May 6, 2017 by Jeff Davis

Charles Spurgeon’s Ministry and Role in the “Down Grade” Controversy

Throughout the history of the church, God has called and equipped individuals to stand opposed to apostasy and indifference, which attempts to cause moral and doctrinal decay. During the late nineteenth century, such an occasion arose as many so-called English Baptist pastors became so infatuated with worldly pursuits that many churches stopped engaging in prayer meetings and some even went as far as hosting dramas in the house of God. Charles Haddon Spurgeon was the man God called and equipped to shine the light of truth on the moral and doctrinal decay of the nineteenth century, which sought not only to “downgrade” the Baptist denomination, but also the life-saving gospel message of Jesus Christ.

Spurgeon was a man of humble beginnings, but someone who the Lord used greatly to preserve and spread the Word of God. This paradigm is seen throughout Scripture, which always leads one to the conclusion that it could only have been God working through the individual to accomplish what had been done. By looking back to Spurgeon’s upbringing, influences, and calling to ministry, the aim of this paper will detail how Spurgeon developed his faith, which led to his strong convictions and captivating preaching style. In addition to the many contributions Spurgeon made to Baptists, this paper will also look at the climate of Darwinism and Liberalism and how these theories and philosophies impacted the church. Lastly, this paper will highlight the long-lasting impacts of the “Down Grade” controversy and the legacy Spurgeon has left behind. The commitment, exhibited by Spurgeon, to moral and doctrinal purity is just as relevant to the church today as it was during the nineteenth century. Just as there was a multiplicity of factors attempting to oppose or water down the message of the gospel, the climate of the present-day church is much the same, if not worse. It will take men and women with the zeal and commitment of Spurgeon to combat these forces, in an effort, to transform the world, instead of being conformed by it. There are some hills worth dying on and for Spurgeon this was evident in everything he practiced, preached, and his resolve in the “Down Grade” controversy.

HIS CALLING

Born into an Anglican household in Kelvedon, Essex, in 1834, Spurgeon would experience a life-changing conversion at a young age. God would use general revelation, in the form of a snowstorm to force Spurgeon to take shelter in Newtown, Colchester and it would be in a Methodist chapel that God illuminated the special revelation of His word, thus opening Spurgeon’s heart to the life-saving message of salvation. John Pitt further enlightens how, “Spurgeon’s conversion was as dramatic as any found in the history of Christian centuries and was entirely true to the evangelical tradition. Although only sixteen when the great transaction took place, young Spurgeon was under very deep conviction of sin – much like John Bunyan’s conversion experience, it was an emotional crisis of the most severe kind.”[1] Spurgeon believed salvation required a radical change and, “This change is a thorough and sweeping one, and operates upon the heart, and life of the convert… [And] the Bible is meant for mankind, and our text refers to any man, of any country, and any age.”[2] An early Scripture which captivated Spurgeon was Isaiah 45:22: “Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.” Spurgeon and John Oswalt reveal how this passage illustrates, “There is a call to experience the same salvation that the Israelites have experienced. To be sure, that experience is predicated on a turning around and looking to the Lord in trust.”[3] As a show of trust in God’s plan, Spurgeon moved to Cambridge, England where he engaged in teaching Sunday school. Not knowing what the future held for Spurgeon, his first sermon actually occurred by filling in for a friend and it was given in a small cottage in Teversham. Shortly after, Spurgeon would become the pastor of a small Baptist church in Waterbeach, Cambridgeshire, which is where his first published gospel tract was produced in 1853. Early in his ministry, his preaching style and ability stood him apart from his contemporaries and by the age of nineteen, Spurgeon would become the pastor of London’s largest Baptist congregation, the New Park Street Chapel. Over the course of his life, it is estimated Spurgeon preached close to four thousand sermons and has close to fifty published works ranging from commentaries to sermons and devotionals. Spurgeon’s style of preaching attracted crowds of up to ten thousand people at the young age of twenty-two. Each week, he would write out his sermons and at the pulpit he would simply use an outline of the message, while stenographers transcribed the sermon, which would later be sold for a penny. To this day, these publications remain one of the most widely circulated and best selling publications.

CONTRIBUTION TO BAPTISTS

Spurgeon practiced what he preached and he taught believers how to find instruction everywhere and even how to gather lessons from unpleasant circumstances. Spurgeon illustrates, “Many are stung by nettles, but few are taught by them. Some men are hurt by briers, but Solomon was improved by them, so do not begin stinging yourself with nettles, grip them firmly, and then use them for your soul’s health. Trials and troubles, worries and turmoils, little frets and little disappointments, may all help you if you will look upon them and receive instruction.”[4] During his ministry, Spurgeon came under fire when he challenged the Church of England on the matter of baptismal regeneration, but due to his resolve, he never backed down. Craig Skinner reveals, “Theologically, Spurgeon’s greatest facility was his ability to declare the paradox of God’s will working in conjunction with man’s… reaching into heights and depths of argument and illustration well beyond many of his contemporaries.”[5] He had an overly compassionate heart and believed firmly in the missional responsibility of the local church and Spurgeon was very good friends with James Hudson Taylor, the founder of the China Inland Mission. He was also very active in opposing slavery, which was a major issue facing America, which ultimately caused him to lose the support of the Southern Baptist Convention. Spurgeon believed:

Not so very long ago our nation tolerated slavery in our colonies. Philanthropists endeavored to destroy slavery; bat when was it utterly abolished? It was when Wilberforce roused the church of God, and when the church of God addressed herself to the conflict, then she tore the evil thing to pieces. I have been amused with what Wilberforce said the day after they passed the Act of Emancipation. He merrily said to a friend when it was all done, ‘Is there not something else we can abolish?’ That was said playfully, but it shows the spirit of the church of God. She lives in conflict and victory; her mission is to destroy everything that is bad in the land.[6]

Just because something was popular or just because the majority was of the opinion the action was justified did not mean it was so in God’s eye and the debate over slavery was such an instance. Gregory Wills illuminates how Spurgeon’s ecclesiology rested squarely on the experience of regeneration. Wills explains, “[Spurgeon’s] commitment to the centrality of regeneration (new birth) shaped his ecclesiology from local polity to evangelical union. [Additionally,] Spurgeon’s church polity included three commitments: regenerate church membership, believer’s baptism, and congregational church polity.”[7] These three pillars of the church were fundamental in Spurgeon’s organizational methods and he believed each of these was revealed in Scripture. Regeneration was where Spurgeon’s Baptist identity grew out from, but because of his stand for orthodoxy, he would eventually withdraw from the Baptist Union in 1887. This was in part due to the Baptist Union allowing modernist ministers in its membership, which Spurgeon believed weakened regeneration. Wills further demonstrates, “As modernism grew more popular, American Baptists based their ecclesiology increasingly on evangelical essentials, [so] when Spurgeon withdrew, the hailed him as a great Baptist Champion.”[8]

Spurgeon believed Christ established the church according to a pattern, which made the polity of the church a matter of revelation and not one of expediency. This led to a Tabernacle process, which examined the life, character, and testimony of applicants before membership was granted. Spurgeon also held to the notion that Christ required congregational church government or independency. This would allow a certain level of autonomy, thus allowing churches the capability of exercising all the functions of a church of Christ. Spurgeon also believed each church should be able to appoint a minister instead of the common ordination process. He also believed in the distinction between elders and deacons of the church. Elders, he believed, should counsel others and help those searching for the way to salvation and also care for the sick and needy. Deacons, then, should be responsible for the finances, logistics of the service, and the maintaining of church discipline. Pitts adds, “Spurgeon’s ministry was Christo-centric, [because] for him, every road led to Christ. However he dealt with a text – and he was a master of the art of homiletics – it was always full of the gospel; and no sermon ended without bringing the hearers face-to-face with the claims and challenge of the Lord of all Good Life.”[9] Interestingly, Spurgeon would not offer a traditional altar call at the conclusion of his services; instead, he would invite them to come back on Monday to visit him in his office. However, he would invite those down who had already made a commitment to following and serving the Lord.

DOWN GRADE CONTROVERSY

William Estep illuminates how, “Spurgeon lived in an age conditioned by an intellectual and a religious climate quite different from our own.”[10] With his tremendous fame and the high-demand for his sermons, he encountered some harsh criticism, especially in the climate and landscape of Darwinism and Liberalism. Spurgeon saw through the facade and recognized how these theories and philosophies were attempting to weaken the Baptist faith. These were hills worth dying on and Spurgeon believed, “Assuredly the New Theology can do no good towards God or man; it, has no adaption for it. If it were preached for a thousand years by all the most earnest men of the school, it would never renew a soul, nor overcome pride in a single human heart.”[11] Leon McBeth cites the “Down Grade” as being the most serious controversy faced by the English Baptists in the late nineteenth century. McBeth then reveals how, “The controversy broke out in London and swirled around two outstanding Baptist leaders, Charles Haddon Spurgeon and John Clifford. Historians reckon that the controversy ended with the death of Spurgeon in 1892, but its consequences have still continued.”[12] The controversy led to a split from the Union, resulting in Spurgeon’s church being the largest self-standing church. Against this backdrop, Dennis Swanson explains, “At the height of the Down-Grade Controversy Spurgeon and others created and signed a statement of faith stating the doctrines that distinguished them from those in the Baptist Union who were on the “down grade.” In 1891, The Sword and Trowel published the statement, which dealt with the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures.”[13] Swanson then expounds how the “Down Grade” Controversy might have begun with the publication of two articles in Spurgeon’s widely distributed monthly journal, The Sword and Trowel, but were actually the product of Spurgeon’s close friend Robert Shindler. It was in this publication that Spurgeon, “Inserted a footnote on the first page of each of the “Down Grade” articles where he called for ‘earnest attention’ on the part of the readers, with the urgent warning that ‘we are going down hill at break-neck speed.’”[14] The first article addressed the issue of nonconformist churches falling prey to theological error and despite the churches being established as Calvinistic in faith, rarely would any last past two to three generations. Swanson then shows how, “The second article continued the discussion of theological “Down Grade” concentrating on the Baptist churches [pointing out] earlier church leaders, although themselves sound in doctrine, had not been sufficiently bold to confront error.”[15] Spurgeon and Shindler believed, “The first step astray is a want of adequate faith in the divine inspiration of the sacred Scriptures. All the while a man bows to the authority of God’s Word, he will not entertain any sentiment contrary to its teaching.”[16] On the last point of a departure from Calvinistic doctrine, Shindler and Spurgeon seem more concerned about adhering to core evangelical truths and biblical inspiration than adhering to Calvinism. It also seems clear that Spurgeon had no aim in reopening old wounds over the Calvinist-Arminian debates. In fact, Spurgeon actually wrote, “The present struggle is not a debate upon the question of Calvinism or Arminianism, but of the truth of God versus the inventions of men. All who believe the gospel should unite against that ‘modern thought’ which is its deadly enemy.”[17] During the entire controversy, Spurgeon is consistently seen striving for unity, but not at the expense of compromising the gospel message or core doctrinal beliefs. Even when he withdrew from the Union, it was done in an endeavor to maintain unity. The Union did not feel the same and issued a vote of censure against Spurgeon as a final blow in the controversy, leading many to revere him as a martyr to the faith.

Throughout the Down Grade controversy, Swanson explains how the charge was made that “Spurgeon was motivated by his desire to force conformity within the Union to his Calvinistic theology.”[18] At this point in the controversy, Spurgeon was surprised by the reaction his articles had received and in many ways by the lack of any reaction. Spurgeon grieved, “A new religion has been initiated, which is no more Christianity than chalk is cheese.”[19] However, Spurgeon steadfastly refuted this charge, declaring: “Certain antagonists have tried to represent the ‘Down-Grade’ controversy as a revival of the old feud between Calvinists and Arminians. It is nothing of the kind. Many evangelical Arminians are as earnestly on our side as men can be.”[20] Even when other Separatist Baptists tried to convince him to start a new denomination, he declined saying, “There are denominations enough. A new denomination would not be any safer than the old – heretics could enter a new one as well as an old.”[21] Battling the moral and doctrinal decay within the denomination took a toll on Spurgeon, as Estep further explains how, “The Down Grade Controversy took a greater toll on Spurgeon’s life and ministry than any other similar experience, [yet] when the Baptist leaders asked for documentation [proving Spurgeon’s claims,] he promised to protect the anonymity of his informer, Samuel Harris Booth, Secretary of the Union.”[22] Sworn to confidentiality, Spurgeon was a man of his word and never named names. McBeth believes, “Spurgeon’s refusal to name those who had embraced heresy may have grown out of Spurgeon’s belief if he named them, it would have introduced personalities into the discussion. Further, he pointed out that the Baptist Union had no doctrinal standard except a belief in immersion. [Ultimately,] Spurgeon wanted the Union to adopt a doctrinal statement.” This would have ended the controversy, united the Union, and quite possible extended the life of Spurgeon who died in 1892 at the age of fifty-seven.

In the second article, Spurgeon gave specific examples of how tolerance had led to disaster, writing that the, “Tadpole of Darwinism was hatched in a pew of the old chapel in High Street, Shrewsbury, where Charles Darwin had received his religious training and was first introduced to skepticism by a pastor who was enthralled with Socinianism.”[23] Shindler and Spurgeon attributed the common denominator for those caught up in the “Down Grade” being:

The first step astray is a want of adequate faith in the divine inspiration of the sacred Scriptures. All the while a man bows to the authority of God’s Word, he will not entertain any sentiment contrary to its teaching. ‘To the law and to the testimony,’ is his appeal concerning every doctrine. He esteems that holy Book, concerning all things, to be right, and therefore he hates every false way. But let a man question, or entertain low views of the inspiration and authority of the Bible, and he is without chart to guide him, and without anchor to hold him.[24]

Swanson explains, “During the years of the Down Grade Controversy, Spurgeon repeatedly warned of six areas of “down grade” in evangelical doctrine:

(1) The denial of the verbal inspiration (that is, the inerrancy) of Scripture. (2) The denial of eternal punishment and the affirmation of universalism. (3) The denial of the Trinity, mainly in terms of the rejection of the personality of the Holy Spirit. (4) The movement toward Socinianism or the denial of the deity of Christ and original sin. (5) The denial of the creation account in Genesis in favor of evolution. (6) The unhealthy influence of higher criticism on biblical scholarship, particularly as it relates to the Old Testament.[25]

Spurgeon then summarized his position on the theological trends of his day, stating:

Look at the church of the present day; the advanced school, I mean. In its midst we see preachers who have a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof. They talk of the Lord Jesus, but deny his Godhead, which is His power; they speak of the Holy Spirit, but deny His personality, wherein lies His very existence. They take away the substance and power from all the doctrines of revelation, though they pretend still to believe them. They talk of redemption, but they deny substitution, which is the essence of it; they extol the Scriptures, but deny their infallibility, wherein lies its value; they use the phrases of orthodoxy, and believe nothing in common with the orthodox.[26]

In the third article, the tone took on a sense of urgency, as Shindler continued firing volleys against those engaged in apostasy and Spurgeon warned how this new religion had turned the church into a playhouse, as many were being used for dramas and entertainment purposes. There was plenty of blame to go around; however, Spurgeon placed it firmly on the preachers and modernists, who he believed were destroying the church. MacArthur explains how the focus of the controversy changes because now Spurgeon was suggesting that true believers might have reason to sever ties with those who were propagating the new theology. “In [Spurgeon’s] estimation, the truth of the Word had been so seriously compromised that true Christians needed to consider the command of 2 Corinthians 6:17: ‘Come out of their midst and be separate; and do not touch what is unclean.’”[27] After this, Spurgeon had become utterly obsessed and consumed by the controversy, leading to a decline in his physical health, which the Union used to attack Spurgeon, claiming his rants were that of a desperate and sick man. These personal attacks only fueled Spurgeon’s tenacity, especially considering, an answer or response to the allegations had still not been given by the Union. Spurgeon, a master of illustrations equated what was going on to, “The house is being robbed, its very walls are being dug down, but the good people who are in bed are too fond of the warmth, and too much afraid of getting broken heads, to go downstairs and meet the burglars; they are even half vexed that a certain noisy fellow will spring his rattle, or cry, ‘Thieves!’”[28] The final compromise would revolve around the Union Council adopting a creed. The once popular “no creed but Christ” was no longer enough because as Spurgeon highlighted, “The objection to a creed is a very pleasant way of concealing objection to discipline, and a desire for latitudinarianism. What is wished for is a Union which will, like Noah’s Ark, afford shelter both for the clean and for the unclean, for creeping things and winged fowls.”[29] However, even when a doctrinal statement was adopted, it was vague and bland, due to last minute modifications. MacArthur further demonstrates how, “Just as Spurgeon had warned all along, nothing was to be gained by compromising with the enemies of the gospel. The Baptist Union’s decline was, if anything, accelerated and those who embraced the ‘New Theology’ were emboldened after the Union Assembly, as they now held the reins of the Union.”[30] The ripple effects of this controversy have lasting impacts to this day.

HIS LEGACY

The prince of preachers has left a rich legacy behind. Spurgeon never sugarcoated any message and he always spoke to the heart of the matter. He wanted his listeners to understand, “There is a disease upon you which has already brought you down to spiritual death, and will bring you down to hell. The most moral of you, the most amiable of you, unless Jesus shall look upon you in love, is carrying about within himself a plague of the heart which will be your eternal ruin; Jesus must save you, or you are lost. Man’s only home is to come from Him.”[31] In many of his sermons, illustrations were used to allow light to shine upon the biblical truth being conveyed. Spurgeon said, “There exists no reason why the preaching of gospel should be a miserable task either to the speaker or the hearer. Pleasantly profitable let all our sermons be. A house must not have thick walls without openings, neither must a discourse be all made up of solid slabs of doctrine without a window of comparison or lattice of poetry.”[32] Out of Spurgeon’s immense devotion to God arose a charitable heart towards social concerns. Rooted in this construct, David Duke demonstrates, “The three pillars of Spurgeon’s social concern rest upon: his call for absolute devotion to God in Christ; his concern for the salvation of individual souls; and his emphasis on Christian character which develops from the new nature found in Christ.”[33] Duke reveals how Spurgeon’s life was lived so deeply in Scripture that, “He could not escape the powerful calls for justice and peace, [and] while his primary concern was for individual souls, his compassion for all souls in every dimension of their lives compelled him to speak fervently for radical changes in the attitudes of his society and Union.”[34] Spurgeon always sought the moral high ground in this fight against modernism, but the Baptist Union would never be the same. Spurgeon’s cost in this fight was great, as his friends turned against him, his health declined, and the church he loved was corrupted. While some questioned Spurgeon’s departure from the Union, MacArthur equates Spurgeon staying in the Union to Abraham staying in Ur, in the hope of converting the entire household out of which he was called. Following Spurgeon’s passing, Shindler brilliantly encapsulates the heart and desire of Spurgeon when he wrote, “May the Lord graciously purge His Church of all false doctrine, all false teachers, and all who are traitors in the camp of Israel! And may the Spirit from on high be poured out upon all flesh, that all the ends of the earth may see, and own, and rejoice in, the salvation of our God!”[35]

CONCLUSION

During the late nineteenth century, as many so-called English Baptist pastors became so infatuated with worldly pursuits that many churches stopped engaging in prayer meetings and some even went as far as hosting dramas in the house of God, Charles Haddon Spurgeon arose as the man of God who was called and equipped to shine the light of truth on the moral and doctrinal decay. The “downgrade” of the Baptist denomination, was a hard fought war, one in which ultimately took years off the life of the protagonist. Spurgeon himself warned everyone, “There is truth and there is error and these are opposite the one to the other. Do not indulge yourselves in the folly with which so many are duped-that truth may be error, and error may be truth, that black is white, and white is black, and that there is a whitey-brown that goes in between, which is, perhaps, the best of the whole lot.”[36] Following Spurgeon’s passing, Estep illuminates how “Thomas Spurgeon was reported to have remarked to a Baptist leader that the Union had killed his father, whereupon, the leader replied, ‘and your father almost killed the Union.’”[37] This controversy serves as a stark reminder that if one fails to stand for doctrinal purity, he or she will fall for anything. In today’s climate, tolerance and compromise have become the weapons being used to downgrade the moral and doctrinal purity of the gospel message.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Crocker, Lionel. “CHARLES HADDON SPURGEON’S THEORY OF PREACHING.” Quarterly Journal Of Speech 25, no. 2 (April 1939): 214. Communication & Mass Media Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed May 4, 2017).

Duke, David Nelson. “Charles Haddon Spurgeon: social concern exceeding an individualistic, self-help ideology.” Baptist History And Heritage 22, no. 4 (October 1987): 47-56. ATLASerials, Religion Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed May 5, 2017).

Estep, William Roscoe. “The making of a prophet: an introduction to Charles Haddon Spurgeon.” Baptist History And Heritage 19, no. 4 (October 1984): 3-15. ATLASerials, Religion Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed May 4, 2017).

Hixson, Elijah. “NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM IN THE MINISTRY OF CHARLES HADDON SPURGEON.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 57, no. 3 (09, 2014): 555-70, http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/1565535207?accountid=12085. (accessed May 4, 2017).

MacArthur Jr., John F. “Spurgeon and the Down Grade Controversy,” The Spurgeon Archive Website, http://www.romans45.org/spurgeon/downgrd.htm#16 (accessed May 5, 2017).

May, Lynn E. “The impact of one life: Charles Haddon Spurgeon.” Baptist History and Heritage 19 no. 4(1984): 2.

McBeth, H. Leon. The Baptist Heritage: Four Centuries of Baptist Witness. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic Publishing, 1987.

Oswalt, John N. Oswalt. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament – The Book of Isaiah Chapters 40-66. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976.

Pitts, John. “Genius of Charles Haddon Spurgeon.” Theology Today 6, no. 4 (January 1950): 524-530. ATLASerials, Religion Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed May 4, 2017).

Shindler, Robert. From the Usher’s Desk to the Tabernacle Pulpit: The Life and Labors of Charles Haddon Spurgeon. New York, NY: A. C. Armstrong and Son, 1892.

Skinner, Craig. “The preaching of Charles Haddon Spurgeon.” Baptist History And Heritage 19, no. 4 (October 1984): 16-26. ATLASerials, Religion Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed May 4, 2017).

Spurgeon, Charles Haddon. “A powerful reason for coming to Christ.” Bibliotheca Sacra 99, no. 393 (January 1942): 68-86. ATLASerials, Religion Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed May 4, 2017).

________. Art of Illustration. Auckland, NZ: The Floating Press, 2013. ProQuest ebrary. (accessed May 4,, 2017).

________. Is Conversion Necessary? Pensacola, FL: Generic NL Freebook Publisher, n.d., 1874 eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), (accessed May 4, 2017).

________. Talks To Farmers. Auckland, NZ: The Floating Press, 2013. ProQuest ebrary. (accessed May 4, 2017).

________. The Best War Cry. March 4, 1883. (accessed May 5, 2017).

________. The “Down Grade” Controversy. Pasadena, TX: Pilgrim Publications, 2009.

________. The “Down Grade” Controversy: Collected Materials Which Reveal the Viewpoint of the Late Charles Haddon Spurgeon.

________. The Essential Works of Charles Spurgeon: Selected Books, Sermons, and Other Writings, Edited by Daniel Partner. Uhrichsville, OH: Barbour Publishing, 2009.

________. “The Form of Godliness without the Power,” in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit: Sermons Preached and Revised by C. H. Spurgeon in the Year 1889, repr. ed. Pasadena, TX: Pilgrim Publications, 1975.

________. “A Fragment on the “Down Grade” Controversy.” The Sword and Trowel 23 (1887): 560-565.

________. “Notes,” The Sword and Trowel (April 1887): 190-196

Swanson, Dennis. “The Down Grade Controversy and Evangelical Boundaries: Some Lessons from Spurgeon’s Battle for Evangelical Orthodoxy.” Faith and Mission 20, no. 2 (Spring 2003): 20-33.

_________. “The Millennial Position of Spurgeon.” Master’s Seminary Journal 07, no. 2 (Fall, 1996): 200-211.

Wills, Gregory A. “The ecclesiology of Charles H. Spurgeon: unity, orthodoxy, and denominational identity.” Baptist History and Heritage 34, no. 3 (1999): 67-79. http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?url=http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&sw=w&u=vic_liberty&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA94161024&sid=summon&asid=f18c26f68eff860fdfd2b2c98d45a42e (accessed May 5, 2017).

[1] John Pitts, “Genius of Charles Haddon Spurgeon,” Theology Today 6, no. 4 (January 1950): 524. ATLASerials, Religion Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed May 4, 2017).

[2] Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Is Conversion Necessary? (Pensacola, FL: Generic NL Freebook Publisher, n.d. eBook Collection, 1874), 4. EBSCOhost, (accessed May 4, 2017).

[3] John N. Oswalt, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament – The Book of Isaiah Chapters 40-66 (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 223.

[4] Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Talks To Farmers (Auckland, NZ: The Floating Press, 2013), 5. ProQuest ebrary. (accessed May 4, 2017).

[5] Craig Skinner, “The preaching of Charles Haddon Spurgeon.” Baptist History And Heritage 19, no. 4 (October 1984): 22. ATLASerials, Religion Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed May 4, 2017).

[6] Charles Haddon Spurgeon, The Best War Cry, March 4, 1883. (accessed May 5, 2017).

[7] Gregory A Wills, “The ecclesiology of Charles H. Spurgeon: unity, orthodoxy, and denominational identity,” Baptist History and Heritage 34, no. 3 (1999): 67. http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?url=http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&sw=w&u=vic_liberty&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA94161024&sid=summon&asid=f18c26f68eff860fdfd2b2c98d45a42e (accessed May 5, 2017).

[8] Wills, “The ecclesiology of Charles H. Spurgeon,” 68-69.

[9] Pitts, “Genius of Charles Haddon Spurgeon,” 529.

[10] William Roscoe Estep, “The making of a prophet: an introduction to Charles Haddon Spurgeon,” Baptist History And Heritage 19, no. 4 (October 1984): 3. ATLASerials, Religion Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed May 4, 2017).

[11] Charles Haddon Spurgeon, The “Down Grade” Controversy (Pasadena, TX: Pilgrim Publications, 2009), 2.

[12] H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage: Four Centuries of Baptist Witness (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic Publishing, 1987), 302.

[13] Dennis Swanson, “The Millennial Position of Spurgeon,” Master’s Seminary Journal 07, no. 2 (Fall 1996): 200.

[14] Dennis Swanson, “The Down Grade Controversy and Evangelical Boundaries: Some Lessons from Spurgeon’s Battle for Evangelical Orthodoxy,” Faith and Mission 20, no. 2 (Spring 2003): 20.

[15] Swanson, “The Down Grade Controversy and Evangelical Boundaries,” 22.

[16] Robert Shindler, ‘The Down Grade,” The Sword and Trowel (March 1887): 122.

[17] Charles Haddon Spurgeon, “Notes,” The Sword and Trowel (April 1887): 196.

[18] Swanson, “The Down Grade Controversy and Evangelical Boundaries,” 22.

[19] Charles Haddon Spurgeon, The “Down Grade” Controversy: Collected Materials, Which Reveal the Viewpoint of the Late Charles Haddon Spurgeon, 513-514.

[20] Swanson, “The Down Grade Controversy and Evangelical Boundaries,” 22.

[21] Charles Haddon Spurgeon, “A Fragment on the “Down Grade” Controversy,” The Sword and Trowel 23 (1887): 560.

[22] Estep, “The making of a prophet: an introduction to Charles Haddon Spurgeon,” 13.

[23] Christian George, The Lost Sermons of C. H. Spurgeon Volume I: His Earliest Outlines and Sermons Between 1851 and 1854 (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2017), 332.

[24] John F. MacArthur Jr., “Spurgeon and the Down Grade Controversy,” The Spurgeon Archive Website, http://www.romans45.org/spurgeon/downgrd.htm#16 (accessed May 5, 2017).

[25] Swanson, “The Down Grade Controversy and Evangelical Boundaries,” 29.

[26] Charles Haddon Spurgeon, “The Form of Godliness without the Power,” in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit: Sermons Preached and Revised by C. H. Spurgeon in the Year 1889, repr. ed. (Pasadena, TX: Pilgrim Publications, 1975), 308.

[27] MacArthur Jr., “Spurgeon and the Down Grade Controversy, the final compromise.”

[28] Charles Haddon Spurgeon, “Our Reply to Sundry Critics and Enquirers,” The Sword and the Trowel (September 1887), 461.

[29] Charles Haddon Spurgeon, “The Baptist Union Censure,” The Sword and the Trowel (Feb. 1888), 83.

[30] MacArthur Jr., “Spurgeon and the Down Grade Controversy, the aftermath.”

[31] Charles Haddon Spurgeon, “A powerful reason for coming to Christ,” Bibliotheca Sacra 99, no. 393 (January 1942): 73. ATLASerials, Religion Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed May 4, 2017).

[32] Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Art of Illustration (Auckland, NZ: The Floating Press, 2013), 7. ProQuest ebrary. (accessed May 4,, 2017).

[33] David Nelson Duke, “Charles Haddon Spurgeon: social concern exceeding an individualistic, self-help ideology.” Baptist History And Heritage 22, no. 4 (October 1987): 47. ATLASerials, Religion Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed May 5, 2017).

[34] Duke, “Charles Haddon Spurgeon,” 55.

[35] Robert Shindler, From the Usher’s Desk to the Tabernacle Pulpit: The Life and Labors of Charles Haddon Spurgeon (New York, NY: A. C. Armstrong and Son, 1892), 274.

[36] Charles Haddon Spurgeon, “Three Sights Worth Seeing,” in the MTP 1887, 476.

[37] Estep, “The making of a prophet: an introduction to Charles Haddon Spurgeon,” 13.

May 2, 2017 by Jeff Davis

Doctrine, Theology, and Religion

It should be no surprise with the multiplicity of world religions and various denominations within each that even defining the word doctrine has proven to be problematic. Millard Erickson asserts, “Doctrines consist of genuine knowledge about God, and that religion involves the whole person: intellect, emotions, and will. This view of doctrine and theology has two major advantages: it enables us to account for the full richness and complexity of human religions… [and] it fits more closely the actual understanding of religion and doctrine with which the early church and the authors of Scripture”[1] However, liberation theologians, such as Gustavo Gutiérrez, believe “Religion is clearly pragmatic, concerned with alleviating the injustices within the human race, [making] the role of doctrine speaking to those inequities. Theology, then, becomes a critical reflection on praxis.”[2] Others, like John Hick, take a more subjective view of religion claiming, “The essence of religion is an experience of the one great reality, which he terms the ‘Eternal One.’ Doctrines, then, whether of different religions or of varying denominations within a given religion, are the differing interpretations various groups of people place on this generic experience as they interpret it through the grid of their own culture.”[3] Lastly, postliberals like George Lindbeck hold to a view that “Rejects both the idea that religion consists primarily of its doctrinal teachings in proportional form and that it is primarily an expression of emotional experience. [This cultural-linguistic view] is the idea that religion is a set of categories or teachings that each culture constructs to interpret life and on the basis of which its members function.”[4] Erickson further explains, “Doctrine on this view, is a second-level activity that serves a regulative function. Rather than giving us ontological knowledge about God, doctrines are rules governing the community. [Ultimately,] it does not grow out of experience so much as it shapes it. It is a story, told by its adherents, on the basis of which serves a regulative function.”[5]

The extent to which Christians view the Bible as being, valid, primary, authoritative, and inerrant is the foundational piece to any doctrine. As P. D. Feinberg explains, “The question of authority is central for any theology, [so] biblical inerrancy is [a highly debated topic, which] views that when all the facts become made known, they will demonstrate that the Bible in its original autographs and correctly interpreted is entirely true and never false in all it affirms, whether that relates to doctrine or ethics or to any life sciences.”[6] Erickson similarly defines inerrancy as, “The Bible, when correctly interpreted in light of the level to which culture and the means of communication had developed at the time it was written, and in view of the purposes for which it was given, is fully truthful in all that it affirms.”[7] Through the study of this course, this writer has become more resolute on the topic of inerrancy and believes the Bible makes no false or misleading statements about matters of faith and practice, but admits there are grounds to debate the infallibility of the church’s interpretation and teachings throughout the centuries. Human beings are flawed and Feinberg explains, “Human knowledge is limited in two ways: first, because of our finitude and sinfulness, human beings misinterpret the data that exists; and second, we do not possess all the data that comes to bear on the Bible.”[8] However, when it comes to the Bible, “The writers were under the supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit, which rendered their writings an accurate record of the revelation or that resulted in what they wrote actually being the Word of God.”[9] The main issue faced, throughout history, was how to preserve this revelation and for multiple generations, oral tradition was used, which certainly made it possible for specific details to be modified and/or changed. Because of this and other issues resulting in various scribes’ translations, this writer holds to more of a full inerrancy view. Absolute inerrancy has some questionable areas pertaining to history and science. For example, II Peter 3:8 says, “A day is like a thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years is like a day.”

Feinberg further explains why the doctrine and debate of biblical inerrancy is very relevant to the church today, by illuminating how the Bible is a divine-human book so, “To deny the authority of the original is to undermine the authority of the Bible the Christian has today [and] to deemphasize either side of its authorship is a mistake.”[10] Additionally, biblical inerrancy does not explain how to interpret Scripture; that is the job of hermeneutics; however, it does assert, “Whatever statements the Bible affirms are fully truthful when they are correctly interpreted in terms of their meaning in their cultural setting and the [original] purpose for which they were written.”[11] Erickson adds, “Scripture inspired by God is necessary because it confirms the nature of God’s special revelations through Scripture”[12] and this is one of the primary ways God made Himself known to man. The argument for biblical inerrancy rests on the foundation that the Bible is the inspired Word of God or “God-breathed” (II Timothy 3:16). Additionally, as Erickson illuminates, “If the Bible is not inerrant, then our knowledge of God may be inaccurate and unreliable.”[13] The final argument for the inerrancy of the Bible is Jesus, Paul, and the apostle’s teaching Scripture as though it was authoritative, leading the church to continue that tradition and hold fast to the inerrancy of the Bible. Ultimately, it comes down to one’s belief in the power and authority of God’s Word and whether or not Scripture then leads a person to change his or her behavior and/or conviction.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Elwell, Walter A. ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2^nd Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic Publishing Group, 2001.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 3^rd Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic Publishing Group, 2013.

Frame, John M. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2013.

Gutiérrez, Gustavo. A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1973.

Hick, John. God Has Many Names. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1982.

Lindbeck, George A. The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1984.

[1] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3^rd Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic Publishing Group, 2013), 383.

[2] Gustavo Gutiérrez, A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1973), 6-15.

[3] John Hick, God Has Many Names (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1982), 42-51.

[4] George A. Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1984), 32-41.

[5] Erickson, Christian Theology, 7.

[6] P.D. Feinberg, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2^nd Edition, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic Publishing Group, 2001), 156.

[7] Erickson, Christian Theology, 201-202.

[8] Feinberg, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 156.

[9] Erickson, Christian Theology, 169.

[10] Feinberg, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 159.

[11] Erickson, Christian Theology, 206.

[12] Ibid., 168.

[13] Ibid., 188.

[14] P.D. Feinberg, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2^nd Edition, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic Publishing Group, 2001), 156.

[15] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3^rd Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic Publishing Group, 2013), 169.

[16] P.D. Feinberg, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2^nd Edition, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic Publishing Group, 2001), 157-158.

[17] Ibid.,158.

[18] Ibid., 157-158.

[19] Feinberg, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 159.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Erickson, Christian Theology, 202-205.

[22] Feinberg, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 159.

[23] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3^rd Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic Publishing Group, 2013), 206.

[24] Ibid., 168.

[25] Ibid., 188.

April 20, 2017 by Jeff Davis

Baptists and the Ecumenical Movement: Article Critique

John H. Y. Briggs, formally a professor of Baptist History at the University of Oxford, past chairman of the Baptist World Alliance (BWA), and former editor of The Baptist Quarterly[1] records the role and history of Baptists in the overall scope of the ecumenical movement. Briggs links the origins of the Baptist movement in the history of the Radical Reformation and within the logic of English Separatism, making it difficult not to view the Baptists as being a schismatic movement. The specifics of this journal article summarize how some European Baptists were involved in that movement and the purpose of this critique will be to verify Briggs’ findings.

SUMMARY

Briggs begins by identifying how, “Early Baptists, though separating from State Churches, were well aware of the dangers of becoming isolated and sectarian.”[2] This was a peculiar development in the Baptist movement, as the majority of Baptists during this time period had just escaped persecution from the State Church, yet one of the first things established was a State Church, which led to the ostracizing of many other Baptist groups. Briggs cites E. A. Payne’s analysis of John Owen’s True Nature of a Gospel Church in 1689 as being very influential in this move away from the State Church. Briggs emphasizes this, “Separation from a corrupt state church that was seen as only partially being reformed, was nevertheless anxious to avoid lapsing into sectarianism.”[3] Because of this, the Baptist denomination is often viewed as being separatists, but Briggs’ overall goal seems to be showcasing how even during times of isolation, theological differences, and division, Baptists were still extremely effective in evangelism, and spreading the gospel message domestically and internationally. J. D. Hughey would agree with this statement and adds, “The great majority of Baptists have always felt kinship with large number of other Christians… [and] in a very important sense, Baptists have long been a part of the ecumenical movement.”[4] Christian union was and continues to be a lofty ambition and throughout the history of Baptists, considerable efforts were made to attain unity.

STRENGTHS/WEAKNESSES

Briggs does a worthy job detailing the Baptist’s history and role in the Ecumenical Movement, but very little was mentioned about the patterns of growth and decline. For example, H. Leon McBeth illustrates how, “One of the most persistent and puzzling problems facing English Baptists in the twentieth century has been their steady numerical decline.”[5] However, Briggs provides ample information pertaining to individuals like John Bunyan and Thomas Grantham who were in favor of wider patterns of interrelationship, as well as the interworking of the World Council of Churches (WCC) and the BWA, which Briggs himself served on. These individuals and organizations were vital in defining the two dimensions of ecumenism: international and inter-confessional, changing the ecumenical question of relating to other people who were alike, to relating to other people groups who were nothing alike. Finding common ground, without sacrificing core doctrine would have helped Briggs’ illustration of this dilemma.

As Briggs addresses the issue of persecution and lack of civil rights, he draws an important conclusion, which remains just as relevant today: “Persecution in Eastern Europe [and other parts of the world] has drawn Christians closer together and when the pressure has been removed, old tyrannies have reasserted themselves.”[6] For Baptists, persecution led to the Evangelical Revival and made way for itinerancy and village preaching and overseas missionary endeavors. Unfortunately, the revival also led to problems for the Baptists, but in the end would reemphasize the case for open communion. This was area Briggs should have covered in more detail, since there are still many churches that observe the stance of closed communion. Had Briggs included what reasons led to the case for open communion and the change in tradition, this would have enhanced his details of the Evangelical Revival’s impact on the denomination. Despite that, Briggs uses this landscape, to make a profound assertion that; “Evangelicalism and ecumenism are far from being opposed; rather the one is the child of the other.”[7] In the WCC, Briggs then demonstrates how the Baptists continually worked for peace and reconciliation in a world torn apart by violence and how the Council carries that same faith and commitment today.

CONCLUSION

Briggs accomplishes the task he set out to do and while his list is not exhaustive of Baptist history in the Ecumenical Movement, he has demonstrated the Baptist contribution has been sacrificial, substantial, and often unrecognized.[8] He also clearly articulates how Baptists have continually been open to dialogue with other denominations, in an endeavor to fulfill the Great Commission and reach a lost and hurting world. Briggs could not be more accurate than when he said, “How can we expect an unbelieving world to take us seriously in our talk about a gospel of reconciliation when we remain so obviously un-reconciled one to another?”[9]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Briggs, John H Y. “Baptists and the ecumenical movement.” Journal Of European Baptist Studies 6, no. 1 (September 2005): 11-17. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed April 18, 2017).

Hughey, J. D. “BAPTISTS AND THE ECUMENICAL MOVEMENT.” The Ecumenical Review, 10 (July 1958): 401–410. doi: 10.1111/j.1758-6623.1958.tb01882.x (accessed April 19, 2017).

Manchester Wesley Research Centre Website. http://www.mwrc.ac.uk/briggs/ (accessed April 19, 2017).

McBeth, H. Leon. The Baptist Heritage: Four Centuries of Baptist Witness. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic Publishing, 1987.

[1] Manchester Wesley Research Centre Website. http://www.mwrc.ac.uk/briggs/ (accessed April 19, 2017).

[2] John H. Y. Briggs, “Baptists and the ecumenical movement,” Journal Of European Baptist Studies 6, no. 1 (September 2005): 11. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed April 18, 2017).

[3] Briggs, “Baptists and the ecumenical movement,” 12.

[4] J. D. Hughey, “BAPTISTS AND THE ECUMENICAL MOVEMENT.” The Ecumenical Review, 10 (July 1958): 401. doi: 10.1111/j.1758-6623.1958.tb01882.x (accessed April 19, 2017).

[5] H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage: Four Centuries of Baptist Witness (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic Publishing, 1987), 507.

[6] Briggs, “Baptists and the ecumenical movement,” 13.

[7] Ibid., 14.

[8] Ibid., 16.

[9] Ibid., 17.

April 6, 2017 by Jeff Davis

Need for Ecclesiology and the Believers’ Church: Article Critique

Against the backdrop of America’s Industrial Revolution, Jason Duesing compares President Theodore Roosevelt’s call-to-action in conserving the nation’s natural resources[1] to, “The people of God needing to take action to preserve and protect the doctrine of the church.”[2] America was growing at a rapid rate, yet Roosevelt had the foresight to recognize the immediate threat if changes were not made. Similarly, Duesing seeks to show, “Believers, acting under various constructs – from liberalism to ecumenism to even evangelism – have also engaged in ‘old wasteful methods’ with regard to the ‘natural resources’ of the doctrine of the church.”[3] The purpose of this critique is to assess Duesing’s proposed solution to overcoming indifference and his call to awaken evangelicals toward both ecclesiology and the believers’ church.

SUMMARY

Duesing begins by establishing the widespread doctrinal deterioration that has plagued the local church and contributes this breakdown of the Great Commission[4] to the local church not protecting the gospel message, internal disputes, and attacks from outside the church. Where parachurch organizations thrived in evangelistic outreach efforts, the local church has become sterile in reproducing disciples, even within close proximity. Duesing then proposes the only way the true biblical gospel message will make it to the next generation is the believers’ church.

As the first champions of the believers’ church, since the Constantine Synthesis, Duesing acknowledges the Anabaptists were, “The pioneers of ecclesiological conservatism in an age not of ecclesiological indifference, but of ecclesiological intolerance.”[5] This distinction separated them from the Magisterial Reformers who Leonard Verduin asserts, were primarily only concerned with, “The Anabaptists’ desire to move beyond Church reform to complete restoration of the church to its New Testament origins.”[6] Duesing demonstrates, “The Magisterial Reformers were not looking to make many ecclesiological changes, [but were concerned with] the economic and political ramifications of separating the church from the state.”[7] While the Anabaptists sought to conserve doctrine, Duesing contrasts, “The Magisterial Reformers sought to make membership contingent upon baptism as an infant, [and] just as the State carried the sword for the purpose of maintaining and establishing justice, so too did the Church support the sword for the purpose of maintaining and establishing the truth.”[8] Ultimately, the Anabaptists recognized, “The only way to accomplish biblical purity in the Church was to separate completely from the existing institutions and establish a believers’ church, [which] no longer supported the use of the sword and refused to call for the death penalty even for those with divergent doctrinal views.”[9]

STRENGTHS/WEAKNESSES

Duesing does a worthy job demonstrating the state of affairs within the local church and the need for doctrinal reform. The gospel message has become so diluted and religion in general has turned more into an environment of pleasing people, rather than training and equipping disciples to fulfill the Great Commission. The formation of the believers’ church was truly a radical paradigm shift, rooted biblical teaching. This writer agrees, “For the sake of preserving what is essential for salvation for the next generation, a new call is needed to awaken evangelicals from a state of indifference toward ecclesiology and the believers’ church”[10]

By only briefly touching on the decline of the church, Duesing’s call on believers to see “Ecclesiological Conversation as a Christian Duty” does not paint as vivid of a picture had the failure of maintaining a pure church been better demonstrated. For example, H. Leon McBeth illustrates how, “The eighteenth century proved devastating for the General Baptists, [due] to theological problems, antiquated church practices, and failure to recruit new leaders of stature.”[11] Had this been included in Duesing’s article, another comparison could have been made to the eighteenth century, when the Industrial Revolution changed the way people lived and the Intellectual Revolution challenged the way people viewed God, the universe, and themselves.”[12]

CONCLUSION

Duesing’s use of America, standing on the precipice of its own demise by reckless indifference sets the stage for a solid argument for the need of ecclesiological conservation and a movement towards the believers’ church. Duesing is right, doctrines must be upheld and biblical principles must never be compromised, even for the sake of unity, and the Anabaptists are a great example of what is sometimes needed to form a pure church rooted in biblical teaching.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Duesing, Jason G. “The Believers’ Church: A ‘Natural Resource’ Worth Conserving.” A White Paper from the CTR, Fort Worth, TX: Center for Theological Research, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2006. http://www.baptisttheology.org/baptisttheology/assets/File/BelieversChurch.pdf (accessed April 6, 2017).

McBeth, H. Leon. The Baptist Heritage: Four Centuries of Baptist Witness. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic Publishing, 1987.

Verduin, Leonard. The Reformers and Their Stepchildren. Sarasota, FL: The Christian Hymnary Publishers, reprint 1997.

[1] Theodore Roosevelt, “Conservation as a National Day,” in Conferences of Governors (Washington: G.P.O., 1909), 3-13.

[2] Jason G. Duesing, “The Believers’ Church: A ‘Natural Resource’ Worth Conserving,” A White Paper from the CTR (Fort Worth, TX: Center for Theological Research, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2006), 1.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Matthew 28:16-20

[5] Duesing, “The Believers’ Church: A ‘Natural Resource’ Worth Conserving,” 3.

[6] Leonard Verduin, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren (Sarasota, FL: The Christian Hymnary Publishers, reprint 1997).

[7] Duesing, “The Believers’ Church: A ‘Natural Resource’ Worth Conserving,” 3-4.

[8] Ibid., 4.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Duesing, “The Believers’ Church: A ‘Natural Resource’ Worth Conserving,” 5.

[11] H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage: Four Centuries of Baptist Witness (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic Publishing, 1987), 170.

[12] Ibid., 151.

April 5, 2017 by Jeff Davis

Problem of Evil: Journal Review

The problem of evil in the world has been a topic many scholars have attempted to use to either prove or disprove the existence of God/god(s). It is also one of the few topics all worldviews and religions must deal with and as Norman Geisler reveals, “Of the three major worldviews, Atheism affirms the reality of evil and denies the reality of God. Pantheism affirms the reality of God but denies the reality of evil. And Theism affirms the reality of both God and evil. Herein lies the problem.”[1] From this paradox, Hanson sets out to show how evil can exist with a God that is both omnipotent and benevolent. By reviewing three ontological solutions, Hanson proposes the Neo-Ontological solution to define evil and suffering within a complex structure of being that is analyzed from the standpoints of experience and practice. The purpose of this critique is to assess Jim Hanson’s Neo-Ontological Solution to the problem of evil.

SUMMARY

Hanson acknowledges and describes how evil takes many forms and recognizes, “the existence of evil and suffering presents the problem of believing in the existence of a God that is both able (omnipotent) and willing (benevolent) – namely the theistic God of Christianity.”[2] First, Hanson interacts with David Hume, who used an early argument proposed by Epicurus:

If God is willing to prevent evil but not able, then he is impotent.

If God is able but not willing, then he is malevolent.

If God is both able and willing, then whence come evil?

If he neither able nor willing, then why call him God?[3]

Hanson then raises an important question, “Why would a perfect God create, cause or design an imperfect product, a product that included or tolerated evil?”[4] The substance of this journal article approaches the challenge theists and deists face, which is acknowledging the existence of evil, while also explaining how God can still be omnipotent and benevolent. The first solution Hanson analyzes is the Traditionalist and Modernist Ontological Solution, which include the denial that evil exists or that evil originated from divine human agencies. The second solution Hanson explores is the Postmodernist Ontological Solution, which views humans as being made imperfect, finite, and denied the authenticity of their being. This view displays evil thriving at the heart of being. However, Douglas Groothuis illustrates, “The inconsistencies of postmodernism pose a direct challenge, since the irresolvable diversity of truth claims has no reliable criteria to test these claims against.”[5] The final solution Hanson favors is the Neo-Ontological Solution and Experience. Analogically, this means, “The God experienced through being as the ultimate referent becomes constructed experienced as essence.”[6]

CRITICAL INTERACTION

Hanson presents three ontological solutions to the problem of evil and for each view, adequate pros and cons are presented and there does not appear to be any biasness or presuppositions in his approach. In fact, when discussing the traditional, the modernist, and postmodernist views, more information is provided than the Neo-Ontological Solution Hanson favors. For each field, Hanson used quality sources and cited leaders/pioneers behind each worldview. There is not a great deal of biblical content in this piece, except the mention of Adam’s test and the suggestion that, “This evil-originating, divine-human relationship suggests that God attends to the transgression, suffering, and evil of original sin from which arguably results the historical record of massive suffering and evil.”[7] Answering the question, “If God is good and powerful, why does He allow evil to exist?” would have strengthened Hanson’s article. Mankind is in desperate need to be reconciled with God, and this only happens through a relationship with Jesus Christ, who suffered substitutionary atonement for the sins of mankind. Köstenberger further illustrates, “The challenge is therefore not to explain evil but rather to accept its reality and to resist it whenever possible.”[8] Hanson rightly shows the problem of evil is better explained by being rather than by gods or humankind, so in a modern-day context, one can apply this principle when speaking with someone who has experienced evil, suffering or tragedy.

CONCLUSION

Hanson adequately evaluates three solutions to the problem of evil, but he never mentions free will, the fallen state of man, or the redemption that happens when Christ becomes Lord and Savior of one’s life. Geisler best explains, “The ultimate goal of a perfect world with free creatures will have been achieved, but the way to get there requires that those who abuse their freedom be cast out.”[9] So to justify the existence of evil with an all-powerful and all-good God, one must not only understand the topics Hanson covered, but he or she must also have faith that:

If God is all-good, He will defeat evil.
If God is all-powerful, He can defeat evil.
Evil is not yet defeated.
Therefore, evil still serves a purpose and God can and will defeat evil.[10]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Betenson, Toby. “Evaluative Claims within the Problem of Evil.” Religious Studies 51, no. 3 (09, 2015): 361-77, http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/1703895888?accountid=12085 (accessed March 31, 2017).

Clendenin, Daniel B. “God is Great, God is Good Questions About Evil.” Ashland Theological Journal 24, no. 0 (1992): 35-48.

Elwell, Walter A. ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2^nd Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic Publishing Group, 2001.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 3^rd Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic Publishing Group, 2013.

Frame, John M. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2013.

Geisler, Norman L. “The Problem of Evil,” Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic Publishing, 1999.

Geisler, Norman L. and Ronald M. Brooks. When Skeptics Ask. Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1990.

Groothuis, Douglas. Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2011.

Hanson, Jim. “A Neo-ontological Solution to the Problem of Evil.” Theology Today 68, no. 4 (January 2012): 478-489. DOI: https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1177/0040573611424644 (accessed March 31, 2017).

Hume, David. Dialogues concerning Natural Religion. Edited by Henry D. Aiken. New York, NY: Hafner, 1948 [1779].

Köstenberger, Andreas. Encountering John: The Gospel in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective, 2nd Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic Publishing, 2013.

Sehon, Scott. “The Problem of Evil: Skeptical Theism Leads to Moral Paralysis.” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 67, no. 2 (2010): 67-80. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25652862 (accessed March 31, 2017).

Zacharias, Ravi and Norman Geisler. Who Made God? And Answers to Over 100 Other Questions of Faith. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003.

[1] Norman L. Geisler, “The Problem of Evil,” Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic Publishing, 1999), 219.

[2] Jim Hanson, “A Neo-Ontological Solution to the Problem of Evil,” Theology Today 68, no. 4 (January 2012): 478.

[3] David Hume, Dialogues concerning Natural Religion, ed. Henry D. Aiken (New York, NY: Hafner, 1948 [1779]), Part X.

[4] Hanson, “A Neo-Ontological Solution to the Problem of Evil,” 479.

[5] Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2011), 130.

[6] Hanson, “A Neo-Ontological Solution to the Problem of Evil,” 484.

[7] Hanson, “A Neo-Ontological Solution to the Problem of Evil,” 480.

[8] Andreas Köstenberger, Encountering John: The Gospel in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective, 2^nd Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic Publishing, 2013), 119.

[9] Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, When Skeptics Ask (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1990), 59-60.

[10] Ravi Zacharias and Norman Geisler, Who Made God? And Answers to Over 100 Other Questions of Faith. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003), 38.

March 28, 2017 by Jeff Davis

Baptist Persecution in Colonial America & Religious Freedom

H. Leon McBeth cites Joseph Dawson’s conclusion regarding the emergence of religious liberty in America, “If the researchers of the world were to be asked who was most responsible for the American guarantee for religious liberty, their prompt reply would be ‘James Madison.’ However, if James Madison might answer, he would as quickly reply, ‘John Leland and the Baptists.’”[1] This struggle for religious liberty was hard-fought. While no known Baptists were martyred in America, McBeth details, “many Baptists were severely whipped, forced to pay taxes to support the state church, had property confiscated, and suffered lingering imprisonments.”[2] The First Great Awakening and the Enlightenment, as McBeth reveals, “set the stage and influenced the nature and extent of [religious] freedom.”[3]

As the first settlers in New England were heavily influenced by Reformed theology, this led the Pilgrim Fathers to establish a form of theocracy. McBeth demonstrates, “Ironically, settlers who had just come from dissenter status in Old England established themselves as the official church in New England and persecuted those who dissented from them.”[4] Their laws required all citizens to support the Congregational Church established in New England. If one was unable or unwilling to pay, his or her belongings were seized and sold as auction, often at a fraction of their worth. McBeth details how, “Some dissenters were cast into jail until they paid their apportionment to support the official ministers, a practice which at some places so backfired that the ministers themselves paid the fines just to be rid of prisoners who were winning such a favorable hearing by preaching from jail windows.”[5] The persecution and restrictions placed on Baptists in Colonial America differed from what was encountered in England. In America, it was largely dependent upon the time and location and varied from mild harassment to severe persecution. For example, in 1679, the members of the First Baptist Church of Boston gathered for their first service to discover the doors had been nailed shut. On the other end of the spectrum, McBeth cites how, “the state church probably made one of their biggest mistakes when they imprisoned [the sickened] Elizabeth Backus, a widow and mother to Isaac Backus, the major Baptist spokesman for religious liberty in New England.”[6]

Baptists firmly believed in and fought for the freedom of religion. In an attempt to satisfy the uprising of Dissenters, “Exemption Laws” were instituted in order for non-Congregational Church attenders to apply to have their church taxes refunded, if they could proved they were regular church attenders and lived within five miles of a church in good standing, in that specific denomination.[7] These laws were cumbersome and mere smokescreens because they were only temporary, they were continually lapsing, and they required substantial resources for Separate Baptist church attenders to obtain the needed certificates. McBeth points out, “Baptists in America have a tradition not only of not only preaching and practicing religious liberty, but also of monitoring government legislation to protect the interests of Baptists and others.”[8] Out of this legacy came the formation of the Grievance Committee, which is the first organized religious lobby in America. The aim of this group was to gather and present evidence of Baptist’s suffering and persecution, in order to form legislation to alleviate religious discrimination.[9] Isaac Backus became a champion for the Baptist’s cause. His strategy revolved around two principles: (1) appealing not just to local authorities, but to London itself and (2) to stop paying church taxes and stop applying for the exemption certificates altogether.[10] This bold approach was highly successful because the last thing the Congregational Church wanted was for London leaders to seize and/or invalidate the Colonial charters. Additionally, as McBeth explains, “By deciding to ignore the human law in obedience to a higher law, the law of God… Baptists made more progress toward religious liberty in a year than they had made in the previous decade.”[11] Backus sought to show how the state church was treating Baptists the same way England had treated the colonies, so the tension of revolution within the colonies significantly strengthened his position.

Religious liberty in the Middle Colonies was much different than that found in the north. McBeth explains, “No church was established by law and two factors best account for the broad religious freedom allowed in the Middle Colonies: (1) the Quaker influence and (2) the religious pluralism that prevailed in that area.”[12] Pluralism was essential, due to the Middle Colonies being made up of primarily Catholics and Protestants, with neither group having large enough populations to dominate. McBeth demonstrates, “the Middle Colonies furthered the Baptist struggle for religious freedom by providing a model, [which proved non-government-sponsored religion was achievable,] and the Middle Colonies provided a haven where Baptists could flee when persecution became too severe elsewhere, [which allowed Baptist evangelization into the South.]”

In the South, law established the Anglican Church, and its influence could be felt all the way to Virginia and parts of South Carolina. McBeth illustrates, “Baptists and Presbyterians led the struggle for religious liberty in the South, along with statesman like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Patrick Henry and that Baptists endured hardships, especially the Separates.” John Leland was the primary spokesman for religious liberty in the South and Leland dealt with three primary hardships faced by Baptists: “(1) requirement to register meeting houses, (2) refusal of authorities to recognize the validity of Baptist-performed marriages, and (3) requirement to pay tithes in the form of tobacco and crops for the support of Anglican ministers.”[13] In the beginning of the 1760’s, McBeth illuminates just how bad things were, “Baptists in Virginia were whipped, fined, beaten by mobs, jailed, and/or exiled in an attempt to control them and between 1768 and 1777, at least thirty Baptist preachers in Virginia were imprisoned, whipped, or stoned, most of which were Separates.”[14]

The contributions of Baptists like Isaac Backus and John Leland can still be felt today. The fundamental issue facing every person is that one day, “each one of us will give an account of himself to God,”[15] so as Leland argued, “every man [and woman] ought to be at liberty to serve God in a way that he [or she] can best reconcile to his [or her] conscience.”[16] Leland believed religious establishments corrupted both the church and the state and alienated people from one another. Many feared Christianity would not survive without the support of the state to which Leland replied, “It is error, and error alone, that needs human support.”[17] The Baptists were unwavering in their quest to separate church and state and were fundamental in the development of the First Amendment. However, as McBeth concludes, “[While] Baptists bore the scars of religious persecution [required] to achieve religious liberty; it remains to be seen whether Baptists who live in comfort can preserve it, [despite the price those before them paid to be] the steadfast defenders of the First Amendment.”[18]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

McBeth, H. Leon. The Baptist Heritage: Four Centuries of Baptist Witness. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic Publishing, 1987.

[1] H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage: Four Centuries of Baptist Witness (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic Publishing, 1987), 283.

[2] Ibid., 252-253.

[3] Ibid., 254.

[4] Ibid., 255.

[5] McBeth, The Baptist Heritage, 256.

[6] Ibid., 256-257.

[7] Ibid., 258.

[8] Ibid., 262.

[9] McBeth, The Baptist Heritage, 262.

[10] Ibid., 263.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid., 266.

[13] McBeth, The Baptist Heritage, 268.

[14] Ibid., 270.

[15] Romans 14:12

[16] First published in New London, Connecticut, 1791. Reprinted in Greene, 181.

[17] First published in New London, Connecticut, 1791. Reprinted in Greene, 185.

[18] McBeth, The Baptist Heritage, 268.

March 23, 2017 by Jeff Davis

Four Approaches to Theology

While theology is the rational reflection on God/god(s) and every religion, regardless of simplicity or intricacy has a theology, Bruce Demarest defines systematic theology as, “the attempt to reduce religious truth to a coherent and relevant whole for the church [which serves to:] (1) edify the believing community, (2) allow the gospel in its fullness to be proclaimed, and (3) preserve the truth content and lived experience of the faith.”[1] Demarest further illustrates, “systematic theology concerns itself with God’s saving history with His people, the utterances of divinely ordained prophets and apostles, and supremely the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.”[2]

In contrast, Demarest explains how, “biblical theology sets forth the message of biblical books by author or other scheme, while historical theology traces the church’s faith topically through various eras of history. [Then,] systematic theology incorporates the data of exegetical, biblical, and historical theology to construct a coherent representation of the Christian faith.”[3] Lastly, philosophical theology is also utilized by systematic theology and Millard Erickson highlights three contributions, “philosophy may: (1) supply content for theology, (2) defend theology or establish its truth, and (3) scrutinize its concepts and arguments.”[4] Philosophical theology prepares one to receive the special revelation revealed in Scripture and Erickson, explains how, “Philosophy also performs the second function of weighing the truth-claims advanced by theology and giving part of the basis for accepting the message.”[5]

When looking at each branch of theology, it is apparent systematic theology and biblical theology are closely connected, however, as Erickson demonstrates, “in biblical theology, there is no attempt to contemporize or to state these unchanging concepts in a form suitable for our day’s understanding, [but Erickson does recognize,] the systematic theologian is dependent on the work and insights of the laborers in the exegetical vineyard.”[6] Historical theology also contributes to systematic theology, as it makes one aware of his or her own preunderstanding or presuppositions, it always one to look back at how other theologians in the past approached a specific topic, tradition, or issue, and it also provides the ability to analyze a specific belief by looking back to exactly where and when it began, which allows today’s scholars the ability to see how people came to various professions of faith, conclusions, and/or deductions.

In a ministerial setting, an understanding of each field of study is necessary, but overall, systematic theology appears to provide the most benefit and context. Demarest demonstrates, “Although Scripture is inviolable, fresh theological understanding and reformation are required in every generation and for every culture, first, because the corpus of Christian truth must be clad in every distinctive cultural form and context, and second, because new issues and problems arise to challenge the church, [so] theologians need to be continually re-contextualized.”[7] Being proficient in systematic theology allows one the ability to openly communicate the gospel message while also being able to provide a relevant rationale why one should choose the Christian faith over other various belief systems. However, without an understanding of the other fields of theology, one will have a difficult time utilizing systematic theology to its fullest potential.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Elwell, Walter A. ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2^nd Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic Publishing Group, 2001.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 3^rd Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic Publishing Group, 2013.

Frame, John M. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2013.

[1] Bruce A. Demarest, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2^nd Edition, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic Publishing Group, 2001), 1162-1163.

[2] Ibid., 1163.

[3] Ibid., 1164.

[4] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology. 3^rd Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic Publishing Group, 2013), 13-14.

[5] Erickson, Christian Theology, 14.

[6] Ibid., 10-11.

[7] Demarest, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 1162.

March 22, 2017 by Jeff Davis

Modern & Contemporary Approaches to Family Ministry & Discipleship

The future of the church will largely depend on the success of family ministry. While there are multiple approaches to family ministry and discipleship, Randy Stinson could not be more correct in his assertion that: “Family ministry is necessary and significant because families are under siege, because husbands and fathers have been marginalized, because what we have been doing is ineffective, because the church is a family, and because families are wanting to be led.”[1] Timothy Paul Jones demonstrates the following four models of modern/contemporary family ministry: (1) Educational-Programmatic Ministry Model, (2) Family-Based Ministry Model, (3) Family-Equipping Ministry Model, and (4) Family-Integrated Ministry Model. However, before analyzing the strengths and weaknesses behind each approach, it is important to note Jones openly admits, “None of these models is absolutely exclusive of the others… [and his] goal is not to convince readers that one of these models is better than the others.”[2] Given this disclaimer, Jones make several things clear: “Every church is called to some form of family ministry, Scripture is the supreme and sufficient source for how to do ministry, God has called parents – and especially fathers – to take personal responsibility for the Christian formation of their children, and each generation needs one another.”[3]

Of these four models, the Family-Equipping Ministry Model seems most biblical and relevant because as Jones illustrates, “Although age-organized programs and events still exist, the church is completely restructured to draw the generations together, equipping parents, championing their role as primary disciple-makers, and holding them accountable to fulfill this role.”[4] Most churches are made up of Abrahams, Isaacs, and Jacobs and for the mutual health of the church; it is vital to reconnect these segregated age groups to one another. Dan Burrell strengthens this view by explaining, “Spiritual authority in the home is crucial, so application can be derived… [Furthermore,] the church could never and should never replace the role of parents who God placed as the primary disciple makers in the home.”[5] God calls every believing parent to train his or her children in the Christian faith and this model can be traced back to Abraham (Genesis 18:19), Moses (Deuteronomy 6:4-9, 11:1-12; Exodus 12:25-28), and any Jewish home as the primary place for spiritual training (Proverbs 1:8). Jones further demonstrates, “When evangelism, worship, and discipleship for children and youth occur in isolation from, and, at times, with disdain for, their counterparts, it is difficult to see how the hearts of parents and children can consistently be turned toward one another.”[6]

The Educational-Programmatic Ministry Model forms various silos of ministry, which rarely touch one another. This model cares more about convenience for the family’s schedules and needs than the spiritual formation of the next generation. Burrell explains, the parent’s responsibility is to disciple his or her children, in order for the Holy Spirit to cultivate the soil and seeds that have been planted. However, if the needs and convenience of the parents are put first, this model fails. The Family-Based Model takes a step in the right direction by intentionally drawing generations together and encouraging parents to take a more active role in the lives of children, but it falls short in still segregating the various generations. There is a central vision and mission, but when a ministry is created that does not point back to that vision and mission, silos are created and walls are put up. Jones explains, “Whereas family-based churches develop intergenerational events and activities within current structures, family-equipping ministry reworks the church’s entire structure to call parents to disciple their children at every level of the church’s work.”[7] Lastly, the Family-Integrated Model is by far the most radical way to do family ministry. This model completely does away with all age-graded classes and events, which means there are no youth groups, no children’s church, and no grade-segmented Sunday school classes.[8] Paul Renfro adheres to this position and views each scripturally ordered household as a building block, which when put together forms the local church. While the notion of parents bearing more responsibility for the evangelism and discipleship of their children is biblically sound, completely doing away with all age-related ministries seems counterproductive to the overall goal of producing spiritually mature followers of Christ. Jones concludes, “Although there is widespread agreement that churches ought to do family ministry, there is little agreement regarding what family ministry looks like. And there is even less agreement when it comes to the question of how to implement a family ministry.”[9]

Ultimately, as George Barna emphasizes, “The primary formation of a child’s faith is not a job for specialists; it is a job for parents.”[10] This means the primary role of the church needs to focus on training parents to embrace their God-given primary responsibility for instructing children about God, in order for them to grow spiritually mature. As Burrell emphasizes, “Training up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it” (Proverbs 22:6) is a proverb and not a promise. Bruce K. Waltke demonstrates how, “The relatively rare imperative dedicate ḥănōk (train) means, to start the youth off with a strong and perhaps even religious commitment to a certain course of action.”[11] Burrell furthers this statement by stressing the importance of direction. It does not matter how fast or how far one goes, if he or she is headed in the wrong direction. Ultimately, the training up of a child essentially takes a village, but it must begin in the home, with the parents. This, of course, is in an ideal setting where both parents are present and are also followers of Christ. However, the unique challenge the church faces today is how to adapt a family ministry model, which ministers to what researchers have defined as the fatherless generation.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barna, George. Revolutionary Parenting. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2007.

Burrell, Dan. “Why the Topic of Family Discipleship is Important.” Filmed [2013], Liberty University Website, DSMN 610, Course Content, Week One Video Presentation, 11:17. https://learn.liberty.edu/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_343442_1&content_id=_16588837_1 (accessed March 21, 2017).

Estes, Daniel J. Hear, My Son: Teaching and Learning in Proverbs 1 – 9. Edited by D.A. Carson. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997.

Pearcey, Nancy. Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity. Study Guide Edition. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2005.

Renfro, Paul et al. Perspectives on Family Ministry: 3 Views. Edited by Timothy Paul Jones. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic Publishing Group, 2009.

Thompson, Tad. Intentional Parenting: Family Discipleship by Design. Adelphi, MD: Cruciform Press, 2011.

Tripp, Tedd and Margy Tripp. Instructing a Child’s Heart. Wapwallopen, PA, Shepherd Press, 2008.

Tripp, Tedd. Shepherding a Child’s Heart. Revised and Updated 2^nd Edition. Wapwallopen, PA, Shepherd Press, 2005.

Waltke, Bruce K. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament – The Book of Proverbs Chapters 15-31. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976, 203.

Wright, Steve and Chris Graves. ApParent Privilege: That the Next Generation Might Know… Royal Palm Beach, FL: InQuest Ministries, 2008.

[1] Paul Renfro et al. Perspectives on Family Ministry: 3 Views, ed. Timothy Paul Jones (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic Publishing Group, 2009), 1-3.

[2] Ibid., 45.

[3] Ibid., 45-47.

[4] Renfro et al. Perspectives on Family Ministry, 52.

[5] Dan Burrell, “Why the Topic of Family Discipleship is Important,” Filmed [2013], Liberty University Website, DSMN 610, Course Content, Week One Video Presentation, 11:17. https://learn.liberty.edu/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_343442_1&content_id=_16588837_1 (accessed March 21, 2017).

[6] Renfro et al. Perspectives on Family Ministry, 19.

[7] Renfro et al. Perspectives on Family Ministry, 44.

[8] Ibid., 42.

[9] Ibid., 24.

[10] George Barna, Revolutionary Parenting (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2007), 12.

[11] Bruce K. Waltke, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament – The Book of Proverbs Chapters 15-31 (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 203.

March 20, 2017 by Jeff Davis

Four Views of Baptist Origin

Leon McBeth cites four views pertaining to the sources of Baptist origin: (1) the outgrowth of English Separatism, (2) the influence of biblical Anabaptists, (3) the continuation of biblical teachings throughout the ages, and (4) the succession of organized Baptist churches through the ages.[1] Proponents believing the outgrowth of English Separatism to be the origin of Baptists minimize any role or influence Anabaptists may have played in England before 1600 and instead focus on the diversities between Baptists and Anabaptists. McBeth, illustrates, “They maintain that every distinctive Baptist belief and practice is inherent within Puritanism/Separatism.”[2]

Supporters of the Anabaptist influence view set out to link Baptist origins to the influence of biblical Anabaptists. McBeth highlights, “Most of them acknowledge that Baptists emerged through English Separatism, but they believe Anabaptism both on the Continent and in England prepared the way for Separatism.”[3] Anabaptists can be difficult to classify because the name was associated with a diverse group of believers ranging from extreme mystics, like the Quakers, all the way to extreme rationalists. Some historians contend, “Baptists originated largely in response to the Anabaptist movement, [and] Anabaptists influenced the early Baptists at two points: (1) in preparing the way for Separatism and (2) by leading some to go beyond Separatism to believer’s baptism.”[4]

The latter two views are often both labeled under successionism. McBeth demonstrates, “While almost all recognize that early Baptists were related to the Separatists, disagreement centers around what preceded the Separatists.”[5] This third group looks to trace a continuity of Baptist teachings from New Testament times to the present, asserting the origin of Baptist-like faith and practice never completely died out. Thomas Crosby claimed, “that Baptist principles not only root in the New Testament but also can be traced through various groups since then.”[6]

Arising in the nineteenth century, the final argument for the origin of Baptists goes a step further than the previous. Sometimes referred to as the Jesus-Jordan-John (JJJ) theory, this view contends that Baptists originated with John the Baptist, Jesus, and/or baptisms in the Jordan. McBeth explains, “This theory assumes that John the Baptist represents a denominational affiliation and that Jesus formed a Baptist church and promised in Matthew 16:18 that Baptist churches would never vanish from the world.”[7] There are multiple variations of belief in this view ranging from the premise that: (1) organic succession can be proven and that it is essential, (2) succession is essential and does exist, but cannot be proven, or (3) succession can be proven, but it is not essential.[8]

While each view has merit, it seems the most convincing views pertaining to the origin of Baptists are explained by both the continuation of biblical teaching and that Baptists emerged from the Separatist movement. Tracing Baptist succession back to the New Testament is an admirable attempt to demonstrate provenance, but is seemingly impossible to prove and also unnecessary. While Anabaptist influence is still often debated, McBeth demonstrates, “the earliest Baptists recognized their Separatist background, but later historians obscured that heritage under layers of successionist theory.”[9] In the wise words of William T. Whitley, “For the sources of Baptist life, one must look not to the Anabaptists, but to the Scriptures and the desire for reform…” This new view of Scripture and recognition of what God was calling His followers to do arose as the Separatists moved away from the state church, ultimately leading to the formation of Baptists.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

McBeth, H. Leon. The Baptist Heritage: Four Centuries of Baptist Witness. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic Publishing, 1987.

[1] H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage: Four Centuries of Baptist Witness (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic Publishing, 1987), 49.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid., 52.

[4] McBeth, The Baptist Heritage, 53.

[5] Ibid., 49.

[6] Ibid., 57.

[7] Ibid., 59.

[8] Ibid.

[9] McBeth, The Baptist Heritage, 50.

December 11, 2016 by Jeff Davis

Psalm 72: Why We Must Honor and Pray for Our Leaders

Psalm 72 is a royal psalm or coronation hymn marking the change of command ceremony in which power was being transferred from Kind David to his son Solomon. David’s prayer was for his son Solomon to reign in a way, which would reflect the justice of God, but it also contains elements which foreshadow the eternal kingship of Christ. To understand what a psalm means to believers today, or how it might foreshadow a future event, it must first be understood in both its historical-cultural and literary context. Thus, the chief aim of this analysis is to bridge the gap from an exegetical focus, which relies on historical events and principles to more of a contextualized approach, by illustrating the timeless truths found within the text. The end goal is to better understand Psalm 72 historically and then be able to declare what it means today.

HISTORICAL-CULTURAL CONTEXT

The “why” behind the psalm is the key question to answer in understanding the historical-cultural context. Richard Belcher Jr. illustrates, “Psalm 72 is a prayer for the king asking that God bring about His rule on earth through the reign of the king [and] this psalm begins with the title ‘for Solomon’ and ends with a doxology that closes Book II of the Psalter.”[1] King David is the most likely author, but it is possible either Solomon wrote it about himself or someone else wrote it about Solomon. Either way, the people of the time would have been very familiar with the Davidic covenant,[2] which assured a descendant of David would rule an enduring kingdom, but the Father-son relationship established between the Lord and His descendant was symbolic of a covenant love that could never be taken away. The Lord is essentially adopting the king as His son and serves as His human vice-regent. The rule and reign of the Davidic king in Jerusalem was also a reflection of Yahweh’s heavenly rule and reign.

In addition to David praying, the people are also praying that God would give the king the ability to rule with wisdom and justice, so that the entire nation would be blessed, as a result of the king’s righteous reign. David’s prayer for his son is reminiscent of Solomon’s answer to the Lord when He offers Solomon anything he would ask for. This psalm is asking God to enable His king to rule and reign with righteousness. In Old Testament times righteousness was associated with being in the will of God, while unrighteousness was affiliated with sinful living, being unclean, and not being in the will of God. As a result of this reality, the people for obvious reasons wanted a righteous king, despite God warning them what an earthly king would lead to. So while this psalm began as a prayer from King David to his son Solomon, it was also a community prayer due to the consequences that resulted from an unrighteous king.[3] When looking at royal psalms in their historical context, Belcher clarifies, “[While] the king leads the people in military battle, Yahweh is the one who ultimately fights for His people and wins the victory.”[4][5] Nancy deClaissé-Walford et al. further clarify, “The deification of the human king was pervasive in Israel and these ideas were adapted into a concept of the king being the ‘son of God,’ an earthly representative of the Lord, chosen by the Lord to rule over the people Israel.”[6] Frank E. Gaebelein further explains, “The king was God’s anointed representative [and] submission to the king implied submission to the God of Israel.”[7]

LITERARY CONTEXT

When approaching the psalms, Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart rightly assert, “The most important thing to remember in reading or interpreting psalms is that they are poems – musical poems, [so] by their very nature, they addressed the mind through the heart.”[8] Psalms is made up of five books,[9] each of which concludes with a doxology and the final form came into existence during the post-exile time period. Belcher highlights, “The common thread in the royal psalms is kingship, [so] one of the main issues is the relationship of the psalm to the historical king.”[10] Clarence Bullock identifies, “The most obvious criteria are they (1) refer to the ‘king,’ (2) mention the ‘anointed’ one as a noun or make use of the verb, and (3) they refer to David by name.”[11] Royal psalms pray for the king of the day, but they also point to Jesus.

As the story of Psalms unfolds in Books I and II, Davidic psalms are prominent and seem to focus on God’s faithfulness over the house of David, so Belcher believes, “The best way to approach a royal psalm is to understand how the psalm fits into the historical setting of the monarchy, especially its relationship to the Davidic Covenant.”[12] Psalm 72 is found at the end of Book II and illustrates how this covenant promise has been passed from King David to his son Solomon. However, when the reader approaches Book III, there is immediately a crisis, the Israelites had been defeated in battle, their temple was destroyed, and God’s chosen people had been carried off to exile in Babylon. In light of these events, the people surely asked themselves what had happened to the promises God made to David and whether or not those promises were still in effect. As John Walton demonstrates, “Psalm 72 is the seam psalm, the conclusion of Book II. As David’s blessing on Solomon, it is one of the anchors of the cantata hypothesis.[13] Also of interest in this psalm is what Gerald Wilson identifies as the only explicit statement within the psalms that exercises an organizational function in verse twenty.”[14] Wilson views Books I thru III, as representative of the rise and fall of the Davidic monarchy, with Psalm 2 marking the inauguration of the Davidic Covenant, while Psalm 72 marked the transition to the future Israelite kings. Walter Kaiser then recognized by, “Leaving Psalm 89 at the end of Book III to lament over what appeared to be Yahweh’s ultimate rejection of the Davidic kingship. This, according to some, would explain why the Royal Psalms later on played a smaller role in Books IV-V in the Psalter.”[15] This coronation hymn defined the kingdom of God and Beth Tanner illustrates how Kind David’s, “Last prayer is for the next monarch and it sets the Psalter within a particular history of a particular people. But it also sets this particular history within the scope of the world and, indeed, within the cosmic scope of all that exists.”[16] DeClaissé-Walford et al. further demonstrate how, Psalm 72 strikes a high note and it is, “Flush with the hopes and dreams for the future. In contrast, Psalm 73 opens Book III on a note of confusion and doubt. Life with God will not be lived in an idyllic world, at least for the moment, but in a world where the values espoused in the previous psalm do not always meet with the realities of life.”[17] In Asaph’s prayer, the righteous suffered while the wicked prospered, which went against everything the people understood to be true. Ultimately, the movement and language throughout Psalms reflects what a life of faith is all about. Moments of disorientation are used by God to reorient the individual and community back into communion with God.

Structurally, in verse three, the psalmist speaks of the mountains bearing prosperity for the people. Karl Keil and Franz Delitzsch explain, “Mountains and hills describe synecdochically the whole land of which they are the high points visible afar off. ‏נָשָׂא‎ is used in the sense of ‏נָשָׂא פְּרִי:[18]‎ may ‏שָׁלֹום‎ be the fruit which ripens upon every mountain and hill; universal prosperity satisfied and contented within itself.”[19] In verses five thru seven, there is a shift from the work of the king to the king himself. DeClaissé-Walford et al. illustrate, “Long life is associated with the vision of God’s kingdom,[20] and the wishes of the king extend to the people. The king’s good reign is to be like the life-giving showers that provide food.[21] The king is simply to provide the environment where the benchmarks of God’s kingdom can grow.”[22] Verses eight thru eleven focuses on the king’s dominion being from sea to sea and how the kings from surrounding kingdoms will bow and bring gifts. DeClaissé-Walford et al. stress the extent of this adoration demonstrating, “Kings are to fall down before him, and all the nations are to serve him. The final verb is especially important, for it is always a key word for Israel. Hebrew ʿāḇaḏ[23] means both to “serve” and “worship.”[24] Verses twelve thru fourteen contain the conjunction, “because,” which points back to what must happen for the petitions to come to pass. The king must have compassion on the oppressed and is called to save and rescue the weak and needy. Only when the king fulfills the requirements of verses twelve thru fourteen will the petitions and wishes in verses five thru eleven be a reality. Verses fifteen thru seventeen depict the abundance of blessings that will come forth from the kingdom and verse seventeen affirms, “May people be blessed in him, and all nations call him blessed,” which parallels the Abrahamic covenant.[25]

THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION

The first request in Psalm 72 asked God to grant the king justice and righteousness. Jessica Tate demonstrates exactly how:

Justice and righteousness are bound together throughout the psalm just as they are bound in life. Righteousness means to be in right order, to be blameless or godly. Justice can also be translated as “righteousness” or “judgment.” One cannot have divine justice without righteousness, nor righteousness without justice. A word study on the matter suggests that when the king carries out justice, he is an “agent of the divine will.” Justice is associated with the basic requirements of life in the community.[26]

The imitation of God is one of the key principles of the psalms as Gordon Wenham explains, “Those in the best position to promote righteousness are the kings, and they are called on to exercise godlike qualities of justice.”[27]

The second request prayed for a universal ruler who had dominion all over the earth. Belcher demonstrates, “Although some take this psalm as a direct prophecy of the reign of Christ,[28] it is better to take the reign of the king in Psalm 72 as a type of the reign of Christ because the psalm clearly reflects the historical reality of Solomon’s reign”[29] and no earthly king has ever had dominion all over the earth. Wenham demonstrates how Psalm 2 and Psalm 72 are strategically placed royal psalms that open or close a book of the Psalter, but he then explains, “If the Psalter had ended with Psalm 72, we would probably have to agree with form critics that both psalms were just prayers for a coronation, and that the exaggerated language about the ‘ends of the earth’ and ‘all king falling down before him’ were just poetic hyperbole. But the Psalter does not end with Psalm 72; that is only the end of Book II.”[30]

The third request was for long life and prosperity. God promised Solomon his days would be lengthened[31] as long as he remained obedient, but in his later years, he turned away from the ways of the Lord.[32] Wenham highlights the first two books of the Psalter end with King David’s very upbeat prayer for Solomon, but “Solomon of course did not live up to his father’s hopes, either militarily or socially. Instead, Solomon’s reign was marked by oppressive policies.”[33] DeClaissé-Walford et al. note, “Verses 15-16 have much in common with vv. 5-7 but also add references to the lifting of prayers and blessings for the king. At v. 16, the creation reappears, and its abundance is an added wish. Verse 16 has the two most problematic lines of the psalm, and their exact meaning is unclear.”[34] While the failure of the Davidic Covenant appeared problematic, especially to those living in exile, it is important to understand the difference between the messiah in historical and eschatological terms.

Lastly, Belcher emphasizes, “Psalm 72 must be understood in light of the first and second comings of Christ. Now that the righteous king has come and won the victory on the cross, we do not pray for Him as much as we pray for the full coming of His righteous kingdom.”[35] Despite Psalm 72 being classified as a messianic psalm, nowhere is it quoted from in the New Testament, so Daniel Estes and many other scholars agree, “Several psalms have come to be called Messianic psalms even though it is quite likely the original psalmist did not grasp the Messianic dimensions that would later be explicated in the New Testament text.” The New Testament writers came to understand the Old Testament text in a deeper reality than the original authors.

MODERN APPLICATION

Psalm 72 is historic as David intercedes for Solomon, it is prophetic with reference to another king (Christ,) and it also holds significance for the church today. First, it teaches people should honor all leaders and elected officials and not speak evil of them.[36] Second, God has commanded believers to pray for leaders, specifically regarding the salvation of his or her soul as well as the ability to rule righteously and justly, according to God’s will.[37] As David prayed for Solomon, Christians too should ask God to make leaders Christlike in how he or she rules. Finally, Psalm 72 should also point people to Christ’s return and future coming kingdom, following Peter’s strong example in Acts 3:19-21, which F.F. Bruce shows “If they would turn back in heart to God, the salvation and blessing procured by the Messiah’s death would be theirs. Their sins would be blotted out, even that sin of sins, which they had unwittingly committed in consenting to the death of the Author of life. Here is the heart of the gospel of grace.”[38]

Tanner explains Psalm 72 teaches what righteous leadership is supposed to look like. “God’s kingdom and God’s ways of justice and righteousness are to be the norms. This is the way that God intends the world to be; it was true in Abraham’s time, in the time of the kings, and in the world today. It is the kingdom to which we all press forward and the place in which our future hope is vested.”[39] These lessons are just as relevant today as they were three thousand years ago. By avoiding the traps and lust for power and position that tempts humans, ruling with righteousness becomes the motivation, allowing those in power to remain in the will of God, which, as history demonstrates, provides abundant blessings and justice for God’s people.

CONCLUSION

The people wanted a king, so God gave them a king. As a result, Psalm 72 becomes universal in its petitions for the king, who with the guidance from the Lord would be greater than all the other kings and would recognize his primary role being to reign with justice and righteousness. The goal of this analysis was to bridge the gap from exegesis to application, so by explaining David’s and the people’s prayer for Solomon was to rule and reign righteously and justly, precedence was established for all people to pray the same today. As history has shown, only God’s perfect and holy Son Jesus Christ can truly fulfill all that David prayed for but that does not negate the obligation for Christians to honor and pray for all leaders or elected officials.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Belcher, Richard P. Jr. The Messiah and the Psalms: Preaching Christ from all the Psalms. Scotland, UK: Christian Focus Publications, Ltd., 2006.

Broyles, Craig C. Understanding the Bible Commentary Series: Psalms. Edited by W. Ward Gasque, Robert L. Hubbard Jr., and Robert K. Johnston. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing Group, 1999.

Bullock, C. Hassell. Encountering the Book of Psalms: A Literary and Theological Introduction. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing Group, 2001.

DeClaissé-Walford, Nancy, Rolf Jacobson, and Beth Tanner, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament – The Book of Psalms. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2014.

Fee, Gordon D. and Douglas Stuart. How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth, 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003.

Futado, Mark D. Interpreting the Psalms: An Exegetical Handbook. Edited by David M. Howard Jr. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2007.

Gaebelein, Frank E., ed., The Expositor’s Bible Commentary – Volume 3: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992.

_______. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary – Volume 5: Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1991.

Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry Concise Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1961.

Hughes, Robert B. and J. Carl Laney. Tyndale Concise Bible Commentary. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1990.

Kaiser, Walter. “PSALM 72: AN HISTORICAL AND MESSIANIC CURRENT EXAMPLE OF ANTIOCHENE HERMENEUTICAL THEORIA.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 52, no. 2 (June, 2009): 257-70, http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/211193181?accountid=12085. (accessed December 9, 2016).

Keil, Karl and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament – Volume 5: Psalms. Edinburgh, UK: T. & T. Clark, 1891.

Kselman, John S. “Psalm 72: Some Observations on Structure.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 220 (1975): 77-81. doi:10.2307/1356240. (accessed December 9, 2016).

Leadership Ministries Worldwide, Preacher’s Outline & Sermon Bible, The – Psalm 72. Chattanooga, TN: Leadership Ministries Worldwide, 2016.

Paul, Shalom M. “Psalm 72:5-A Traditional Blessing for the Long Life of the King.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 31, no. 4 (1972): 351-55. http://www.jstor.org/stable/543794 (accessed December 9, 2016).

Tate, Jessica. “Between Text and Sermon: Psalm 72:1–7, 10–14.” Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology 68, no. 1 (2014): 66-68. DOI: 10.1177/0020964313505970 (accessed December 9, 2016).

Walton, John H. “PSALMS: A CANTATA ABOUT THE DAVIDIC COVENANT.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 34 no. 1 (March 1991): 21-31. (accessed December 9, 2016).

Wenham, Gordon. The Psalter Reclaimed: Praying and Praising with the Psalms. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013.

[1] Richard P. Belcher Jr., The Messiah and the Psalms: Preaching Christ from all the Psalms (Scotland, UK: Christian Focus Publications, Ltd., 2006), 135.

[2] II Samuel 7:12-16

[3] I Samuel 8:10-22

[4] 1 Chronicles 29:23

[5] Belcher Jr., The Messiah and the Psalms, 132.

[6] Nancy deClaissé-Walford, Rolf Jacobson, Beth Tanner, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament – The Book of Psalms (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2014), 419.

[7] Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor’s Bible Commentary – Volume 5: Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1991), 347.

[8] Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003), 206-207.

[9] Book I: 1-41; Book II: 42-72; Book III: 73-89; Book IV: 90-106; & Book V: 107-150

[10] Belcher Jr., The Messiah and the Psalms, 121.

[11] Clarence Hassell Bullock, Encountering the Book of Psalms: A Literary and Theological Introduction (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing Group, 2001), 178.

[12] Belcher Jr., The Messiah and the Psalms, 121.

[13] Views the Psalms as a cantata around the theme of the Davidic covenant.

[14] John H. Walton, “PSALMS: A CANTATA ABOUT THE DAVIDIC COVENANT,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 34, no. 1 (March 1991): 27. (accessed December 9, 2016).

[15] Walter Kaiser, “PSALM 72: AN HISTORICAL AND MESSIANIC CURRENT EXAMPLE OF ANTIOCHENE HERMENEUTICAL THEORIA,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 52, no. 2 (June, 2009): 260, (accessed December 9, 2016).

[16] Nancy deClaissé-Walford, Rolf Jacobson, and Beth Tanner, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament – The Book of Psalms (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2014), 579.

[17] DeClaissé-Walford et al., NICOT – The Book of Psalms, 584.

[18] Ezekiel 17:8

[19] Karl Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament – Volume 5: Psalms (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1891), 480.

[20] Isaiah 65:17-25

[21] The shalom and righteousness of v. 3 appear here again as entities that are independent of human action.

[22] DeClaissé-Walford et al., NICOT – The Book of Psalms, 578.

[23] Israel goes from being “slaves” of the bad reign of Pharaoh to being “servants/worshippers” in God’s kingdom. In Psalm 72, the entire world, through Israel and its king, will become servants in the kingdom of God.

[24] DeClaissé-Walford et al., NICOT – The Book of Psalms, 578.

[25] Genesis 12:1-3

[26] Jessica Tate, “Between Text and Sermon: Psalm 72:1–7, 10–14,” Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology 68, no. 1 (2014): 66. DOI: 10.1177/0020964313505970 (accessed December 9, 2016).

[27] Gordon Wenham, The Psalter Reclaimed: Praying and Praising with the Psalms (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013), 121.

[28] Because of its typological use in 2 Corinthians 6:18 and Hebrews 1:5, verse fourteen has long been considered messianic in a Christological sense.

[29] Belcher Jr., The Messiah and the Psalms, 137.

[30] Wenham, The Psalter Reclaimed, 91.

[31] I Kings 3:14; Psalm 72:15

[32] I Kings 11-12:1-15

[33] Wenham, The Psalter Reclaimed, 149-150.

[34] DeClaissé-Walford et al., NICOT – The Book of Psalms, 579.

[35] Belcher Jr., The Messiah and the Psalms, 138.

[36] Exodus 22:28; Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:17

[37] 1 Timothy 2:1-4

[38] F. F. Bruce, The New International Commentary on the New Testament – The Book of Acts (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 83.

[39] DeClaissé-Walford et al., NICOT – The Book of Psalms, 580.