Authoritative interpretation of Baptism in the 1689

[timmopussycat]

But your analysis of the cb view may not held by all, if any, RB's.

Please read Dagg on the local and universal church. He uses the antipaedobaptist view of local visible churches to substantiate his arguments as to why "unbaptised" professors cannot be in communion with "baptised" churches and still be recognised as being in Christ.

As noted before by me and Bill Dagg is not of confessional authority. The parallel on the other side would be a claim that than Shaw or Hodge is of Confessional authority for Presbyterians. And, as noted ad nauseam, the 1677/89 does not take a stand on the matter for reasons given in the Appendix.

That Dagg does not recognize a pb church as being biblically ordered is not news. But I havn't been able to find anywhere that he denies pb's the brotherly recognition as men "in Christ". Certainly he doesn't do so in the following passage (from Founders Ministries | Manual of Church Order - Ch. 2)

"Objection 2.--If baptism is a prerequisite to church-membership, societies of unbaptized persons cannot be called churches; and the doctrine, therefore, unchurches all Pedobaptist denominations.

Church is an English word; and the meaning of it, as such, must be determined by the usage of standard English writers. Our inquiry has been, not what this English word means, or how it may be used. We have sought to know how Christ designed his churches to be organized. This is a question very different from a strife about words to no profit. In philological inquiries, we are willing to make usage the law of language; and we claim no right, in speaking or writing English, to annul this law. But our inquiry has not been philological. We have not been searching English standard.writers, to know how to speak; but the Holy Bible, to know how to act. Even the Greek word ecclesia was applied to assemblies of various kinds; and we are bound to admit the application of it to an assembly of unbaptized persons, solemnly united in the worship of God. But we have desired to know how an ecclesia, such as those to which Paul's epistles were addressed, was organized; and we have investigated the subject as a question of duty, and not of philology. The result of our investigation is, that every such ecclesia was composed of baptized persons exclusively"

If modern "Baptists" have come to be influenced by the Presbyterian view then I can only be thankful for a more biblical approach being adopted.

Than we are happy that we have provided you with reason to be thankful.

 

[Herald]

Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that the framers of the confession considered paedobaptists, who professed faith in Jesus Christ, to be visible saints and members of true churches to the extent that they were actually in fellowship with a local church that preached the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Bill, we cannot understand each other while "visible" as an adjective of "church" is not properly explained and applied. I have tried to introduce threads in which that word and its consequences have been discussed by antipaedobaptist authors. While I am thankful for the more Presbyterian understanding of "church" that is influencing the Calvinistic revival amongst antipaedobaptists, I see little point continuing a discussion where the actual tradition itself is not permitted to speak.

Matthew, I have to concur that an impasse may have been reached. I grow a bit frustrated when confessional Baptists are considered part and parcel with Calvinistic Baptists. The two are not always the same thing. As a confessional Baptist I am am critical of more than a few things written by other Baptist authors. But even if there are Baptist authors who disagree on the visible saints/church, what exactly does that prove? It proves they disagree. I suppose this is where I become a bit frustrated dealing with your argumentation.

 

[MW]

But I havn't been able to find anywhere that he denies pb's the brotherly recognition as men "in Christ".

I said, "and still be recognised as being in Christ."

 

[timmopussycat]

But I havn't been able to find anywhere that he denies pb's the brotherly recognition as men "in Christ".

I said, "and still be recognised as being in Christ."

Sorry, was in a bit of a rush when I typed that, but where does Dagg deny pb's recognition as "being in Christ"?

 

[MW]

Sorry, was in a bit of a rush when I typed that, but where does Dagg deny pb's recognition as "being in Christ"?

He doesn't. As stated, and as clarified, he sets forth his explanation so as professors only baptised as infants may "still be recognised as being in Christ." How many times must one say the same thing? I'm finished.

 

[timmopussycat]

I hope I understand you correctly, but if I'm wrong, I'm really confused. For you originally wrote:

Please read Dagg on the local and universal church. He uses the antipaedobaptist view of local visible churches to substantiate his arguments as to why "unbaptised" professors cannot be in communion with "baptised" churches and still be recognised as being in Christ.

but now you write?

He doesn't. As stated, and as clarified, he sets forth his explanation so as professors only baptised as infants may "still be recognised as being in Christ." How many times must one say the same thing? I'm finished.

The original comment appears to say that Dagg held that "unbaptised" professors cannot be in communion with "baptised" (Baptist?) churches and still be recognized as being in Christ."

If the conjuncton in the original comment had been "while" or "yet," instead of "and" it would have been clear that the writer believed Dagg to be saying 2 things: although pb's cannot be in communion w. Baptist churches, yet pb's can still be recognized as brothers in Christ. However, the conjunction "and" in the initial comment effectively continues the denial present in the first clause over to the second clause so one reads the summary as attributing to Dagg a denial of both possibilities, something I hope you did not intend to do.

 

[timmopussycat]

1. According to William Joseph McGlothlin, “Baptist confessions of faith,” p. 218, 219: “Among the many important things done by this first Assembly was the approval of this Confession, a second edition of which had appeared in 1688, and the recommending of its perusal both by other Christians and by their own members. It was published without the appendix of the original edition, and with the following, extracted from their minutes, prefixed... In this form this production became the most influential and important of all Baptist Confessions."

Having examined Underhill's collection of Confessions it appears that McGlothlin's statement which I have emboldened cannot be substantiated unless he possessed a copy/copies which did not include the Appendix. The Underhill collection contains a 1688 Confession with an Appendix on Baptism. The microfilm of the 1688 edition corroborates that the Appendix was included, for the title reads as follows: "A Confession of faith [microform]: put forth by the elders and brethren of many congregations of Christians, (baptized upon profession of their faith) in London and the country: with an appendix concerning Baptism. Publisher: London. Printed for John Harris ..., 1688." As with the 1677 edition, it concludes without signatories. The Bible Researcher website contains the 1689 insert after the Appendix. This is misleading. The 1689 insert precedes the Confession in Underhill's collection; it only recommends the Confession and makes no substantive comment on the Appendix on Baptism. The Appendix on Baptism does not therefore add anything concerning the original intent of the 1689 subscribers.

I missed this the first time around. The 1677 Confession was, as noted above reprinted in 1688 with the Appendix. As James M Renihan has noted, however, (Confessional Subscription in early Baptist History (Part 2) Reformed Baptist Fellowship) it ...

... is curious that though the document is commonly known as the 1689 Confession, I can find no bibliographic evidence that it was printed in that year. It was published in 1677, 1688, and 1699. See Donald Wing, Short-Title Catalogue of Books Printed in England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and British America and of English Books Printed in Other Countries 1641-1700, 2d ed., (New York: The Index Committee of the Modern Language Association of America, 1972), 1:369.

If the Confession was not reprinted in 1689, the 1689 preface therefore refers to and commeds either the 1677 original or the 1688 reprint of the Confession both of which contained the Appendix. The Appendix, in so far as it comments on the Confession, must be seen as the authoritative interpretation thereof.

And, as the 1677/1688 Appendix notes, the Baptists were divided on whether or not church communion was possible with pbs. The 1677/88 Confession does not take one side or the other in that controversy, but in defining local church membership as it does, it allows local churches to make a determination of that question for themselves. That is why ardent separatists like Knollys and Kiffin could sing the Preface recommending a Confession with an Appendix recommending communion, because that recommedation had been specifically made of less than Confessional authority.