Is the Great Commission for us today?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Don,

How can the 1644 testimony be sufficient to show disagreement with the view set forth in the WCF when the WCF had not been done yet? Remember it came in 1646. Plus the purpose of the 1644 was different than the WCF. The 1644 was written to give an answer to the charge of heresy to some who were publishing tracts accusing the Particular Baptists of anabaptist heresies and uprisings. The 1644 was not written to be a definitive confession of Particular Baptist Theology as much as it was a defense that they were not heretics.

Sorry for the confusion. I meant the testimony of the 1689 was sufficient to show disagreement with the WCF. Besides changing the WCF to believer's baptism, the 1689 also eliminated the term "sacrament" and rewrote the section on the sacraments only being administered by lawfully ordained clergy that KMK cited.
 
Don,

How can the 1644 testimony be sufficient to show disagreement with the view set forth in the WCF when the WCF had not been done yet? Remember it came in 1646. Plus the purpose of the 1644 was different than the WCF. The 1644 was written to give an answer to the charge of heresy to some who were publishing tracts accusing the Particular Baptists of anabaptist heresies and uprisings. The 1644 was not written to be a definitive confession of Particular Baptist Theology as much as it was a defense that they were not heretics.

Sorry for the confusion. I meant the testimony of the 1689 was sufficient to show disagreement with the WCF. Besides changing the WCF to believer's baptism, the 1689 also eliminated the term "sacrament" and rewrote the section on the sacraments only being administered by lawfully ordained clergy that KMK cited.

BTW, Here is a link to Dr. Renihan's article 'The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith in its Historical and Theological Context'.

The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith in its Historical and Theological Context

BTW, the 1689 is closer in relation to the Savoy Declaration. When comparing the two together you see it is the one that the Particular Baptist's used as a main confession to compare with.
 
Sorry for the confusion. I meant the testimony of the 1689 was sufficient to show disagreement with the WCF. Besides changing the WCF to believer's baptism, the 1689 also eliminated the term "sacrament" and rewrote the section on the sacraments only being administered by lawfully ordained clergy that KMK cited.

BTW, Here is a link to Dr. Renihan's article 'The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith in its Historical and Theological Context'.

The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith in its Historical and Theological Context

BTW, the 1689 is closer in relation to the Savoy Declaration. When comparing the two together you see it is the one that the Particular Baptist's used as a main confession to compare with.

Thank you for the link. It should be noted that the Savoy follows the WCF on paedobaptism, the use of the term "sacrament," and that baptism is only to be administered by lawfully ordained clergy. The 1689 departs from both the WCF and the Savoy in those portions of the confession.
 
Don,

Do you know the position of the PB's that framed the Confession? I would be interested in knowing? I will find out what Dr. Renihan says.
 
The 1689

28.2 These holy appointments are to be administered by those who are qualified and called to do so, according to the commission of Christ.1

(1) Mat_24:45-51; Luk_12:41-44; 1Co_4:1; Tit_1:5-7


2. These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ.



I looks like the verses that are attached for proof texts to the 1689 lead to defining leadership in the Church as the administers of the ordinances / sacraments.

(Mat 24:45) Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?

(Mat 24:46) Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.

(Mat 24:47) Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods.

(Mat 24:48) But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;

(Mat 24:49) And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken;

(Mat 24:50) The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,

(Mat 24:51) And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
(Luk 12:41) Then Peter said unto him, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all?

(Luk 12:42) And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season?

(Luk 12:43) Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.

(Luk 12:44) Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.

(1Co 4:1) Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.

(Tit 1:5) For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:

(Tit 1:6) If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

(Tit 1:7) For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;

BTW, Here is a nice link that has all three lined up next to each other.

Comparison of Three Confessions
 
Where does this quote come from?

London Baptist Confession of Faith: "The person designed by Christ to dispense baptism, the Scripture holds forth to be a disciple; it being no where tied to a particular church officer, or person extraordinarily sent the commission enjoining the administration, being given to them as considered disciples, being men able to preach the gospel."

And BTW, Women would not have been considered lawful administers of Baptism.

Never mind. I know it is the 1644.
 
Last edited:
Where does this quote come from?

London Baptist Confession of Faith: "The person designed by Christ to dispense baptism, the Scripture holds forth to be a disciple; it being no where tied to a particular church officer, or person extraordinarily sent the commission enjoining the administration, being given to them as considered disciples, being men able to preach the gospel."

It comes from article 41 of the 1646 LBC. Unlike Don, I think they are confessing that the 'efficiency' of baptism is not tied to any particular church or pastor. The 'True Confession' would seem to support this, but you are correct in that the case could be settled once and for all by studying the writings of those 17th century PBs.
 
BTW, I would like to point out...

LBC 1646 XLI.

The person designed by Christ to dispense baptism, the Scripture holds forth to be a disciple; it being no where tied to a particular church officer, or person extraordinarily sent the commission enjoining the administration, being given to them as considered disciples, being men able to preach the gospel.

Although it says it is no where tied to a particular church officer, it does say that the person dispensing the baptism has been 'designed' by Christ for that purpose.

The OED on 'designed'...

Marked out, appointed, planned, purposed, intended...

So its not just that the dispenser must be a disciple, but he must be marked out from a larger group of disciples for that purpose. Whose job is it to recognize who is marked out? The church.
 
Although it says it is no where tied to a particular church officer, it does say that the person dispensing the baptism has been 'designed' by Christ for that purpose.

The OED on 'designed'...

Marked out, appointed, planned, purposed, intended...

So its not just that the dispenser must be a disciple, but he must be marked out from a larger group of disciples for that purpose. Whose job is it to recognize who is marked out? The church.

Hmmm. I don't think it is necessarily proper to read every definition from the OED back into the word "designed." Why can't the word simply mean "intended" and not necessarily "marked out"? Why does it have to entail the church recognizing? God designed apples to be eaten, but surely the church doesn't have to mark out apples to be eaten.

Not to get too far off topic, but it's sort of the same argument that paedos use for baptism, that since baptizo can also mean to wash, that sprinkling must also be a valid mode of baptism. I don't think a word necessarily has to mean everything in your dictionary or lexicon.
 
Although it says it is no where tied to a particular church officer, it does say that the person dispensing the baptism has been 'designed' by Christ for that purpose.

The OED on 'designed'...

Marked out, appointed, planned, purposed, intended...

So its not just that the dispenser must be a disciple, but he must be marked out from a larger group of disciples for that purpose. Whose job is it to recognize who is marked out? The church.

Hmmm. I don't think it is necessarily proper to read every definition from the OED back into the word "designed." Why can't the word simply mean "intended" and not necessarily "marked out"? Why does it have to entail the church recognizing? God designed apples to be eaten, but surely the church doesn't have to mark out apples to be eaten.

Not to get too far off topic, but it's sort of the same argument that paedos use for baptism, that since baptizo can also mean to wash, that sprinkling must also be a valid mode of baptism. I don't think a word necessarily has to mean everything in your dictionary or lexicon.

YIKES! :worms::worms:

Sorry, but I just received my OED and I can't put it down. Either way, we agree that the writers of the 1st LBC, who, according to Renihan, are mostly the same as the writers of the 2nd LBC, confessed that any one who was going to dispense the baptism must be a disciple who Christ 'designed' (intended) for that purpose.

My question is, whose responsibility, according to 17th century PBs, was it to decide which disciple was intended by Christ to dispense the baptism? Was it the baptizee? And by what criteria would a disciple be judged as to whether he was 'intended' by Christ to dispense a particular baptism? Right place at the right time? Would 17th century PBs think that my 10 year old daughter was 'intended' by Christ to baptize people? If so, what criteria did they use and where did they write them down?
 
Here is what Dr. Renihan wrote on this topic. I got permission from him through Rich Barcellos to take this off of the RBlist.

It seems that there continues to be a misunderstanding of the 1644/46
doctrine on the administrators of baptism.

Here is an edited
portion of a post that I made in 1997:

The text of the 1644 edition is as follows (taken from Lumpkin, page
167): "The persons designed by Christ, to dispense this Ordinance, the
Scriptures hold forth to be a preaching Disciple, it being no where tyed
to a particular Church, Officer, or person extraordinarily sent, the
Commission injoyning the administration, being given to them under no
other consideration, but as considered Disciples."

The text of the 1646 edition is: "The person designed by Christ to
dispense baptism, the Scripture holds forth to be a disciple; it being
no where tied to a particular church officer, or person extraordinarily
sent the commission enjoining the administration, being given to them as
considered disciples, being men able to preach the gospel."

The [1646] revisions came largely due to the strictures published by
Daniel Featley in his book "The Dipper's Dip't and Plunged over Head and Heels
. . ." Featley said "A preaching disciple, sounds as harshly as a
Scholar Master, or a Lecturing hearer. . . ." (pg. 183). This was the
fifth of his strictures aimed at the 1644 Confession. The Baptists
revised their statements in response to Featley and published the 1646
edition.

Now, notice carefully what they did in the revision. The 1644 edition
stated that the adminstrator of baptism was to be a "preaching
disciple." This was a reference to the individuals described in article

XLV, who later came to be known as "gifted brethren." [brief
digression: there was a controversy between the high presbyterians and
the Independents and Baptists over who could properly preach. The HP's
said that only educated ordained clergy could preach. The I's and B's
said that gifted men, tried and approved by the church, could rightly
preach. These were the gifted brethren. Under NO circumstances was
anyone allowed to preach who had not been tried and approved by the
churches. They all had a very high view of the preaching office.]
Featley criticized the expression, so they changed it by moving it to
the end of the article "being given to them as considered disciples,
BEING MEN ABLE TO PREACH THE GOSPEL." It is simply a more elegant way of
saying the same thing. They did not believe or practice that any church
member could baptize; nor did they restrict the administration of the
ordinance to elders alone; they believed and practiced that the men who
were recognized by the church as officers, teachers and preachers were
allowed to baptize, but not all of the members.

To confirm this, notice the words of Hanserd Knollys, writing in his
1646 book "The Shining of a Flaming Fire in Zion" (page 9): "We do not
affirm, that every common disciple may baptize, there was some mistake
[by his opponent--JMR] in laying down our opinion. . . . Where it is
conceived, that we hold, Whatsoever Disciple can teach the word, or make
out Christ may Baptize, and administer the orinances. We do not do so;
for though believing Women being baptized are Disciples, Act. 9.36. and
can make out Christ; yea, and some of them (by their experimental
knowledge and spiritual understanding of the way, order, & faith of the
Gospel) may be able to instruct their teachers, Acts 18.26. Rom. 16.3.
yet we do not hold , that a woman may preach, baptize, nor administer
other Ordinances. Nor do we judge it meet, for any brother to baptize,
or to administer other ordinances; unless he have received such gifts of
the spirit, as fitteh or enableth him to preach the Gospel. And those
gifts being first tried by, and known to the church, such a brother is
chosen, and appointed thereunto by the suffrage of the church."

The administration of the ordinances was not tied to office, but to
recognized preachers. Thus, the 1st LCF does not endorse the notion
that any disciple may baptize.

This is the same doctrine as the 1677/89 LCF.

Jim Renihan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top