting.
Wrote Dr. J. Michael Raley (see here):
"The women of Philadelphia's First Baptist Church, for example, voted in church business meetings from the church's founding in 1698 until 1761, when the men inexplicably excluded them, contrary to longstanding custom. The issue simmered until early 1764, when the men, pressed by the women, formally addressed the question, "Whether women have a right of voting in the church?" The men replied that, whereas the question of Woman suffrage was clear enough in civil affairs (where women possessed no such right), whether or not a woman had the right to participate in the decisions of her local church could be determined only from Scripture. The men, however, were unable to find such a right explicitly stated in the Bible. Instead, they cited 1 Timothy 2 (especially vv. 11-12: "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.") and 1 Corinthians 14 (especially vv. 34-35: "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. . . . for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.") Their written answer combined these two passages in an abbreviated, yet even more restrictive rendition "I suffer not a woman to usurp authority; but command that she be in subjection, as also saith the law" as evidence of "the subordination [of women] which the gospel hath established in all the churches of the saints."
Again, all this is simply more evidence that the subject is not an easy one and that it has been one that has been controversial among Baptists. Let each person study the matter and become fully persuaded in his or her own mind. Further, the kind of division that occurred in the Baptist church in Philadelphia has also occurred in other churches.
Raley continued:
"Although the men promised the women that their "suffrage or disapprobation shall have their proper influence" and, further, "to invite them when anything is to be transacted which touches the interest of their souls," in practice they continued to exclude the women from church decisions. Incensed, the women of the church promptly informed the men of their "Mistake." Above all, they reaffirmed their "former Rights," albeit in a manner consistent with the teachings of the Apostle Paul: "We do assure the brethren we will not attempt to teach or usurp any authority in the church of God; neither would we be so ignorant as to shut our eyes at all times, when our rights, which we never did any thing to forfeit, are denied us." Still the men refused to give ground; as a result, these Philadelphia women subsequently boycotted the business meetings of their church in protest. The minutes of the church's business meetings thereafter through at least 1814 record only men as having been in attendance."
Who was activated by the Spirit of God in this debate? The men who thought they were upholding Scripture by barring women from having a voice in matters or the women who wanted to have a voice? Further, it seems like the church under consideration in the above were trying to find a common ground, trying to give women a voice, though not a full vote.
Raley continued:
"In New Jersey, where women did in fact exercise the franchise in local elections from 1790 until 1807, women also voted regularly in the business meetings of many Baptist churches. In 1819, an intense debate over the issue took place at Piscataway's First Day Baptist Church. The members concluded "by a large majority that the sisters have an equal right, in all cases with the brethren, in voting, speaking and governing the church.""
One can find churches in history that were on either side of this question.
Raley continued:
"In the Southern states, where male hegemony arguably was even more firmly entrenched than in the North, women nevertheless voted in Baptist churches prior to the Civil War.
A more conservative Southern authority on Baptist church discipline, A. S. Worrell, opposed allowing women to vote in their churches. "I know of but few Churches where it is customary for any considerable number of females to vote," he wrote. "Perhaps in the majority of our Churches they do not vote at all..." Worrell considered even raising a hand to vote in a church session to be a form of speech; women, therefore, could only vote by "speaking" in the church, something that the Apostle Paul had proscribed. Allowing women to vote in their churches, moreover, threatened to subject the male membership "to the government of woman, the opposite of what was designed by their Maker." Even worse, "where the Church has a majority of women as members, they could rule everything at pleasure." Worrell's admission, however, that women were voting in large numbers in but few southern Baptist churches that perhaps in the majority of them they were not allowed to vote at all together with his lengthy diatribe against women voting in the church, actually suggests that women were voting, at least in small numbers, in many Baptist churches in the antebellum South."
Of course, how many were for or against women voting in the church cannot be used as reason for its acceptance or prohibition. We do not judge truth by whether it is believed by the majority. Oftentimes the truth on a matter is held by the minority. Again, the purpose of this historical review of the matter is to get us to see how this matter has never had unanimous agreement but has always been a controversial issue, and that the reason for this is in large part due to the lack of biblical specificity and clarity on the question.
My father, Elder Eddie K. Garrett, Sr., as stated, was a strong advocate that women could not vote in the church. He opposed other "Primitive Baptist" churches who allowed women the vote. He also opposed Hardshells having women as "clerks" of the church. How many Hardshell churches agree with father? I have no figures, but based upon my years with them, I would guess that most Hardshell churches allow women the vote and to speak in conference.
Elder James Taylor in "Primitive Baptist Doctrine and Practice" under "Church Government," wrote (see here):
"Primitive Baptist government is congregational. All baptized members of each individual church are allowed to vote in church conference and partake of the Lord's Supper."
Again, I think this is the majority view.
In "Women, Work and Family in the Antebellum Mountain South," By Wilma A. Dunaway (see here), this historian writes:
"Antebbellum churches were dominated by male preachers, church boards, and teachers. Even women's Sunday school classes and prayer meetings were led by males, and churches often segregated seating patterns by gender...I have found no record of women voting in Appalachian churches, except among the Primitive Baptists and the Moravians." (page 444)
Dunaway also wrote:
"The male-dominated trials all but excluded women from the proceedings. Women voted in the more lay-oriented churches, such as the Primitive Baptist church. However, in those churches, where women had the vote, a quorum was determined by the presence of male members. Thus judgment by female peers was offset by the guarantee of male presence and authority. Women did not vote in the evangelical church trials although they were present in the congregation during the hearings. Baptist supporters of the right of women to vote in the church argued that the principle of equality demanded it. Furthermore, church suffragists believed that if women were denied the vote they would not then be responsible for the purity of the church. The latter argument hit at the crux of female church membership. If women did not participate in the exercise of discipline, how could they constitute a church?"
I think there are some strong arguments here in favor of women voting in the church.
Dunaway also wrote:
"Opponents argued that women's incompetence made them unfit to vote. It was claimed that women were by nature emotional and prejudiced and therefore could not maintain church purity. The right of women to vote raised the specter of the "unnatural" rule of women, and it was feared that voting in church would lead to national or state franchise. Participation in the exercise of discipline meant stepping out of women's "natural" domestic sphere. Anti-suffragists claimed support for their position in the Pauline and Petrine injunctions against women speaking in the churches. Did women have the right to constitute a church? Opponents of the vote for women argued that the "whole church" was a figure of speech which referred to men who voted and to women who acquiesced "in feeling" to the vote. Women's responsibility for the purity of the church was limited to the exercise of influence, pious example, and conversation." (pg. 13)
I think the arguments by the anti women vote side, as expressed in the above, are repugnant. From my own experience I have known Christian women who were more sound in Bible doctrine and practice than many men. But, the scriptural argumentation will be examined in upcoming posts.
Hardshells Lose Another Again
The following is an e-mail I received from another elder who has left the Hardshells. His experience is similar to mine and others who have been convicted of their errors.
Here is my initial reply to brother Stephen Emmons:
I plan to write more on this. Stay tuned! It certainly is encouraging to me to hear that our labors to instruct and save the Hardshells is being used by the Lord! Pray for this brother! Pray for the Hardshells!
Bro. Garrett,
I was an elder in the Primitive Baptist Church and recently resigned and left the denomination.
My wife and I left the Southern Baptist Church for the Primitive Baptists and were rebaptized in January 1995. I began exercising in January of 2005 and was ordained an elder in June 2008. I pastored two small churches and fulfilled a standing monthly appointment at my home church in Fredericksburg, TX since 2005.
I had been increasingly spiritually troubled for some time leading up to my studies in Romans. I preached through all the New Testament save for Romans, Luke, and Revelation, and had gotten good at defending and promulgating “conditional time salvation.” Something just broke within me and I realized it was a great error – the greatest PB error, though not the only one. I had grossly mishandled God’s word and become what I warned against – a false teacher.
I was never a star within the PBC, but I was orthodox and could have travelled much more and fulfilled many speaking opportunities at the endless meetings common in the denomination. My wife and I were baptized (rebaptized!) by Hulan Bass and my father in the ministry was David Montgomery. These men are two of the more famous PB ministers of the modern era, especially in Texas. I am a professor of music at Angelo State University, and the two churches I pastored included Eldorado PBC – a small town about 45 miles from San Angelo – and New Hope PBC here in San Angelo. Our membership was at New Hope PBC in Fredericksburg, Texas, where David Montgomery is still the pastor. Three different churches in four Sundays a month was quite taxing at times, and San Angelo is 200 miles from sizable cities (San Antonio, Lubbock, and Austin, for example) which is a big reason I didn’t travel much to the various meetings. It also felt a little strange to put so much emphasis on the endless meetings when so many of the churches were dwindling in numbers and couldn’t even support weekly services. I think the meetings have become a placebo or replacement for the demanding work of preaching the true gospel and growing the membership of these little churches.
At first the sovereign grace aspects of PBC theology were attractive, though I did not really understand the PB version when we joined the denomination 23 years ago. I felt a very strong call to preach after we moved to San Angelo in 2004, and I set out to become “ultra-orthodox.” David Montgomery used to have a website featuring many historic and modern PBC authors that is now defunct. Nevertheless, I deeply imbibed the readings of the leading lights of the denomination as I worked my way through scripture from the pulpit. After ten years studying music – BM, MM, and PhD – I was if nothing else prepared for long hours of study.
I became good at using what I call the “magic decoder ring” for certain passages regarding the gospel, faith, and eternal salvation. It felt great for a few years. I could get the “amens” by preaching conditional time salvation and “rightly dividing” the word. But it bothered me more and more as I had to take beautiful, powerful, simple, clear scriptures and make them mean what they manifestly did not say. I never could get with the program on the Landmarkism of the PBC. I love a cappella singing and the old hymns but became increasingly burdened that this was a preference, not God’s law. My studies continually took me to commentary by Gill and others who taught gospel means salvation as well as Calvinistic thought. My two teenage children – not PBs thank God – demonstrated more effort in evangelism through volunteering in a local children’s Christian outreach than I had in 12 years of preaching. After much prayer, reflection, study, and hours of conversations with my wife, we left the PBC.
I preached the gospel clearly on May 7. My last sermon was my best. After working through the first part of the chapter, I got to Romans 1:16 and said I had reached the verse that spelled the end of my ministry as a PB elder. I articulated God’s word clearly and forcefully. I let the handful of people in my house church know that I had mishandled God’s word and had twisted it into untruths. We asked that our names be taken from the membership rolls at the home church in Fredericksburg, which was accomplished on May 21.
Fortunately, the church in Eldorado was down to two members (a third rarely came) and a couple of regular visitors. It had been on death’s doorstep for many years. The church in Angelo was only slightly better off. We had sold the church building several years ago and were meeting in my living room. I made the difficult decision to stop preaching altogether because I don’t have the emotional or physical resources to somehow strike out and pastor a non PB church. I also want my children to be part of a larger, vibrant Christian church culture that I can’t provide in my living room to a handful of people. I told the few gathered that I had twisted God’s word, that this would be my last sermon, and to find a good church in the greater San Angelo community.
We have made the decision to return to the SBC. Our first few Sundays back in a Southern Baptist church have thus far been invigorating. To hear the gospel preached ably and with a call to repentance and faith has warmed the depths of my soul. I feel like I have escaped from something and have rejoined the larger Christian body. I have repented to God for my false teachings.
There is much to commend the PBC. They are fine people and bring tasty food on Sundays. I have been treated very well by the members and the leadership across the state. There is no bad blood that caused any of this. I simply studied my bible, read useful commentary, prayed, and thought. I feel liberated but am horrified over what I did to the gospel when I was preaching. I did help a few people, preached several funerals at our dying churches, and enjoyed visiting the sick and elderly. I am convinced God used my membership in the PBC and His call to service for those reasons if nothing else. I am proud of that part of my service to God.
I have enjoyed your blogs. You have a reasoned and balanced approach. I have read many of your other posts and blogs as time has permitted. Keep writing – you never know who you touch through your blogs.
May God Richly Bless You,
Stephen D. Emmons, PhD
San Angelo, TX
Dear brother Stephen:
God be praised! What else can I say? Perhaps you can help other Hardshells by joining Kevin and me on this blog as a contributing writer? The Hardshells need to retrace their steps and go back to being like their forefathers and become evangelistic Calvinists. I am going to share your letter to me with the readers of the Old Baptist Test blog (which is the one mostly dedicated to the Hardshells) unless you tell me not to do so.
About 10% of Southern Baptists are Calvinists as Spurgeon. I wish it were more. You remind me of Elder Ernie Fletcher. He was a good preacher at Lexington Primitive Baptist Church and also saw the errors of the Hardshells. He left and joined the Southern Baptists. He also became governor of Kentucky.
Perhaps the Lord will open up a ministry for you, and for others who are coming out of the Hardshell church, like brother Kevin and Jeremy Sarber and others.
God bless and keep in touch!
I plan to write more on this. Stay tuned! It certainly is encouraging to me to hear that our labors to instruct and save the Hardshells is being used by the Lord! Pray for this brother! Pray for the Hardshells!
Thursday, July 6, 2017
May Women Vote In Church Decisions?
What does the Bible say about the woman's role in the church? Are they allowed to have any positions of authority? Can they vote when a congregational vote is needed or taken? In this short series I will attempt to address these and kindred questions. I will answer these questions as a Baptist who believes in a congregational form of church government and in a church having only two primary offices, that of bishops (elders or pastors) and deacons.
"Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons." (Phil. 1: 1)
Like this epistle to the Philippians, the letters addressed to churches by the apostles were addressed to the entire membership, composed of male and female, children and adults. This is important to keep in mind as instructions in those epistles, addressed as they are to the entire assembly, will help to answer our questions about congregational government and women voting.
Ecclesiology
Some initial observations need to be made at the outset of this short study. First, the question concerning a woman's place in the church must be looked at within the larger context of what the Bible has to say about ecclesiology. By "ecclesiology" we do not mean "the study of churches, especially church building and decoration," given as the first definition in the Oxford dictionary, but meaning rather "Theology as applied to the nature and structure of the Christian Church."
The Greek word "eklesia" is the word translated into "assembly" or "church" in the English NT. Thus "ecclesiology" deals with the science or doctrine of the church, which includes the type of structure and government of the church. The type of church government will determine, to a large degree, the role of women.
A Difficult Topic
This is not an easy subject. This is because the Bible does not detail a church's structure or government. Nevertheless, enough information is given in the NT to support Baptist belief and practice.
Wrote Dr. Al Mohler, president of SBTS in Louisville, Ky. (emphasis mine):
"A particular emphasis upon the nature and structure of the church has been central to the Baptist vision. In other words, ecclesiology is in many ways the chief contribution and distinctive of the Baptists. Sadly, you would not learn that by observing many Baptist congregations. Baptist ecclesiology has been eclipsed by pragmatism and undermined by neglect." (see here)
Of course, Baptists have traditionally been "congregational," or a mix of "congregational" and "Presbyterian" forms. Though Baptists are uniform in affirming 1) that ultimate authority rests with Christ, the head of the church, and 2) that the two chief offices are elders and deacons, and 3) that each member of the church shares responsibility for the health and work of the church, yet there has been diversity of opinion within that framework respecting ecclesiastical questions. This is certainly true in regard to the role of women and to their being able to vote or participate in congregational decision making. For instance:
1. Some Baptist churches will have only one elder or pastor, while others will have more.
2. Some Baptist churches will have women deacons and some even women elders (though different in authority and function than their male counterparts). But, more on that later.
3. Some Baptist churches allow women to hold lessor offices, such as secretaries, clerks, etc.
4. Some Baptist churches allow women to "speak" in limited ways, while others will not allow them to speak at all.
5.Some Baptist churches allow women to vote when a vote of the congregation is taken, while others do not.
6. Some Baptist churches allow women to do some teaching, while others allow none.
In "Baptist Ecclesiology: A Faithful Application Of New Testament Principles" by Daryl C. Cornett, Assistant Professor of Church History at Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary (Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry Vol. 2 No. 1 - Spring 2004) we find some very good information on this topic and on these questions. On page 32, under "Guiding Principles for Church Authority And Organization," Cornett wrote (emphasis mine - see here):
"Instead of examining the typical proof texts from the Bible that Baptist and Presbyterians typically offer to support their tradition, I will submit candidly that I believe that the arguments from both positions tend to rest on implications and not explicit models easily observed. Therefore, I believe it is more helpful to proceed to a principle-based ecclesiology. E. C. Dargan made an astute observation. He wrote, “Our first duty is frankly to consider the difficulties of the subject...It is very hard, if not impossible, to avoid carrying back to the New Testament the ideas of later times, according to the point of view of the investigator.” If an explicit model is not evident in the New Testament, then possibly an acknowledgement of and adherence to key biblical principles concerning the church would be more beneficial and lead us to appreciate the better tradition for all the right reasons."
These are excellent comments that anyone who has looked into the subject to any significant degree will acknowledge as true. I would encourage all to note his words of advice on studying this issue, especially these words - "Our first duty is frankly to consider the difficulties of the subject." It is sad that many do not approach the topic with this degree of honesty.
Wrote Cornett:
"Recent publications evidence an awakening of sorts in Baptist life to this present denominational identity crisis. The specific crisis that has worked to bring about this recent flurry of activity is that more and more Baptist pastors and congregations have either implemented or are currently entertaining the idea of employing elders (ruling or leading) in addition to the traditional offices of pastors and deacons. This has served as the splash of cold water on the face of a theologically slumbering denomination. Baptist pastors and leaders are asking interesting questions about church polity. Many are wondering if an emphasis on Baptist identity is adverse to effective evangelism and church growth. Some are struggling with the historic differences between congregational and presbyterian church polities. Many are sincerely seeking to discern what the New Testament teaches concerning the polity of the local church."
Though Cornett has in view the practice of Baptist churches increasingly adopting a practice where each church is governed by more than one elder, by a plurality of elders, nevertheless his comments are applicable to the practice of allowing women to vote in church conferences along with the male members. Not only have Baptist churches historically differed on the precise type of government respecting a plurality of elders for each church, they have also differed on the practice of women voting. It is an old issue and has been debated for centuries.
Wrote Cornett:
"This essay seeks to address these issues by examining the historical and biblical differences between the Baptist and Presbyterian traditions...the current flirtation of some Baptist pastors and leaders with the elder-rule model. Which model is correct? Or for Baptists, the question is better stated: Which model is more congruent with biblical precedent? Herein lies the dilemma. A major reason that we continue to have disagreement in the area of ecclesiology is because no clear institutional model exists in the New Testament.
Just as there is "no clear institutional model exists in the New Testament" regarding "elder rule," so there are no clear straightforward statements that forbid women the right to vote or express their views when the mind of the church is being determined. There is no scripture that says "women have an equal vote with men when the congregation is voting." Likewise, there is no scripture that says "women may not vote on any matter." What we must do is look at scriptural principles and at inferences. Still, it is my belief, along with many others, that it is scriptural for the sisters to vote with the men when a vote of the general church membership is called for.
Wrote Cornett:
"Baptists over the years have lived by the conviction that congregationalism is not only the best method of church government, but it is the New Testament model."
But, if one allows this to be true (and it is), then the question becomes whether women are to have a voice in the congregation, and if so, what restrictions, if any, are placed upon them.
Wrote Cornett:
"Baptists throughout the generations of their existence have also consistently held to a congregationalism conducted with democratic governance. The Second London Confession prescribed that ministers be selected by “the common suffrage of the church itself.”"
I will have more to say about the Second London Confession and whether it upholds the validity of women voting. Needless to say, the "church" does not consist of only male members and so "the common suffrage of the church" must include the voting of all its members, and this includes women.
Wrote Cornett:
"However, to claim that pastors and deacons are the only valid ecclesiastical positions that can be used, and that democratic rule, with its modern connotation within the local congregation, is explicit in the New Testament is misguided."
Notice the word "explicit." Very little about church government is explicit in the NT. Nevertheless, enough is said to lead us to conclude that it was not against the NT for female members of the church to vote or express their opinions when called for in church conferences.
Wrote Cornett:
"What is evident in the New Testament is the fact that the primitive church was dedicated to the teaching and leadership of the Apostles. It is also clear that various roles within the church were recognized, such as pastor, teacher, deacon, evangelist, prophet and so forth. In addition, other passages describe roles related to persons’ spiritual gifts, resources, and abilities. It is these relationships that are emphasized in the New Testament as a whole rather than any particular form of organization. At this earliest point in the history of the church, it is anachronistic to speak of the church as an institution at all. Christianity was a movement but not yet institutionalized. A community of believers submitted themselves to the Apostles. Over time, institutionalization was inevitable. However, these became largely human constructs determined by many factors other than explicit biblical precedent."
Again, all this ought to lead us to be careful with this subject and not be overly dogmatic. We should seek neither to be too strict or too loose in our views on this subject. We all ought to be able to defend our positions on this topic.
Wrote Cornett:
"The New Testament does not evidence an explicit model for church organization."
That is true. Nevertheless, we are certain that the Baptist manner of church government is in keeping with the teaching of the NT.
In the remaining articles in this series we will look at the arguments for and against the question of women voting. It is my belief that women have the right to vote on matters affecting the church of which they are members and that this in no way violates scripture that forbids them to usurp authority over men.
"Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons." (Phil. 1: 1)
Like this epistle to the Philippians, the letters addressed to churches by the apostles were addressed to the entire membership, composed of male and female, children and adults. This is important to keep in mind as instructions in those epistles, addressed as they are to the entire assembly, will help to answer our questions about congregational government and women voting.
Ecclesiology
Some initial observations need to be made at the outset of this short study. First, the question concerning a woman's place in the church must be looked at within the larger context of what the Bible has to say about ecclesiology. By "ecclesiology" we do not mean "the study of churches, especially church building and decoration," given as the first definition in the Oxford dictionary, but meaning rather "Theology as applied to the nature and structure of the Christian Church."
The Greek word "eklesia" is the word translated into "assembly" or "church" in the English NT. Thus "ecclesiology" deals with the science or doctrine of the church, which includes the type of structure and government of the church. The type of church government will determine, to a large degree, the role of women.
A Difficult Topic
This is not an easy subject. This is because the Bible does not detail a church's structure or government. Nevertheless, enough information is given in the NT to support Baptist belief and practice.
Wrote Dr. Al Mohler, president of SBTS in Louisville, Ky. (emphasis mine):
"A particular emphasis upon the nature and structure of the church has been central to the Baptist vision. In other words, ecclesiology is in many ways the chief contribution and distinctive of the Baptists. Sadly, you would not learn that by observing many Baptist congregations. Baptist ecclesiology has been eclipsed by pragmatism and undermined by neglect." (see here)
Of course, Baptists have traditionally been "congregational," or a mix of "congregational" and "Presbyterian" forms. Though Baptists are uniform in affirming 1) that ultimate authority rests with Christ, the head of the church, and 2) that the two chief offices are elders and deacons, and 3) that each member of the church shares responsibility for the health and work of the church, yet there has been diversity of opinion within that framework respecting ecclesiastical questions. This is certainly true in regard to the role of women and to their being able to vote or participate in congregational decision making. For instance:
1. Some Baptist churches will have only one elder or pastor, while others will have more.
2. Some Baptist churches will have women deacons and some even women elders (though different in authority and function than their male counterparts). But, more on that later.
3. Some Baptist churches allow women to hold lessor offices, such as secretaries, clerks, etc.
4. Some Baptist churches allow women to "speak" in limited ways, while others will not allow them to speak at all.
5.Some Baptist churches allow women to vote when a vote of the congregation is taken, while others do not.
6. Some Baptist churches allow women to do some teaching, while others allow none.
In "Baptist Ecclesiology: A Faithful Application Of New Testament Principles" by Daryl C. Cornett, Assistant Professor of Church History at Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary (Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry Vol. 2 No. 1 - Spring 2004) we find some very good information on this topic and on these questions. On page 32, under "Guiding Principles for Church Authority And Organization," Cornett wrote (emphasis mine - see here):
"Instead of examining the typical proof texts from the Bible that Baptist and Presbyterians typically offer to support their tradition, I will submit candidly that I believe that the arguments from both positions tend to rest on implications and not explicit models easily observed. Therefore, I believe it is more helpful to proceed to a principle-based ecclesiology. E. C. Dargan made an astute observation. He wrote, “Our first duty is frankly to consider the difficulties of the subject...It is very hard, if not impossible, to avoid carrying back to the New Testament the ideas of later times, according to the point of view of the investigator.” If an explicit model is not evident in the New Testament, then possibly an acknowledgement of and adherence to key biblical principles concerning the church would be more beneficial and lead us to appreciate the better tradition for all the right reasons."
These are excellent comments that anyone who has looked into the subject to any significant degree will acknowledge as true. I would encourage all to note his words of advice on studying this issue, especially these words - "Our first duty is frankly to consider the difficulties of the subject." It is sad that many do not approach the topic with this degree of honesty.
Wrote Cornett:
"Recent publications evidence an awakening of sorts in Baptist life to this present denominational identity crisis. The specific crisis that has worked to bring about this recent flurry of activity is that more and more Baptist pastors and congregations have either implemented or are currently entertaining the idea of employing elders (ruling or leading) in addition to the traditional offices of pastors and deacons. This has served as the splash of cold water on the face of a theologically slumbering denomination. Baptist pastors and leaders are asking interesting questions about church polity. Many are wondering if an emphasis on Baptist identity is adverse to effective evangelism and church growth. Some are struggling with the historic differences between congregational and presbyterian church polities. Many are sincerely seeking to discern what the New Testament teaches concerning the polity of the local church."
Though Cornett has in view the practice of Baptist churches increasingly adopting a practice where each church is governed by more than one elder, by a plurality of elders, nevertheless his comments are applicable to the practice of allowing women to vote in church conferences along with the male members. Not only have Baptist churches historically differed on the precise type of government respecting a plurality of elders for each church, they have also differed on the practice of women voting. It is an old issue and has been debated for centuries.
Wrote Cornett:
"This essay seeks to address these issues by examining the historical and biblical differences between the Baptist and Presbyterian traditions...the current flirtation of some Baptist pastors and leaders with the elder-rule model. Which model is correct? Or for Baptists, the question is better stated: Which model is more congruent with biblical precedent? Herein lies the dilemma. A major reason that we continue to have disagreement in the area of ecclesiology is because no clear institutional model exists in the New Testament.
Just as there is "no clear institutional model exists in the New Testament" regarding "elder rule," so there are no clear straightforward statements that forbid women the right to vote or express their views when the mind of the church is being determined. There is no scripture that says "women have an equal vote with men when the congregation is voting." Likewise, there is no scripture that says "women may not vote on any matter." What we must do is look at scriptural principles and at inferences. Still, it is my belief, along with many others, that it is scriptural for the sisters to vote with the men when a vote of the general church membership is called for.
Wrote Cornett:
"Baptists over the years have lived by the conviction that congregationalism is not only the best method of church government, but it is the New Testament model."
But, if one allows this to be true (and it is), then the question becomes whether women are to have a voice in the congregation, and if so, what restrictions, if any, are placed upon them.
Wrote Cornett:
"Baptists throughout the generations of their existence have also consistently held to a congregationalism conducted with democratic governance. The Second London Confession prescribed that ministers be selected by “the common suffrage of the church itself.”"
I will have more to say about the Second London Confession and whether it upholds the validity of women voting. Needless to say, the "church" does not consist of only male members and so "the common suffrage of the church" must include the voting of all its members, and this includes women.
Wrote Cornett:
Notice the word "explicit." Very little about church government is explicit in the NT. Nevertheless, enough is said to lead us to conclude that it was not against the NT for female members of the church to vote or express their opinions when called for in church conferences.
Wrote Cornett:
"What is evident in the New Testament is the fact that the primitive church was dedicated to the teaching and leadership of the Apostles. It is also clear that various roles within the church were recognized, such as pastor, teacher, deacon, evangelist, prophet and so forth. In addition, other passages describe roles related to persons’ spiritual gifts, resources, and abilities. It is these relationships that are emphasized in the New Testament as a whole rather than any particular form of organization. At this earliest point in the history of the church, it is anachronistic to speak of the church as an institution at all. Christianity was a movement but not yet institutionalized. A community of believers submitted themselves to the Apostles. Over time, institutionalization was inevitable. However, these became largely human constructs determined by many factors other than explicit biblical precedent."
Again, all this ought to lead us to be careful with this subject and not be overly dogmatic. We should seek neither to be too strict or too loose in our views on this subject. We all ought to be able to defend our positions on this topic.
Wrote Cornett:
"The New Testament does not evidence an explicit model for church organization."
That is true. Nevertheless, we are certain that the Baptist manner of church government is in keeping with the teaching of the NT.
In the remaining articles in this series we will look at the arguments for and against the question of women voting. It is my belief that women have the right to vote on matters affecting the church of which they are members and that this in no way violates scripture that forbids them to usurp authority over men.
Wednesday, July 5, 2017
Misc. on Landmarkism
Wrote Elder Jeremy Sarber:
"Now out of this issue springs others, but Landmarkism seems to be the foundation for them. Out of it comes a denominational arrogance, arbitrarily strict views on who can and cannot participate in the Lord’s Supper, and the requirement of every non-Primitive Baptist believer to get re-baptized. It may also account for the many splits and divisions that have taken place over the years. Everyone’s trying to protect the last remnant of Christ’s true church." ("Why I Left The Primitive Baptist Church" - see here)
Amen to that!
In the "The History of the Baptists of Tennessee with Particular Attention to the Primitive Baptists of East Tennessee," by Lawrence Edwards (1941 - see here), Edwards writes the following in CHAPTER V, titled "THE TWO-SEED HERESY AND ABSOLUTE PREDESTINATION" (emphasis mine):
I cite all this because David Pyles, in his article on re-baptism, made a distinction between "intra denominational" divisions and "inter denominational" divisions. I wonder if David would have advised these two factions to reconcile, and not make the issue a "test of fellowship," and to accept each other's baptisms?
"Now out of this issue springs others, but Landmarkism seems to be the foundation for them. Out of it comes a denominational arrogance, arbitrarily strict views on who can and cannot participate in the Lord’s Supper, and the requirement of every non-Primitive Baptist believer to get re-baptized. It may also account for the many splits and divisions that have taken place over the years. Everyone’s trying to protect the last remnant of Christ’s true church." ("Why I Left The Primitive Baptist Church" - see here)
Amen to that!
In the "The History of the Baptists of Tennessee with Particular Attention to the Primitive Baptists of East Tennessee," by Lawrence Edwards (1941 - see here), Edwards writes the following in CHAPTER V, titled "THE TWO-SEED HERESY AND ABSOLUTE PREDESTINATION" (emphasis mine):
"But the Powell Valley seems to feed on division and dissension (this is the Association my father and I were once a part of), for in the early years of the twentieth century it was again torn asunder. This time secret orders caused the trouble. This controversy, however, was not so localized as the one which caused the division in 1889. It swept all Primitive Baptist groups in the South and Midwest and even today calls forth editorials now and then from controversial writers. The next chapter will show how the secret order controversy affected the East Tennessee associations.
When the Powell Valley association met in August, 1904, with the church at Gibson Station, Lee County, Virginia, it was faced with a problem similar to that which it had faced in 1889--a problem concerning two letters sent to the association from one church, obviously by opposing factions in that church. The two letters were referred to a "Committee on Credentials," which submitted the following report:
We your committee to whom was referred the matter of the two letters and messengers of the Mossy Spring Church, advise that the matter be referred back to the said church, to use all lawful means according to the gospel of Christ to settle said matter in the church. Another item in the minutes of this year, 1904, showed that the association was deeply concerned over the impending strife. This was the fifteenth item, which was as follows:
On motion, we advise each church in the Union to appoint two days of fasting and prayer that the Lord would enable each member by His Holy Spirit to lay aside everything that causes offense; submitting themselves one to another according to the Bible, by putting away all malice, evil-speaking, back biting and hypocrisy; adhering more closely to the Golden Rule. But the fasting and prayer availed nothing. The various churches in the association went about the business of excluding members who would not declare non-fellowship for members of secret orders. Some of the association's ablest ministers were excluded before the meeting of the association in 1905. The seventh item of the proceedings of that year says:
On motion we fully endorse the action of the churches that excluded Elders A. Boruff, J. D. Monroe, S. M. Petree and Y. B. Weaver. Another item in the 1905 minutes shows that they would not accept a letter from a church "for holding and fellowshiping members whose baptism was administered by ministers in disorder."
They continued by regretting "that the real cause of said trouble is hid from so many of our good brethren," and contended that "there is no issue between our people on doctrine, neither was the secret order question the original cause." They contended further that "we have had members belonging to secret orders in our fellowship for perhaps one hundred years or more. Why, then, should such be made subjects of non-fellowship now, they wondered."
When the Powell Valley association met in August, 1904, with the church at Gibson Station, Lee County, Virginia, it was faced with a problem similar to that which it had faced in 1889--a problem concerning two letters sent to the association from one church, obviously by opposing factions in that church. The two letters were referred to a "Committee on Credentials," which submitted the following report:
We your committee to whom was referred the matter of the two letters and messengers of the Mossy Spring Church, advise that the matter be referred back to the said church, to use all lawful means according to the gospel of Christ to settle said matter in the church. Another item in the minutes of this year, 1904, showed that the association was deeply concerned over the impending strife. This was the fifteenth item, which was as follows:
On motion, we advise each church in the Union to appoint two days of fasting and prayer that the Lord would enable each member by His Holy Spirit to lay aside everything that causes offense; submitting themselves one to another according to the Bible, by putting away all malice, evil-speaking, back biting and hypocrisy; adhering more closely to the Golden Rule. But the fasting and prayer availed nothing. The various churches in the association went about the business of excluding members who would not declare non-fellowship for members of secret orders. Some of the association's ablest ministers were excluded before the meeting of the association in 1905. The seventh item of the proceedings of that year says:
On motion we fully endorse the action of the churches that excluded Elders A. Boruff, J. D. Monroe, S. M. Petree and Y. B. Weaver. Another item in the 1905 minutes shows that they would not accept a letter from a church "for holding and fellowshiping members whose baptism was administered by ministers in disorder."
They continued by regretting "that the real cause of said trouble is hid from so many of our good brethren," and contended that "there is no issue between our people on doctrine, neither was the secret order question the original cause." They contended further that "we have had members belonging to secret orders in our fellowship for perhaps one hundred years or more. Why, then, should such be made subjects of non-fellowship now, they wondered."
I cite all this because David Pyles, in his article on re-baptism, made a distinction between "intra denominational" divisions and "inter denominational" divisions. I wonder if David would have advised these two factions to reconcile, and not make the issue a "test of fellowship," and to accept each other's baptisms?
Monday, July 3, 2017
Songs I Love That Hardshells Don't Sing
Here are some songs that the Hardshells will not sing, though they are perfectly scriptural. Why will they not sing them? Is it not because they have rejected the doctrine of means?
Send The Light
You can here it sung (here) by the Old Time Gospel Hour Quartet
Here are the words
There’s a call comes ringing o’er the restless wave,
“Send the light! Send the light!”
There are souls to rescue, there are souls to save,
Send the light! Send the light!
Refrain:
Send the light, the blessed Gospel light;
Let it shine from shore to shore!
Send the light, and let its radiant beams
Light the world forevermore!
We have heard the Macedonian call today,
“Send the light! Send the light!”
And a golden off’ring at the cross we lay,
Send the light! Send the light!
Let us pray that grace may everywhere abound,
“Send the light! Send the light!”
And a Christlike spirit everywhere be found,
Send the light! Send the light!
Let us not grow weary in the work of love,
“Send the light! Send the light!”
Let us gather jewels for a crown above,
Send the light! Send the light!
Let the Lower Lights Be Burning
You can hear it sung (here) by Dallas Christian Adult Concert Choir
Also sung acapella (here)
Here are the words
Brightly beams our Father’s mercy,
From His lighthouse evermore,
But to us He gives the keeping
Of the lights along the shore.
Refrain:
Let the lower lights be burning!
Send a gleam across the wave!
Some poor *struggling, fainting seaman
You may rescue, you may save.
Dark the night of sin has settled,
Loud the angry billows roar;
Eager eyes are watching, longing,
For the lights along the shore.
Trim your feeble lamp, my brother;
Some poor sailor, tempest-tossed,
Trying now to make the harbor,
In the darkness may be lost.
Throw Out The Lifeline (listen here)
Here are the words
Throw out the life line across the dark wave;
There is a brother whom someone should save;
Somebody’s brother! O who then will dare
To throw out the life line, his peril to share?
Refrain
Throw out the life line! Throw out the life line!
Someone is drifting away;
Throw out the life line! Throw out the life line!
Someone is sinking today.
Throw out the life line with hand quick and strong:
Why do you tarry, why linger so long?
See! he is sinking; oh, hasten today
And out with the life boat! away, then away!
Refrain
Throw out the life line to danger fraught men,
Sinking in anguish where you’ve never been;
Winds of temptation and billows of woe
Will soon hurl them out where the dark waters flow.
Refrain
Soon will the season of rescue be o’er,
Soon will they drift to eternity’s shore;
Haste, then, my brother, no time for delay,
But throw out the life line and save them today.
Refrain
This is the life line, oh, tempest tossed men;
Baffled by waves of temptation and sin;
Wild winds of passion, your strength cannot brave,
But Jesus is mighty, and Jesus can save.
Refrain
Jesus is able! To you who are driv’n,
Farther and farther from God and from Heav’n;
Helpless and hopeless, o’erwhelmed by the wave;
We throw out the life line, ’tis Jesus can save.
Refrain
This is the life line, oh, grasp it today!
See, you are recklessly drifting away;
Voices in warning, shout over the wave,
O grasp the strong life line, for Jesus can save.
I have always liked "Bringing In The Sheaves" also.
Send The Light
You can here it sung (here) by the Old Time Gospel Hour Quartet
Here are the words
There’s a call comes ringing o’er the restless wave,
“Send the light! Send the light!”
There are souls to rescue, there are souls to save,
Send the light! Send the light!
Refrain:
Send the light, the blessed Gospel light;
Let it shine from shore to shore!
Send the light, and let its radiant beams
Light the world forevermore!
We have heard the Macedonian call today,
“Send the light! Send the light!”
And a golden off’ring at the cross we lay,
Send the light! Send the light!
Let us pray that grace may everywhere abound,
“Send the light! Send the light!”
And a Christlike spirit everywhere be found,
Send the light! Send the light!
Let us not grow weary in the work of love,
“Send the light! Send the light!”
Let us gather jewels for a crown above,
Send the light! Send the light!
Let the Lower Lights Be Burning
You can hear it sung (here) by Dallas Christian Adult Concert Choir
Also sung acapella (here)
Here are the words
Brightly beams our Father’s mercy,
From His lighthouse evermore,
But to us He gives the keeping
Of the lights along the shore.
Refrain:
Let the lower lights be burning!
Send a gleam across the wave!
Some poor *struggling, fainting seaman
You may rescue, you may save.
Dark the night of sin has settled,
Loud the angry billows roar;
Eager eyes are watching, longing,
For the lights along the shore.
Trim your feeble lamp, my brother;
Some poor sailor, tempest-tossed,
Trying now to make the harbor,
In the darkness may be lost.
Throw Out The Lifeline (listen here)
Here are the words
Throw out the life line across the dark wave;
There is a brother whom someone should save;
Somebody’s brother! O who then will dare
To throw out the life line, his peril to share?
Refrain
Throw out the life line! Throw out the life line!
Someone is drifting away;
Throw out the life line! Throw out the life line!
Someone is sinking today.
Throw out the life line with hand quick and strong:
Why do you tarry, why linger so long?
See! he is sinking; oh, hasten today
And out with the life boat! away, then away!
Refrain
Throw out the life line to danger fraught men,
Sinking in anguish where you’ve never been;
Winds of temptation and billows of woe
Will soon hurl them out where the dark waters flow.
Refrain
Soon will the season of rescue be o’er,
Soon will they drift to eternity’s shore;
Haste, then, my brother, no time for delay,
But throw out the life line and save them today.
Refrain
This is the life line, oh, tempest tossed men;
Baffled by waves of temptation and sin;
Wild winds of passion, your strength cannot brave,
But Jesus is mighty, and Jesus can save.
Refrain
Jesus is able! To you who are driv’n,
Farther and farther from God and from Heav’n;
Helpless and hopeless, o’erwhelmed by the wave;
We throw out the life line, ’tis Jesus can save.
Refrain
This is the life line, oh, grasp it today!
See, you are recklessly drifting away;
Voices in warning, shout over the wave,
O grasp the strong life line, for Jesus can save.
I have always liked "Bringing In The Sheaves" also.
Saturday, July 1, 2017
Hardshells and Alien Baptism XI
"And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto (eis) what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto (eis) John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in (eis) the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. And all the men were about twelve." (Acts 19: 1-7 KJV)
Questions
1. Was there in fact a re-baptism in water?
2. If so, what was the reason for the re-baptism?
3. Was it because they were not truly converted when first baptized?
4. Was it because all who had been baptized with John's baptism needed Christian baptism?
5. Was it because their baptism was not in the name of Jesus or of the Trinity?
6. Was it because the administrator of baptism was not authorized to baptize?
7. Are the words "when they heard this..." the words of Paul or Luke?
8. If the words of Paul, then a re-baptism did not take place.
9. If the words of Paul, then Paul testifies that John baptized "in the name of Jesus."
10. If the words of Luke, then a re-baptism took place.
Wrote John Gill in his commentary:
When they heard this,...That is, the people to whom John preached, his hearers; when they heard of the Messiah, and that Jesus was he, and that it became them to believe in him:
they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus; not the disciples that Paul found at Ephesus, but the hearers of John; for these are the words of the Apostle Paul, giving an account of John's baptism, and of the success of his ministry, showing, that his baptism was administered in the name of the Lord Jesus; and not the words of Luke the Evangelist, recording what followed upon his account of John's baptism; for then he would have made mention of the apostle's name, as he does in the next verse; and have said, when they heard this account, they were baptized by Paul in the name of the Lord Jesus: the historian reports two things, first what Paul said, which lies in Acts 19:4 then what he did, Acts 19:6 where he repeats his name, as was necessary; as that he laid his hands upon them, which was all that was needful to their receiving the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, having been already baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus: which sense is the more confirmed by the particles ΌεΜ and Ύε, which answer to one another in verses 4 and 5, and show the words to be a continuation of the apostle's speech, and not the words of the historian, which begin in the next verse. Beza's ancient copy adds, "for the remission of sins".
Based upon this commentary by one of the greatest commentators of all time, it is certainly not absolutely certain that there was in fact a re-baptism. Also, there have been others who have agreed with Dr. Gill. The Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary says:
Beza, Calixtus, Calov., Suicer, Glass., Buddeus, Wolf, and al., wishing to wrest this weapon out of the hands of the Anabaptists, oddly enough suppose this verse to belong still to Paul’s discourse, and to mean, ‘and the people when they heard him (John), were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.’
Besides Dr. Gill, many of these men were Greek scholars, such as Theodore Beza. They believed that "when they heard this" referred to people hearing John's message and were the words of Paul. Of course, there are other Greek scholars who disagree and think that "when they heard this" are the words of Luke the historian and refers to the twelve disciples hearing Paul's words.
For instance, in "The Expositor's Greek Testament" we read:
Acts 19:5. áŒÎºÎ¿ÏÏαΜÏÎµÏ ÎŽáœ²: neither grammatical nor in accordance with fact can these words be regarded (as by Beza and others) as part of St. Paul’s words, as if they meant, “and the people when they heard him,” i.e., John.
Not being expert on Greek particles, I cannot say yea or nay on this point. Gill is just as strong on the Greek. Recall that he said - "which sense is the more confirmed by the particles ΌεΜ and Ύε, which answer to one another in verses 4 and 5."
Further, on the grammatical argument, Gill also gave good arguments for why "when they heard that" cannot be the words of Luke the historian. Recall he said - "not the words of Luke the Evangelist, recording what followed upon his account of John's baptism; for then he would have made mention of the apostle's name, as he does in the next verse; and have said, when they heard this account, they were baptized by Paul in the name of the Lord Jesus: the historian reports two things, first what Paul said, which lies in Acts 19:4 then what he did, Acts 19:6 where he repeats his name, as was necessary." All this makes sense also.
Luke, as an historian, is very careful in marking the places where Paul is speaking or doing something and where someone else is speaking or doing. He was very careful in writing so that readers would know when he was quoting the words of another and when he was recording his own words. This is clear in the context of our disputed passage. In the passage he would begin Paul's words by saying "he said." When he was giving the words of the twelve disciples, Luke would say "they said." All this lends credence to Gill's interpretation.
It seems to me that there is nothing defective in their prior baptism. They were "disciples" and "believers" at the time of their baptism. Such a baptism was "unto" Christ the Messiah. They were immersed. And, there is nothing said about their baptism being invalid due to an unqualified administrator. So, if they were re-baptized by Paul, then why? Those who affirm the fact of re-baptism must tell us why it was done. Some say that it was because the baptism of John was no longer valid. But, this cannot be the case, for then we would read of all the original apostles being re-baptized. Some say that they were re-baptized because they were not true believers in Jesus when they were first baptized. But, this is assumption. The text calls them both disciples and believers with no idea that their faith was not genuine. Some argue that their not knowing about the Holy Spirit was proof of their not being saved. But, this too is not tenable. Many believe that their statement that they had not heard whether there be a Holy Spirit means not that they did not know of the Holy Spirit but that it had been given, as it was on Pentecost. This is entirely plausible. (See John 7: 39)
In summation we must acknowledge that this passage affords no warrant for the re-baptism of those who are judged to have had an unqualified administrator.
Questions
1. Was there in fact a re-baptism in water?
2. If so, what was the reason for the re-baptism?
3. Was it because they were not truly converted when first baptized?
4. Was it because all who had been baptized with John's baptism needed Christian baptism?
5. Was it because their baptism was not in the name of Jesus or of the Trinity?
6. Was it because the administrator of baptism was not authorized to baptize?
7. Are the words "when they heard this..." the words of Paul or Luke?
8. If the words of Paul, then a re-baptism did not take place.
9. If the words of Paul, then Paul testifies that John baptized "in the name of Jesus."
10. If the words of Luke, then a re-baptism took place.
Wrote John Gill in his commentary:
When they heard this,...That is, the people to whom John preached, his hearers; when they heard of the Messiah, and that Jesus was he, and that it became them to believe in him:
they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus; not the disciples that Paul found at Ephesus, but the hearers of John; for these are the words of the Apostle Paul, giving an account of John's baptism, and of the success of his ministry, showing, that his baptism was administered in the name of the Lord Jesus; and not the words of Luke the Evangelist, recording what followed upon his account of John's baptism; for then he would have made mention of the apostle's name, as he does in the next verse; and have said, when they heard this account, they were baptized by Paul in the name of the Lord Jesus: the historian reports two things, first what Paul said, which lies in Acts 19:4 then what he did, Acts 19:6 where he repeats his name, as was necessary; as that he laid his hands upon them, which was all that was needful to their receiving the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, having been already baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus: which sense is the more confirmed by the particles ΌεΜ and Ύε, which answer to one another in verses 4 and 5, and show the words to be a continuation of the apostle's speech, and not the words of the historian, which begin in the next verse. Beza's ancient copy adds, "for the remission of sins".
Based upon this commentary by one of the greatest commentators of all time, it is certainly not absolutely certain that there was in fact a re-baptism. Also, there have been others who have agreed with Dr. Gill. The Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary says:
Beza, Calixtus, Calov., Suicer, Glass., Buddeus, Wolf, and al., wishing to wrest this weapon out of the hands of the Anabaptists, oddly enough suppose this verse to belong still to Paul’s discourse, and to mean, ‘and the people when they heard him (John), were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.’
Besides Dr. Gill, many of these men were Greek scholars, such as Theodore Beza. They believed that "when they heard this" referred to people hearing John's message and were the words of Paul. Of course, there are other Greek scholars who disagree and think that "when they heard this" are the words of Luke the historian and refers to the twelve disciples hearing Paul's words.
For instance, in "The Expositor's Greek Testament" we read:
Acts 19:5. áŒÎºÎ¿ÏÏαΜÏÎµÏ ÎŽáœ²: neither grammatical nor in accordance with fact can these words be regarded (as by Beza and others) as part of St. Paul’s words, as if they meant, “and the people when they heard him,” i.e., John.
Not being expert on Greek particles, I cannot say yea or nay on this point. Gill is just as strong on the Greek. Recall that he said - "which sense is the more confirmed by the particles ΌεΜ and Ύε, which answer to one another in verses 4 and 5."
Further, on the grammatical argument, Gill also gave good arguments for why "when they heard that" cannot be the words of Luke the historian. Recall he said - "not the words of Luke the Evangelist, recording what followed upon his account of John's baptism; for then he would have made mention of the apostle's name, as he does in the next verse; and have said, when they heard this account, they were baptized by Paul in the name of the Lord Jesus: the historian reports two things, first what Paul said, which lies in Acts 19:4 then what he did, Acts 19:6 where he repeats his name, as was necessary." All this makes sense also.
Luke, as an historian, is very careful in marking the places where Paul is speaking or doing something and where someone else is speaking or doing. He was very careful in writing so that readers would know when he was quoting the words of another and when he was recording his own words. This is clear in the context of our disputed passage. In the passage he would begin Paul's words by saying "he said." When he was giving the words of the twelve disciples, Luke would say "they said." All this lends credence to Gill's interpretation.
It seems to me that there is nothing defective in their prior baptism. They were "disciples" and "believers" at the time of their baptism. Such a baptism was "unto" Christ the Messiah. They were immersed. And, there is nothing said about their baptism being invalid due to an unqualified administrator. So, if they were re-baptized by Paul, then why? Those who affirm the fact of re-baptism must tell us why it was done. Some say that it was because the baptism of John was no longer valid. But, this cannot be the case, for then we would read of all the original apostles being re-baptized. Some say that they were re-baptized because they were not true believers in Jesus when they were first baptized. But, this is assumption. The text calls them both disciples and believers with no idea that their faith was not genuine. Some argue that their not knowing about the Holy Spirit was proof of their not being saved. But, this too is not tenable. Many believe that their statement that they had not heard whether there be a Holy Spirit means not that they did not know of the Holy Spirit but that it had been given, as it was on Pentecost. This is entirely plausible. (See John 7: 39)
In summation we must acknowledge that this passage affords no warrant for the re-baptism of those who are judged to have had an unqualified administrator.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)