The Meaning, Message, and Ministry of Apostles - 1 Cor. 9:1-2

INTRODUCTION

In 1^st Corinthians chapter eight, the apostle urged the mature to forgo their freedoms for the sake of the weaker brothers. Now he shows how he acts on that principle. Because he was an apostle he had all the rights of an apostle. His apostleship was evident since he had seen the resurrected Jesus and was personally sent by Him (Gal. 1:1, 12). His divine mission had been confirmed among the Corinthians because they were the seal of his apostleship (verses 1–3). Being an apostle, it is first demonstrated that he had the same right to be supported and to have his family supported, if he had chosen to marry, as Peter or any other apostle (verses 4–6). This right even lies at the foundation of society since a laborer is worthy of his wages (1 Corinthians 9:7). Secondly, this principle is recognized in the Old Testament, even in its application to animals (verses 8–10). Third, it is recognized from a principle of fairness (1 Corinthians 9:11). Fourth, Paul’s right to be supported comes from the fact that the Corinthians recognized this right in the case of other Bible teachers (1 Corinthians 9:12). Fifth, it is demonstrated from the universal recognition that those who served in the pagan temple were supported from the temple (1 Corinthians 9:13). Finally, from the express ordinance of Christ, who had ordained that those who preached the Gospel should live by the Gospel (1 Corinthians 9:14).

However, Paul chose not to make use of this right and he was determined, especially at Corinth, not to benefit from using it in the future. By doing so he muted any questioning of his motives, and gained himself a ground of credibility when resisting his opponents so that he may preach the gospel to them (verses 15–18). However, this was not the only time he abstained from exercising his rights so that he may benefit others. He accommodated himself to Jews and Gentiles by avoiding things that unnecessarily offended them so that he might gain a hearing from them and win them to Christ (verses 19–23). Finally, at the end of chapter nine, Paul notes that if the heathen exercise such self-denial to gain a corruptible crown in athletic contests, how much more should Christians do so in order to gain an eternal crown that is incorruptible, undefiled, and will not fade away? Without self-denial and godly effort through the power of the Spirit, the prize of our high calling as Christians could never be attained (verses 24–27). So, Paul, being a faithful apostle, provided not only an example for all Christians to follow in the area of Christian freedom, but also for those who desire to be church planters and missionaries. The example seen in his training, equipping, and mentoring ministry gives us much information as to what the ministry of a church planter and missionary should look like today. This brings us to the subject of our discussion today, the meaning, message, and ministry of New Testament[1] apostles.

TEACHING & APPLICATION

“Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? ² If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 9:1-2)

The Meaning of the word “Apostle”

The word “apostle” comes from the Greek word apostolos meaning “delegate, envoy, messenger.” The word “apostle” has not really been translated in our modern Bibles. Instead it has been transliterated; a process by which a new word is created by translating a Greek word letter for letter into English.

The Types of Apostles

The NT uses the word “apostle” primarily[2] to refer to the following two types of church workers:

1. Apostles of Christ: The word translated “apostles” in our Bibles primarily refers to the original twelve apostles that were chosen by Jesus plus Paul[3]. They, along with the NT prophets, were used by God for the express purpose of (a) laying the doctrinal foundation of the church through preaching and teaching New Covenant truth about Jesus as its recorded in NT Scripture and (b) confirming the authenticity of their doctrine through miracles, signs, and wonders (Eph. 2:20; Eph. 3:5; 2 Cor. 12:12; Heb. 2:3-4). Because they were integral in teaching New Covenant truth that provided the doctrinal foundation for the Christian church, once that task was completed, this type of apostle ceased to exist because they served their God-ordained purpose (Eph. 2:20; 1 Cor. 15:7-8; Jude 3). Once the doctrinal foundation was complete, all other ministry work was to be built on top of that previously laid foundation of apostolic teaching.[4] Thus, with the completion of the NT, there is no longer any need for Apostles of Christ.

2. Apostles of the Church: These “apostles” are missionaries and church planters. They are men like Titus (2 Cor. 8:23), Barnabas (Acts 14:14), Silas, Timothy, Epaphroditus (Phil. 2:25), and other church workers that were not part of the original twelve (Rom. 16:7[5]). The word “apostle” is used of them in the sense that they are ambassadors of already revealed doctrinal truth. They proclaim, teach, and preach only that which was revealed to the twelve apostles specifically chosen by Jesus. Their job is not to give new doctrine but merely to preach, teach, and propagate only that doctrine that God had revealed through the original twelve apostles. The way that these men properly build up the church is by continuing to preach, teach, and propagate those foundational New Covenant doctrines revealed by the Apostles of Christ. They are not revealers of new truth but propagators of old truth. This type of “apostle” continues to exist in our day and we correctly refer to them as “missionaries” and “church planters”.

Summary:

1. Apostles of Christ were sent personally by Jesus (Gal. 1:1); apostles of the church were sent by the Holy Spirit (Acts 13:1-3; Barnabas) or by an Apostle of Christ (Timothy, Titus, Epaphroditus – cf. 2 Cor. 8:23; Phil. 2:25).

2. Apostles of Christ actually wrote Scripture (1 Cor. 14:37; 2 Pet. 3:15-17). Apostles of the church merely preach, teach, and promote Scripture (1 Tim. 4:13; 2 Tim. 4:2).

3. Apostles of Christ established New Covenant doctrinal standards (John 14:26 cf. Acts 2:42); the apostles of the church only followed, repeated, and propagated those standards (1 Tim. 3:15-17; 2 Tim. 2:2).

A Biblical Example of the Ministry of Different Types of Apostles

It’s likely that every church mentioned in the NT was started by an apostolic team. These church plants continued in their relationship with these teams for years after their founding. Let’s look at an example of this found in Acts 18-20:

• In Acts 18:18-21 we see that Paul teamed up with Priscilla and Aquila to evangelize Ephesus. Paul left them behind in Ephesus to continue the work there so that he could go to Caesarea. Thus, the order of contact was (1) Paul, (2) Priscilla and Aquila.
• In verses 24-27, we see that Apollos showed up next to evangelize the area after Paul left.
• In Acts 19:1-2, 8 we see that Paul returned to Ephesus to evangelize the synagogue there for three months.
• In verses 9-10, Paul went to the school of Tyrannus and his total time in Ephesus amounted to two years. According to verses 21-22, after these two years in Ephesus, Paul went to Jerusalem via Macedonia and Achaia. Note in verse 22 that Paul sent Timothy and Erastus ahead of him to Macedonia before he arrived there (cf. 18:5).
• In Acts 20:1 Paul went to Macedonia after he left Ephesus. Then, according to verse 2 he went to Greece for three months and then came back through Macedonia. If you look carefully in 20:4, you’ll see that at times Paul had at least eight people traveling with him as a part of his apostolic team (eight including Luke! cf. 20:6).
• Paul spent a week at Troas (20:6), then went to Assos (20:13), then Chios, Samos, and finally Miletus (20:15).
• When in Miletus, he called for the Ephesian elders to meet him there (20:17). It was at Miletus that Paul organized the first “Pastor’s Conference”!
• Important Question: So who had appointed these Ephesian elders in Acts 20:17? Apparently Paul or one of his missionaries did sometime in the past. We have examples of elders being appointed by Paul and Barnabas in Acts 14:23. Several years after his first Roman imprisonment (Acts 28:30), Paul wrote to Timothy and Titus instructing them to appoint elders, root out false doctrine, and warn the unruly in the churches (1 Tim. 1:1-3; 3:1ff; Titus 1:5-9; 10-16; 3:10-11). John MacArthur explains this situation well, “After being released from his first Roman imprisonment (cf. Acts 28:30), Paul revisited several of the cities in which he had ministered, including Ephesus. Leaving Timothy behind there to deal with problems that had arisen in the Ephesian church, such as false doctrine (1:3-7; 4:1-3; 6:3-5), disorder in worship (2:1-15), the need for qualified leaders (3:1-14), and materialism (6:6-19), Paul went on to Macedonia, from where he wrote Timothy this letter to help him carry out his task in the church (cf. 3:14-15).”[6]

An apostle of the church in the first century basically did the same things that an Apostle of Christ did, except lay the doctrinal foundation of the church through writing Scripture. A summary of the work of church apostles can be found in these passages: 2 Cor. 10:14; 2 Tim. 4:5; Eph. 6:21-22; 1 Tim. 1:3-4; 1 Tim. 2-3; 1 Tim. 4:6 (cf. 4:1-5); 4:11-13; 6:1-2b, 6:17-18; 2 Tim. 2:14a; 2:24-26; 4:1-3; 4:5; Tit. 1:5; 2:1-3, 6, 9, 15, 3:1; 2 Tim. 4:9-13; 19-21; Tit. 3:12-13.

The Main Point: Apostolic teams were essential to the spread of the gospel and the spiritual growth and doctrinal vitality of the early church. They evangelized, made disciples, taught, organized, and appointed elders. Is it possible to start a church without missionaries/church planters? Yes. Can an existing church function without the input of a missionary/church planter? Yes. Can a church choose its own leaders? If they are biblically qualified, yes. But all of this is much easier if you have seasoned missionaries/church planters around to help you get started off on a good foundation and provide continued input.

What Kind of Apostle Was Paul?

Look again at 1 Corinthians 9:1, “Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?” The Apostles of Christ were personally hand-picked by Him. Promises were given to them that were not given to others in the NT, namely; (1) that they would be Christ’s personal representatives [John 13:20; 15:16, 20], (2) They would be able to completely recall the teachings that Christ gave to them [John 14:25-26], and (3) They would get future revelation directly from Jesus that they didn’t get when He was here on earth [John 16:12-13].

Paul was clearly an Apostle of Christ. He met the three basic qualifications required of an apostle of Christ: (1) He was hand picked and taught personally by Christ [John 15:16; Gal. 1:1, 11-12], (2) He was an eye-witness of the resurrected Christ [Acts 1:15-22; 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:3-9], and (3) he worked miracles to authenticate his message [2 Cor. 12:11-12, Acts 5:12a, Romans 15:18-19].[7]

An important note about the use of words:

• The above characteristics of the original twelve Apostles of Christ are why Christians today are rightly hesitant to call modern missionaries and church planters “apostles”.
• It’s right to be careful what you call a full-time church worker. I don’t think it’s wise to call our modern day missionaries and church planters “apostles” any more than I think it’s wise to call pastors “bishops”, even though both words are Biblical.
• In our modern theological climate, referring to someone as an “apostle” typically conjures up images of two things: (1) overdressed televangelists with bad hairdos telling wacky stories that involve crazy and heretical visions and discussions with Jesus over coffee, or (2) the implicit assumption that someone is regularly performing signs and wonders. Both are obvious misrepresentations of Christianity and the careful and precise use of language or taking the time to define your terms can avoid such misunderstandings. That is why it’s best to call them missionaries and church planters.
  

Marks of a True Apostle

“. . . Are you not my work in the Lord? ² If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 9:1b-2)

• Since Apostles of Christ no longer exist, we can only use 1 Corinthians 9:1-2 to refer to apostles of the church. Paul says that a true apostle of the church will bear fruit in keeping with his calling: “Are you not my work in the Lord?” A true apostle of the church will be a faithful missionary that preaches the true gospel whether it’s convenient or inconvenient. He labors in the word, prays diligently, evangelizes the lost, plants churches, and faithfully teaches only what has been already revealed in the NT.

Marks of a False Apostle

• False apostles make audacious claims (i.e., physically seen Jesus, personally commissioned by Jesus, claims to have the power to do signs and wonders, personally received new doctrinal truth from Jesus).
• False apostles preach false doctrine for fortune, fame, and power with complete disregard for gospel truth and people’s souls (2 Cor. 2:17; 4:2; Tit. 1:10-11; 1 Peter 5:2-3).
• False apostles avoid true doctrine, true repentance, prolonged prayer, and sin-killing teaching and preaching (2 Tim. 4:2-4; Titus 1:15-16).

Biblical missionaries and church planters will be servants of the church, not lords over it (Col. 1:25; 2 Cor. 13:4). If missionaries and church planters are not already serving as an elder in a local church, they should strengthen the local eldership of the congregations that they are serving and not try to supplant or undermine that leadership unless it is dangerous and heretical (3 John 9-10). Missionaries and church planters are not to be financial leeches that feed on the churches that they serve. They have a Biblical right to financial support, but they must be willing to work a secular job if the churches cannot afford to support them or if there are extenuating circumstances that dictate they get their income through other lawful means (Acts 18:3; 1 Cor. 9:1-18). They have a right to be supported, but they do not have a right to charge a fee for their service to the churches; such is the mark of a hireling and constitutes peddling the word of God for profit (John 10:12-13; 2 Cor. 2:17; Titus 1:10; 1 Peter 5:2).

The Appropriate Ministry of Modern Missionaries and Church Planters

While it is true that the Apostles of Christ ceased to exist in the first century with the completion of the canon, it is also true that we still need missionaries and church planters (a.k.a., apostles of the church). According to the rest of 1 Corinthians 9, missionaries, church planters, and full-time elders have a right to get their living from the gospel and we ought to support them (9:14 cf. 1 Tim. 5:17-18), but how should they serve our churches today? Here are a few suggestions based upon some of the Scriptural examples we’ve already looked at:

• Helping in the work of evangelism (2 Tim. 4:5; 1 Thess. 3:2).
• To help the church(es) by providing an ongoing ministry of equipping and training elders, deacons, Bible teachers, and others in the areas of doctrine, pastoral work, effective teaching, and service (2 Tim. 2:2).

• To teach the saints how to correctly study the Bible, avoid heresies, Biblical parenting, and how to live sanctified lives that are pleasing to God (1 Tim. 3:15-17; 2 Tim. 2:15; 3:15-17).
• Helping already existing churches organize new church plants (1 Tim. 1:3; Tit. 1:5-9).
• Ideally, Biblical missionaries and church planters are like traveling, itinerant seminary professors that move from church to church as needed.
  

Some Final Questions:

1. What is the difference between a missionary/church planter and an evangelist? Answer: Missionaries/church planters are evangelists but evangelists are not necessarily missionaries/church planters. Missionaries/church planters focus on evangelizing the lost and equipping the saved; evangelists focus primarily on preaching the gospel to the lost in a given area and are not as concerned about equipping the entire church, although they may teach evangelism classes. This means that if evangelists are present in an area, missionaries/church planters need to be present also since they have an important equipping ministry. The same concept applies with teachers that aren’t elders, missionaries, or evangelists.

2. What can we learn from the leadership style of the apostles? Well, one thing is that the twelve apostles had leaders among leaders. Peter, James, and John were certainly in Christ’s inner circle of the twelve (Matt. 17:1); the twelve also had a unique leadership role among the church apostles. Barnabas, Titus, Timothy, and others submitted to Paul’s authority because he was one to whom Christ had directly and personally revealed divine, New Covenant truth. Secondly, since there are no more Apostles of Christ, missionaries/church planters must see themselves as servants of the elders they are working with, and all groups (whether elder, missionary, or evangelist) must subject themselves to the Lordship of Christ and His word (1 Peter 5:1-4).

CONCLUSION

In summary, there were originally two types of apostles: Apostles of Christ and apostles of the church. The ministry of the twelve Apostles of Christ is foundational and complete. The ministry of apostles of the church is seen today in missionaries and church planters. They help keep a church’s biblical priorities in focus by teaching and equipping the leadership and congregation so that maturity and harmony will develop within the church. We must be open to this type of ministry, looking for God to raise up people even within this body to do this important work.

---

[1] Hereafter referred to as NT.
[2] An exception to this is when Jesus is called “the Apostle and High Priest of our confession” in Hebrews 3:1. Jesus is also referred to as the “Chief Shepherd” when referring to pastors in 1 Peter 5:4.

[3] There is debate over whether Matthias legitimately replaced Judas through the eleven’s casting lots or whether Paul was the God-appointed man to replace Judas’ apostleship (Acts 1:26). The debate will rage on since Scripture never explicitly or implicitly states either way. We do know this: (1) Matthias was chosen by lots, an OT method of determining God’s will, and (2) the Apostle Paul was personally chosen by Christ [Gal. 1:1, 11-12] . My own view is that Paul took the place of Judas and is reckoned with the twelve although I can’t be dogmatic. Some apostles of Christ that were not part of the original twelve yet wrote Scripture were Luke and James and Jude the human brothers of the Lord Jesus, so equating "Apostles of Christ" with the original twelve isn't always a hard and fast rule.

[4] Also, Paul says that he was the “last of all” to see the resurrected Christ, indicating that there are no more Apostles of Christ.

[5] There is debate whether those mentioned in Romans 16:7 are considered “outstanding among the apostles” indicating that they were to be considered church apostles or whether they were simply “well known” to the apostolic band for their hard work but were not actually part of it.

[6] John MacArthur, The MacArthur Study Bible, (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2006), 1827.

[7] Jesus also told the original twelve apostles that they would have a special part to play in the coming Kingdom that others would not have (cf. Matt. 19:27-28; Rev. 21:9-14). This certainly is not speaking of all church planters and missionaries.

Frozen Chosen Calvinism

Thanks to The Sacred Sandwich we have another great example of Calvinistic humor properly applied to the forehead in slapstick fashion.

However, I have a question for you:

Are you a Calvinist much like the turkey to the left in the photo? Meaning, are you neatly packaged with beautiful, clear, and neat wrapping all over you yet you are spiritually cold and even frozen in your evangelism?

If this describes you, then you need to repent. You have been called out to darkness into His marvelous light and you are cold? You have been granted access to boldly approach the throne of grace by the merits of Another and you are frozen? You have left your first love and your zeal is non-existent. Repent and do the things that you did before or else He may come to you in judgment (Rev. 2:5). You need to put aside the things of the world that have taken you away from close communion with the Savior and go abide with Him in your prayer closet. It may mean that you need to get up earlier, go to bed earlier, lose some work (and money) from that extra job in order to "come away" with Jesus.

I say these things in love because open rebuke is better than love carefully concealed (Pro. 27:5).

Blog Notice for 11-27-09

To all beloved blog readers,

Why we have been so "Low-Output":

As many of you know, this blog has been pretty slow over the last year or so. We have only interacted with the few major current events and items of interest as we have deemed appropriate. Most of you know that this is because I (Dusman) have been uber busy working a full-time secular job, sharing pastoral responsibilities with my fellow elder, as well as trying to be a faithful daddy and husband to three of the most beautiful women that God ever created. A Biblical view of prioritization demands that non-essential activities take a back burner to those things mentioned above, and so my blog activity has had to take a little siesta for a while.

Now for some good news:

The good news is that as of January 1, 2010, we will increase our blog article output to it's former glory. Also, we will be re-opening the comments section of this blog as of today (11-27-09) and thereby return our readership the opportunity to interact with our blogging and vlogging (Yes, we are going to do some vlogging). We are doing this for two reasons:

1. I (Dusman) will be cutting back to 18 hours/week secular employment and using the rest of my time for full-time church work and family time. This will afford me the time to write more articles, create some vlogs, and to interact with some reasonable commenters.

2. The need for Christian theological, apologetical, and evangelistic work is more important than ever. Our church wants to contribute to that work and they are freeing me up to do just that. Thus, I will be back in full force. That is good for the gospel but it's not so good for her enemies. :-)

Now for the blog RULES:

Because we have attracted blog trolls in the past due to the controversial nature of the subjects that we discuss, the following rules will apply (Yes, I [Dusman] modified these from TeamPyro):

1. Don't expect us to always reply to your comments. If one of us feels strongly, he might reply in a blog entry. Though we will participate in the comments, we make no promise (implied or explicit) that we will reply to other people's arguments or questions. Don't look for us to mud-wrestle with critics in our own blog-comments. Doing such would be a full-time job in and of itself and since there are plenty of other things that we need be doing, we will comment as we deem appropriate.

2. Please remember that this is our blog and you are a guest here. You're not a bouncer, a babysitter, or a hired clown. So treat your fellow guests with respect. If someone needs to be escorted off the premises for drunk and disorderly or otherwise antisocial behavior, one of us will gladly do it.

3. Say what you like about us; disagree as strongly as you like; beat us up or slap us around verbally with near-total impunity. But keep within the parameters of Christian civility. We'll automatically delete comments with profane or unwholesome words, including abbreviated or otherwise disguised profanity.

4. On-topic comments only. If you have other things to say to one of us, send an e-mail to pastor@sfofgso.org.

5. Keep our friends and families out of it. Certain kinds of deliberately-intrusive criticism targeting our loved ones or other cherished aspects of our off-line personal lives will be deemed grounds for an instant, automatic, and permanent ban. (Such remarks are outside the parameters of Christian civility and therefore a violation of Rule 2. They also violate rule 3 and this one, and therefore constitute a threefold offense. That's sufficient grounds for an automatic instant ban.) Say whatever you like about us (as long as you keep your language clean), and we'll let you post it. Take a cheap shot at one of our friends, wives, children, churches, or places of employment, and you risk being permanently banned without further consideration. If in doubt, apply the strictest possible interpretations of rules 2 and 3.

6. Don't feed the trolls.

7. Break these rules three times and the moderators will automatically delete any further comments you post.

Thank you for your understanding. We look forward to preaching Christ and hearing from you!

Why are we Particular Baptists? - An Historical Overview

INTRODUCTION: Our church is a Particular Baptist Church. That means we believe that God saves people with a particular intention, through a particular sovereign plan, and that only those particular elect people were purchased by Jesus on the cross and only they are to be immersed in water as a public profession of their faith in Jesus Christ. Since we believe that those doctrines are clearly taught in the Scriptures, why do we still refer to ourselves as Baptistic Christians? Why not merely refer to ourselves as mere Christians as the title from C.S. Lewis’ class work suggests? Is it only to distinguish ourselves from other so-called denominations, or is there something more to it? Well, there is something more to it. The elders of our church are Baptist by conviction. That means that we believe that the Bible clearly teaches core Baptist doctrines and that the historic Baptist confessions of faith (esp. the Reformed variety) correctly represent the teaching of the Bible as far as it goes. This brings us to a brief but much needed mention about the ecumenical creeds of the Christian Church.

The Ecumenical[1] Creeds

Before we look at the historical background of the 1646 London Confession of Faith, it is important to note that Particular Baptists are in essential agreement with the great ecumenical creeds of church history; namely, the Apostle’s Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed and the lesser known Definition of Chalcedon. Now, a mention of the word “ecumenical” in some Baptist circles can cause otherwise peaceful men to load a shell in their shotguns, point the barrel at you and scream in unison “ready, aim, fire!” This is because too many Baptists are ignorant of their own doctrinal roots. Too many independent, fundamental Baptists are woefully and willfully ignorant of church history and many are even outright suspicious of it due to the liberal compromises that occurred in the Southern Baptist Convention in the mid 20^th century. Thus, many Baptists either don’t care about their doctrinal roots (and so can be easily swayed away from them) or they try to disassociate themselves from the mainstream of church history for fear of being reckoned as either a “Catholic” (a dirty word for fundamental Baptists), or a liberal compromiser. But church history is not so black and white. Most church history is a mixture of grey, with ancient Christians holding to a mixture of both truth and error. Sadly, some modern Baptists would have you believe that their doctrinal roots lead all the way back in an almost pristine fashion to John the Baptist and that their lineage follows a “Trial of Blood”[2] via the Waldenses and the Lollards of the middle ages to the Anabaptists of the Reformation; yet they conveniently look the other way when scholars point out the unbiblical, weird, and even heretical views that these ancient groups held[3]. With all that in mind, it is obvious that we don’t want to be ignorant of church history nor our own doctrinal heritage, so let’s take a moment to review these ancient creeds:

The Apostle’s Creed (mid. 2^nd Century A.D.)

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth,

And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried; He descended into hell[4]. The third day he rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. From there he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, I believe in the holy catholic[5] church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

The Nicene Creed (A.D. 381)

We believe in one God the Father, the Almighty, creator of heaven and earth, and of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being [substance] with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven; by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made truly human. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets.

We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins[6]. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen

The Definition of Chalcedon (A.D. 451)

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood;

One and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed[7] of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

The Athanasian Creed (6^th-7^th Century A.D.)

Whoever wishes to be saved must, above all else, hold to the true Christian Faith. Whoever does not keep this faith pure in all points will certainly perish forever.

Now this is the true Christian faith: We worship one God in three persons and three persons in one God, without mixing the persons or dividing the divine being. For each person -- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit -- is distinct, but the deity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, equal in glory and coeternal in majesty. What the Father is, so is the Son, and so is the Holy Spirit.

The Father is uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated; The Father is eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three who are eternal, but there is one who is eternal, just as they are not three who are uncreated, nor three who are infinite, but there is one who is uncreated and one who is infinite.

In the same way the Father is almighty, the Son is almighty, and the Holy Spirit is almighty. And yet they are not three who are almighty, but there is one who is almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. So the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, the Holy Spirit is Lord; yet they are not three Lords, but one Lord.

For just as Christian truth compels us to confess each person individually to be God and Lord, so the true Christian faith forbids us to speak of three Gods or three Lords. The Father is neither made not created, nor begotten of anyone. The Son is neither made nor created, but is begotten of the Father alone. The Holy Spirit is neither made nor created nor begotten, but proceeds from the Father and the Son. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

And within this Trinity none comes before or after; none is greater or inferior, but all three persons are coequal and coeternal, so that in every way, as stated before, all three persons are to be worshiped as one God and one God worshiped as three persons. Whoever wishes to be saved must have this conviction of the Trinity.

It is furthermore necessary for eternal salvation truly to believe that our Lord Jesus Christ also took on human flesh. Now this is the true Christian faith: We believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, God's Son, is both God and Man. He is God, eternally begotten from the nature of the Father, and he is man, born in time from the nature of his mother, fully God, fully man, with rational soul and human flesh, equal to the Father, as to his deity, less than the Father, as to his humanity; and though he is both God and Man, Christ is not two persons but one, one, not by changing the deity into flesh, but by taking the humanity into God; one, indeed, not by mixture of the natures, but by unity in one person.

For just as the reasonable soul and flesh are one human being, so God and man are one Christ, who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty, and from there he will come to judge the living and the dead. At his coming all people will rise again with their own bodies to answer for their personal deeds. Those who have done good will enter eternal life, but those who have done evil will go into everlasting fire.

This is the true Christian Faith. Whoever does not faithfully and firmly believe this cannot be saved.

These creeds were written by the ancient church not only to clarify and summarize what Christians believed about essential doctrines, but also to counter heresy as it crept into the churches, and to show essential unity to the watching world. The same goes with the 1644/46 London Baptist Confession of Faith.

The Historical Background of the London Baptist Confession of 1644/46

The Particular Baptists arose in England between 1630-1640 after coming out of what was known as the “Separatist Movement”. They first appeared in 1616 when one Henry Jacob organized a church in London after returning from exile in Holland. This first church gathered under a common church confession and covenant and it contained Independent Puritan and radical Separatists, both having different convictions on the proper mode and subjects of baptism. The Independent Puritans honored the national church and wanted to reform it, the radical Separatists said that the established national church was a false church and wanted no connection with it.

Different attitudes developed about the national church in this early independent English church led by Jacob and divisions in it were evident by 1630. In 1633 a group of believers left this church because of credobaptist[8] convictions and came under the leadership of Samuel Eaton. In 1638 this church also dismissed some of its members because they believed that only professing believers should be baptized and that group came under the leadership of John Spilsbury[9], the man who took over Samuel Eaton’s pastorate. This is considered to be the first Particular Baptist Church. In 1640, Spilsbury and others associated with his church became convinced that the proper mode of believer’s baptism was by full immersion into water. Then they tried to learn how they could best implement this practice in a nation where the otherwise doctrinally orthodox only sprinkled or poured water on infants. Only a few liberal sects in the Netherlands[10] were known to practice full immersion, and so you can understand how this practice was viewed with great suspicion in England.

An Englishman who spoke Dutch named Richard Blunt was sent to Holland where he was probably baptized by a Mennonite group[11] that practiced full immersion. Around 1641, he came back to England to baptize by immersion[12] those believers that were in agreement with him and by 1642 other baptismal services were held involving many of the radical Separatists.

By 1644, there were seven Particular Baptist Churches in London that had the opportunity to more freely express their views than ever before because the English government was changing from a Monarchial rule to a Parliamentary style of government. Ecclesiastical tyranny was cast down and a temporary religious freedom was granted to the Particular Baptists. Dissenters to the Church of England worked more openly and itinerant preachers and evangelists traveled throughout the country expressing their religious views. The Particular Baptists took great advantage of this newfound freedom and gained new converts to their views from various religious groups. Because the Calvinism of the Particular Baptist congregations was already a generally accepted theology of the English, this wasn’t a barrier to their acceptance as a legitimate Christian body.

Because Baptist views had spread so rapidly by 1644, it brought serious opposition from dissenting Christian groups. The most serious accusations leveled at the Particular Baptists were that they held to Pelagianism[13] and anarchy; both of which views were associated with the radical wing of the Anabaptists. Thus, they had to write a confession to clear the air by stating their doctrinal views. William Lumpkin sums it up well,

In order to distinguish themselves from both the General Baptists and the Anabaptists, the Calvinistic Baptists of London determined to prepare and publish a statement of their views. The seven London churches, already informally associated together by 1644, evidently pushed aside their prejudice against the use of confessions and prepared their own statement for apologetic purposes.[14]

Reformed Baptist historian Dr. James M. Renihan sums up the historical situation this way,

The First London Confession is a seminal statement of Particular Baptist faith and practice. A product of the political and religious upheavals of early 1640s London, it was an attempt by seven small and relatively new churches in the metropolis to mitigate growing concerns about their doctrines and intentions. Religious toleration was virtually unknown, and rumors abounded that this burgeoning group of illegal congregations held nefarious views similar to the execrated Anabaptists of Munster in northern Germany. Cries for the civil magistrate to take action were sounding forth; the situation was certainly volatile, and the representatives of the churches determined that the best course of action would be an honest declaration of their faith, hoping that this act would convince their concerned opponents of their peaceful orthodoxy.[15]

Because some of the signers of the 1644 London Baptist Confession had been associated with the older Separatist movement, they used their separatist confession, a document known as “The True Confession of 1596” as the basis for creating their new confession. The True Confession of 1596 had a strong Christological emphasis and this theological emphasis as well as the general structure of the 1596 confession was reflected in the 1644 London Confession as well as its later 1646 revision. It is noteworthy to point out that a large section in the 1596 True Confession that dealt with reforming the Church of England along Separatist lines is entirely absent from the 1644 London Confession. Lumpkin notes, “. . . the Baptists did not think of reforming the National Church but of building an entirely new structure on the New Testament pattern.”[16]

The 1644 London Confession was authored by several men working together from these seven churches, three of which were the important early Particular Baptists John Spilsbury, William Kiffin, and Samuel Richardson. Interestingly, none of these men were formally trained for the ministry. Nevertheless, in the 1644, the Calvinism is orthodox, the free-offer of the gospel is upheld to promote Biblical evangelism, there is a strong emphasis on the preaching of the gospel, the ecclesiology is Biblical, the high Christology refutes Arminianism, and this is the first Baptist Confession to clearly state that immersion is the proper mode of baptism. While the 1644 and 1646 London Baptist Confessions are not the best organized, they truly are superior as to their devotional quality and warmth of expression.[17]

It is important to note that the 1644 Confession was received with great eagerness by the Particular Baptists in London as a worthy doctrinal statement that would promote church cooperation. The Confession was also generally received as a well-written document, reflecting sanity and moderation in its articles. However, it didn’t take long for the well-educated, former participant in the Westminster Assembly Daniel Featley to accuse these London Baptists of heresy by attributing to them the doctrinal errors of the continental Anabaptists. Featley specifically said that six articles in the 1644 Confession were heretical. This created no small stir.

Samuel Richardson replied to Featley’s accusations, but because Parliament needed to be appeased, the framers of the 1644 decided to work it over producing the 1646 revision[18]. With the help of two ex-clergymen, Benjamin Cox[19] and Hanserd Knollys, the Calvinism was strengthened, a section on the doctrine of original sin was added, and other changes were made to show that the framers and their churches were orthodox. As a result, legal toleration was granted to the Particular Baptists on March 4, 1647. The 1644/46 London Baptist Confession was useful in providing a sound doctrinal foundation for the Baptist Christians who rose to leadership in Cromwell’s army and through that influence they were well-received by the King and Parliament. Englishmen could compare the Westminster Confession of Faith with the London Confession and see that the Particular Baptists were well within the stream of Reformed Orthodoxy. Finally, Lumpkin provides an appropriate perspective regarding the effects of the First London Confession of 1644/46,

Perhaps no Confession of Faith has had so formative an influence on Baptist life as this one. Vedder calls it one of the chief landmarks of Baptist history. Harold Brown well says, “This significant document of 1644 embodies practically every doctrine that present-day Baptists hold dear, and is, therefore vastly important in Baptist history . . .” Its immediate value to Baptist life can hardly be overstated. Though issued in the name of London Baptists, it served Baptists all over the country at a time when the Particular Baptist stream was becoming the major stream of Baptist life. It certainly was one of the most effective bits of propaganda both for winning a toleration for Baptists and for winning converts to the Baptist position.[20]

Well said. In conclusion, it is the hope and prayer of the elders of Shepherd’s Fellowship Baptist Church that your exposure to and personal use of the 1646 London Baptist Confession of Faith will prove to be helpful in determining and clarifying matters of Christian doctrine, duty, and delight

---

[1] Ecumenical is defined as (1) worldwide or general in extent, influence, or application. (2) of relating to, or representing the whole of a body of churches; promoting or tending toward worldwide Christian unity or cooperation.

[2] http://www.trailofblood.org/

[3] For instance, the early Waldenses took a vow of chastity and poverty and still had their own “sacramental” system as well as a form of communal living that would be anathema to modern fundamental Baptists. Some of the Anabaptists were anti-Trinitarian, some baptized people naked, and some baptized believers by sprinkling. The Lollards, being followers of the early Reformer John Wycliffe, held to a Calvinistic view of predestination and a Lutheran view of the elements of the Lord’s Supper (consubstantiation). Some of them advocated vows of poverty as well.

[4] There is controversy over the exact meaning of the phrase, “he descended into hell”. Some say that this refers to Christ being buried, some say his descent to the earth in the incarnation, and others say that this may refer to him proclaiming His victory in Hell between his death and resurrection. The creed probably bases this upon two Scripture passages: Eph. 4:9 and 1 Pet. 3:18-20, but cf. Lk. 23:46.

[5] “[C]atholic” at it is used here is a reference to the universal church, not the Roman Catholic Church.

[6] “Baptism for the forgiveness of sins” is a reference to the early church’s view that infant baptism literally cleansed an infant of original sin. This is based upon a misreading of the New Testament.

[7] A reference to the Nicene Creed.

[8] “Credobaptist” refers to one who believes that only believers should be baptized and “paedobaptist” refers to those who hold that the infants of one or more believing parents should be baptized.

[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Spilsbury_%28Baptist_minister%29

[10] Namely the Rhynsburgers or Collegiants, both of Mennonite persuasion.

[11] Baptist history scholar William Lumpkin says he was probably baptized by the Mennonite group known as the “Collegiants”. Cf. William Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1959, 1969 Revised Edition), 144.

[12] Technically, it is redundant to say “we baptize by immersion” since the Greek word baptize means “to dip, to whelm, to immerse”.

[13] Pelagianism is a heresy that teaches that men are not born with a sin nature but learn to be sinners by being influenced by other sinners, that men can become sin-free after their conversion, and are not slaves to sin before their conversion. This heresy was rightfully condemned by the Council of Orange in 529 A.D. and Augustine’s predestinarian views were upheld as Biblical.

[14] Lumpkin, 145.

[15] James M. Renihan, Ed., True Confessions: Baptist Documents in the Reformed Family, (Owensboro, KY: RBAP, 2004), 3.

[16] Lumpkin, 146.

[17] Ibid.

[18] This is the version that Shepherd’s Fellowship has chosen to use. See it online at http://www.sfofgso.org/about.asp?href=sof

[19] On November 30, 1646, Benjamin Cox published twenty-two additional articles for the 1646 Confession titled An Appendix to a Confession of Faith.

[20] Lumpkin, 152.