The Water That Divides Baptism And Baptists

By Larry R. Oats [1]

In an article called “We Believe In: Water Baptism,” Arthur Farstad identifies a problem in the broad evangelical world:

If one were writing an article on baptism for a Baptist publication – or a Church of Christ, Presbyterian, or Roman Catholic one – the task would not be too difficult. Each group has well-defined positions on all aspects of this doctrine. . . . Our readership holds differing views not only on the mode but also the meaning of baptism, and perhaps most important of all, the proper candidates for water baptism. Difficult as it may be, in this article we propose to examine the consensus of nearly all Christians on water baptism.[2]

His article concluded that most evangelicals agree on only three elements: water baptism confers no saving grace, baptism in some way identifies believers with Christ, and baptism is important for obedience and as a testimony to the world of the believer’s identification with Christ.[3]

In similar fashion, J. I. Packer states,

One of the church’s unhappy divisions concerns the subject of baptism. Nobody defends baptizing all infants as such, but most denominations baptize the children of the baptized. Baptists, however, see this as either non-baptism (because infants cannot make the required confession of faith) or as irregular baptism (because, they say, it is not clearly apostolic, nor pastorally wise). Some hold that by not actually commanding infant baptism God in Scripture forbids it; all urge that to postpone baptism till faith is conscious is always in practice best. (Note that when I speak of “Baptists” here, I am referring to a whole range of Christians—members of Baptist and baptistic denominations, along with some charismatics, independents, and other evangelicals—for whom believer-baptism is the standard practice.) 

On the other side, some have deduced from covenant theology that God commands the baptism of believers’ babies after all. Many more maintain that this practice, though fixed by the church, has better theological, historical, and pastoral warrant than the alternative has, and so should be thought of as “most agreeable with the institution of Christ.”[4]

Baptism divides Baptists (and baptistic churches using Packer’s definition in the quote above) from almost all other denominations. In the current culture, baptism is frequently denigrated – the mode is unimportant, the recipient can be almost anyone, and the meaning is uncertain. The purpose of this article is to look briefly at various historical views on baptism, examine what Scripture says on the subject, and then analyze the significance of baptism for Baptists.

A Brief History Of Baptism

The first reference to baptism by means other than immersion is found in the Didache (written about 120 to 150). Baptism by pouring was viewed as an acceptable alternative only when it was not possible for the candidate to be immersed.

And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [flowing] water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.[5]

The Didache allowed pouring, but the first documented case of pouring instead of immersing came a hundred years later (in about 250). The significance of this event was the effect that pouring instead of immersion had on the spiritual qualifications of the recipient. It involved a man by the name of Novatus or Novatian, who lived in Rome. Novatus was believed to be at the point of death and so was poured on in his sickbed. Baptism was viewed as the means of washing away original sin; therefore, numerous individuals waited as long as possible before being baptized so that they could wash away as much sin as possible. However, this case was unusual in that Novatus was too ill to be immersed, was therefore poured upon, but then recovered from his illness. Had he died, no one apparently would have been concerned, but he was now a healthy individual who had not been immersed. Eusebius of Caesarea described the incident and used it to argue why Novatus was not eligible for church office; it was not deemed “lawful that one baptized in his sick bed by aspersion, as he was, should be promoted to any order of the clergy.”[6]

Cyprian of Carthage (3rd century) wrote concerning the baptism of heretics. The developing Roman Catholic Church argued that salvation was found only in the “true Church.” Therefore, baptism by heretics was not valid, since they had no ability to confer salvation. Only the one “true Church” had the authority to baptize. Cyprian had to explain to Magnus, the recipient of his letter, concerning those who obtain God’s grace in sickness and weakness, whether they are to be accounted legitimate Christians, for that they are not to be washed, but sprinkled, with the saving water. . . . In the sacraments of salvation, when necessity compels, and God bestows His mercy, the divine methods confer the whole benefit on believers; nor ought it to trouble any one that sick people seem to be sprinkled or affused, when they obtain the Lord’s grace.[7] Apparently Magnus assumed that only baptism by immersion was acceptable, and Cyprian needed to correct that “error” in his thinking.

Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem in the fourth century, stated:

For thou goest down into the water . . . to be swallowed up by the terrible dragon. Having gone down dead in sins, thou comest up quickened in righteousness . . . so thou by going down into the water, and being in a manner buried in the waters, as He was in the rock, art raised again walking in newness of life.[8]

As late as the thirteenth century, Thomas Aquinas, who lived from 1225 to 1274 and was one of the most prominent Catholic theologians, stated, “[I]t is safer to baptize by immersion, because this is the more ordinary fashion, yet Baptism can be conferred by sprinkling or also by pouring, according to Ezekiel 36:25: ‘I will pour upon you clean water.’”[9]

Another change concerned the recipients of baptism. In the New Testament and until the rise of the Roman Catholic Church, baptism was reserved for believers. As baptism began to take on a salvific quality, combined with the high rate of infant mortality, the rite came to include infants. Since baptism was believed to save, it was logical to baptize infants to ensure their salvation during the years prior to being able to exercise personal faith. There also developed in the rising Roman Catholic Church a system of instruction before non-Christian adults could be baptized. This fostered the idea that people could be educated into salvation. Conversion by means of the work of the Holy Spirit was no longer necessary. Therefore, in addition to the baptism of unregenerate infants came the baptism of unregenerate adults. This was the dominant position until the Reformation. It was not, however, the only position. Prior to the Reformation there were many Bible believers who rejected Catholic theology, frequently paying a great price to do so.

Numerous groups stood against Catholicism throughout much of its history. A significant group was the Waldenses. The Dean of Notre Dame in Arras, in the 14th century, declared that one-third of Christendom sometimes attended Waldensian meetings and were Waldensian at heart.[10] The various non-Catholic groups were not homogenous, but the more biblical of them had significant similarities: they condemned the worldliness of the Roman church, they rejected its priesthood, they denied the validity of the sacraments, and they tried to live in biblical simplicity. A significant issue for these groups was baptism. If the church was corrupt, would not its baptism also be corrupt? If the priesthood was to be rejected, then should not baptism by such a priest also be rejected? If the sacraments did not save, then what was the purpose of baptism? If baptism was a response to personal commitment, then of what value was infant baptism?

Similar to the Waldenses in Western Europe were the Paulicians in the East. The Paulicians were the enemy of the Eastern Orthodox Churches. In 1828 a colony of Paulicians moved into Armenia and brought with them an ancient manual of doctrine, which they claimed dated back a thousand years. It was translated into English as The Key of Truth. The three keys were repentance, baptism and holy communion. “These three He gave to the adults and not to catechumens who have not repented or are unbelieving.”[11]

In the Reformation the Reformers developed numerous theological distinctions from Catholicism. Baptism was not one of them. In spite of the preaching of the gospel and the destruction of the framework of medieval Christianity, the Reformers failed to replace Catholic baptism with a biblical model.

Luther believed that what justifies the recipient is not the baptism, but faith in the promises which God makes in association with baptism. Infants, incapable of believing, are assisted by the faith of those who bring them to baptism and by the prayers of the witnesses. His baptismal services included exorcism, the sign of the cross, the use of salt, and the immersion of the child in water. In a sermon on baptism in 1518, he stated:

First baptism is called in Greek baptismos, in Latin mersio, that is, when we dip anything wholly in water, that it is completely covered over. And although in many provinces it is no longer the custom (in other provinces it was the custom) to thrust the children into the font and to dip them; but they only pour water with the hands out of the font; nevertheless, it should be thus, and would be right, that after speaking aloud the word (baptize) the child or any one who is to be baptized, be completely sank down into the water, and dipt again and drawn out, for without doubt in the German tongue the word (taufe) comes from the word tief (deep), that a man sinks deep into the water, what he dips. That also the signification of baptism demands, for it signifies that the old man and sinful birth from the flesh and blood shall be completely drowned through the grace of God. Therefore, a man should sufficiently perform the signification and a right perfect sign. The sign rests, in this, that a man plunge a person in water in the name of the Father, etc., but does not leave him therein but lifts him out again; therefore it is called being lifted out of the font or depths. And so must all of both of these things be the sign; the dipping and the lifting out. Thirdly, the signification is a saving death of the sins and of the resurrection of the grace of God. The baptism is a bath of the new birth. Also a drowning of the sins in the baptism.[12]

Elsewhere Luther declared:

For this reason I would have the candidates for baptism completely immersed in the water, as the word says and as the sacrament signifies. Not that I deem this necessary, but it were well to give to so perfect and complete a thing a perfect and complete sign; thus it was also doubtless instituted by Christ. The sinner does not so much need to be washed as he needs to die . . . and to be conformed to the death and resurrection of Christ, with Whom, through baptism, he dies and rises again. . . . [I]t is far more forceful to say that baptism signifies our utter dying and rising to eternal life, than to say that it signifies merely our being washed clean from sins.[13]

Luther argued for immersion, and he argued that infants should be baptized because they do indeed exercise faith. He based this on his belief that faith is a gift of God and has no relationship to the act of believing by the individual. “Right faith is a thing wrought by the Holy Ghost in us, which changeth us and turneth us into a new nature. How then can we insist that we know exactly when faith is granted? . . . We hopefully assume the child to be a believer and thus regenerate. The baptism then strengthens the seed of faith.”[14] He believed that the helplessness of the child symbolized how the grace of God alone saves a man. Melancthon, Luther’s successor and the theologian of Lutheranism, was concerned that the elimination of infant baptism would remove the church-state relationship, set people free from the established religion, and interfere with the Reformers’ view of Christendom.

Zwingli, the Zurich, Switzerland reformer, was more biblical, although politics got in the way of truth. He declared, “Nothing grieves me more than that at present I must baptize children, for I know it ought not to be done. . . . But if I were to stop the practice of Infant Baptism, I would lose my office.”[15] When several of his followers began to practice believer’s baptism, Zwingli and the city council of Zurich fined, imprisoned and eventually executed those who dared to practice believer’s baptism.

John Calvin was a second generation reformer.[16] Calvin saw the weakness of Luther’s assumption that a true church was produced only by preaching and the sacraments. His connection with the Anabaptists[17] undoubtedly affected his adoption of spiritual discipline as a third characteristic of the church. He rejected Luther’s view of infant faith, but also rejected the Anabaptists’ view of adult baptism. He was concerned that the Anabaptist view required a discontinuity between the Old Testament and New Testament. He argued that the old and new covenants are alike in foundation, meaning and purpose, differing only in the external ordinances. Since circumcision was administered to infants, so baptism can and should also be administered in the same way. He also argued that restricting baptism only to believers displaced grace from its essential position.[18]

Calvin recognized that New Testament baptism was by immersion. In his discussion of the geographical locale for the baptism of Jesus by John, he concluded:

Now geographers tell us, that these two towns, Enon and Salim, were not far from the confluence of the river Jordan and the brook Jabbok; and they add that Scythopolis was near them. From these words, we may infer that John and Christ administered baptism by plunging the whole body beneath the water.[19]

He was not, however, committed to using immersion, believing (amazingly like the Roman Catholics) that the churches have the authority to make a change in mode when it suits them.

Whether the person baptized is to be wholly immersed, and that whether once or thrice, or whether he is only to be sprinkled with water, is not of the least consequence: churches should be at liberty to adopt either, according to the diversity of climates, although it is evident that the term baptize means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive Church.[20]

Under Catholicism, pedobaptism stood for “truth” and adult baptism for evangelical “heresy.” Under Lutheranism, pedobaptism symbolized state Christianity, while adult baptism symbolized voluntary Christianity. With Calvin, pedobaptism came to represent a predestinarian view of salvation, while adult baptism accompanied an emphasis on human responsibility.

Standing in opposition to both Catholicism and the Reformers during the Reformation were the Anabaptists, the “re-baptizers.” They condemned Catholicism as anti-Scriptural and the Reformation as an incomplete return to the truth of Scripture. They rejected pedobaptism and baptized only adults upon a confession of their faith in Christ; the Catholics and Reformers viewed this as “rebaptism,” but the Anabaptists protested that this was the only true baptism.[21]

Theologically, these Anabaptists of the Reformation era, like the earlier Waldenses, Paulicians and others, viewed baptism as an act of obedience by an adult believer. For them, it became an eloquent way of rejecting Christian sacramentalism and all it stood for. When persecution became a way of life for the Anabaptists, baptism took on an additional meaning; it became a demonstration of the believer’s willingness to “die to self,” which at that time was viewed as literal death. Conrad Grebel wrote, “He that is baptized has been planted into the death of Christ. True Christians are sheep among wolves, ready for the slaughter. They must be baptized into anguish and affliction, tribulation, persecution, suffering and death.”[22]

For the next three hundred years, little changed with respect to baptism in Catholicism and Protestantism. During this time, however, the modern Baptists began,[23] and the truth of believers’ baptism became more prevalent.

Biblical Examination Of Baptism

There are only eleven instances of church-related baptisms recorded in the New Testament.[24] There are eight references to baptism in Paul’s writings[25] and one reference in Peter.[26]

The Mode Of Baptism

Baptism is by definition an immersion. “The practice of baptism in the New Testament was carried out in one way: the person being baptized was immersed or put completely under the water and then brought back up again.”[27] The English word is not a translation, but a transliteration. The Greek word βαπτίζω (baptizo) means “to immerse” or “to dip.”[28] “Despite assertions to the contrary, it seems that baptizô, both in Jewish and Christian contexts, normally meant ‘immerse’, and that even when it became a technical term for baptism the thought of immersion remains.”[29] Greek is a rich language, with a broad vocabulary. There are Greek words which mean other than immersion. λούω (louo) and its related forms mean “to wash” or “to bathe.” νίπτω (nipto) means “to wash the extremities,” as in the washing of hands or of feet. ῥαντίζω (rhantizo) means “to sprinkle.” χέω (keo) means “to pour.” The Greek language was fully capable of indicating which “mode” of baptism the church was to practice.

In addition, the Biblical examples of baptism fit immersion better than sprinkling or pouring. In Mark 1:10, when John baptized Jesus, the text declares that they went into the Jordan and Jesus ἀ᾿᾿νέβη (anebe) “came up” ἀπό (apo) “out of” the Jordan. Some commentators will argue that the text here does not give any indication of the mode of baptism. The question, however, is why the special language to declare that Jesus both came up and came out of the Jordan. “Inasmuch as the word ‘baptize’ means to immerse, the expression ‘coming up out of the water’ almost certainly refers to from beneath the water rather than upon the bank.”[30] John the Baptist did not need a river of water if his intent was only to sprinkle or pour upon his disciples. Similar language is found in Acts 8:36-39, where Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch stopped where there was water and also went into and up out of the water. The Ethiopian was traveling through the desert; certainly he would have had a sufficient supply of water to get home. Sprinkling or pouring a small amount on his head would not have jeopardized his supply.

The Joint Committees on Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Communion of the Anglican Church recognized that baptism is by immersion. “It is clear that the recipients of Baptism were normally adults and not infants; and it must be admitted that there is no conclusive evidence in the New Testament for the Baptism of infants.”[31]

The Greek Orthodox Church still immerses; Greeks understand that βαπτίζω means “to immerse.” “The Service of Holy Baptism” of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America states:

The Baptizing 

When he has anointed the whole body, the Priest baptizes him (her), holding him (her) erect, and looking towards the East, says: 

The servant of God (Name) is baptized in the Name of the Father, Amen. And of the Son, Amen. And of the Holy Spirit, Amen. 

At each invocation the Priest immerses him (her) and raises him (her) up again. After the baptizing, the Priest places the child in a linen sheet held by the Godparent.[32]

The Purpose Of Baptism

New Testament Baptism had its origins with John the Baptist.[33] John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance for the remission of sin, a baptism that was the visible, outward expression of an inward change in attitude toward God, one’s sinfulness and need of repentance, and, this writer would suggest, toward the Jerusalem-based, unbiblical Judaism of the day (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; Acts 13:24).[34] A Jew who was baptized by John identified himself with a return to a genuine Judaism which saw mankind in need of a Savior. Jesus’ disciples baptized, in keeping with John’s baptism (John 3:22; 4:1, 2), long before Pentecost. John 1:31 also links John’s baptism to the revelation of Jesus as the Messiah. It is unlikely that the Jews of John’s day saw his baptism or the baptism by Jesus’ disciples to be a picture of the death, burial and resurrection; that linkage was to come later. Instead, John’s baptism was prompted by repentance, a return to the truth of the Old Testament, and identification of the one baptized with the Messiah concerning whom John preached.

The Great Commission (Matt 28:19-20 and Mark 16:15-16) records the commandment of Jesus for his disciples to baptize believers. The order of his commandment is first to evangelize the lost, then to baptize those who believe, and finally to teach them the things Jesus had taught his disciples and would teach them through the Holy Spirit. There is an implied connection with John’s baptism, since salvation (which involves repentance) precedes the baptism and since the only baptism the disciples were familiar with up to this point in time was the baptism of repentance. This is one purpose for baptism. “For baptism is among Jesus’ commands. He sent his followers to disciple all nations, baptizing them in the triune name (Matthew 28:19). So a church that did not require baptism, and an unbaptized Christian who did not ask for it would be something of a contradiction in terms. The root reason for the practice of baptizing is to please Jesus Christ our Lord.”[35] There is no hint at the baptism of the unrepentant.

This commandment was first obeyed on the day of Pentecost, when some 3000 people were saved and baptized. Peter urged the people to be baptized for essentially the same reason for John’s baptism. Acts 2:38 records Peter’s call for the Jews who heard his message to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins, language essentially identical to John’s baptism. Acts 2:41, however, demonstrates a change in the concept of baptism from John’s baptism of repentance to a church-related baptism. This is the first reference to a connection between baptism and church membership, in keeping with the Great Com-mission – the people were saved, then baptized, and then came under the teaching of the disciples in the church in Jerusalem. This is New Testament baptism.

The next baptism recorded in Scripture was that done by Philip in Samaria (Acts 8:12). The only information gathered here on baptism is that believers were baptized by Philip, in keeping with the Great Commission. Then Philip went down to the desert and baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, after having preached the gospel to him. There was no church and no indication of any related church membership, although Phillip was acting as an agent of the Jerusalem church. Therefore, some have suggested that he baptized him into the membership of the church; this may have been the case, but the text does not tell us this. History does, however, speak of a later vibrant church in Ethiopia, perhaps as a result of this man’s testimony. This event could be used to be warrant the baptism of new converts in a new community where a church does not yet exist, as is the case frequently in a new church plant or on the mission field. This unusual case, however, should not be viewed as the norm, for everywhere else in the New Testament baptism is clearly related to a specific church.

The next baptism, recorded in Acts 9:18, is that of Paul, after his conversion on the Damascus Road (see also Acts 22:16). Immediately after his conversion and baptism, Paul is found with the believers in Damascus, engaged in Great Commission work himself.

In Acts 10:48 the first Gentiles, Cornelius and others, were baptized, but little is said about the baptism itself. Acts 16:15 records the baptism of Lydia and her household. Acts 16:33 speaks of the baptism of the Philippian jailor. In each of these cases, the one who brought the message of salvation spent time with the new converts; they were starting the process of the third element of the Great Commission – teaching them the truth of Jesus Christ. In the case of Lydia and the jailor, it is clear that a church began in the city of their salvation and baptism.

Acts 18:8 records the baptism of a number of believers in Corinth, and in 1 Corinthians 1:13-17 Paul gives testimony of baptizing several of the early converts in Corinth. Paul makes it clear in the context that baptism does not save; he came to evangelize, not to baptize. Nevertheless, the context indicates that the Great Commission order was followed – evangelization, followed by baptism, followed by the planting of a church where teaching occurred.

Acts 19:5 presents a difficult case, and space does not permit a thorough discussion. This writer concludes that several men who were followers of John the Baptist (but apparently had no idea what John’s message truly was and so may have actually been followers of a follower of John) were baptized in the name of Jesus. The usual order of regeneration, then baptism, is evident.

These passages demonstrate that the norm for the New Testament is the baptism of adult believers upon repentance and a confession of their faith in Christ,[36] and usually in connection with a local church that either already existed or was being begun by a missionary.

Baptism In Covenant Theology

Since the Reformers, especially Calvin, argued for the connection of the New Testament church to Old Testament Israel, they tied baptism to circumcision. The covenant position is that baptism is the “sign and seal” of the union between the individual and Christ.[37] Covenant theologians historically have taken two approaches to this concept. One is that of “presumptive regeneration.” Those who take this approach presume that the infant is already regenerated and proceed as if he is; these children are regarded as regenerate until they demonstrate that they are not. The second, more common, approach is that infants are baptized predicated on the all-encompassing promises of God in the covenant. The fact of the regeneration or non-regeneration of the infant makes no difference.[38]

Since there is only a single covenant of grace, in the covenant view, and since children were considered to be in the covenant in the Old Testament, and since God commanded that an external sign be given not just to the believing adults, but also to their children, “it is incumbent upon all God’s people to continue to put a sign of the covenant upon themselves and their children until God says otherwise. . . . [Since] baptism is identical in meaning with circumcision, it must be concluded that baptism should be used instead of circumcision.”[39]

Reymond ties baptism to circumcision, using a shortened reading of Col 2:11-12. “The relation between Old Testament circumcision and New Testament baptism may be seen . . . ‘in him you were also circumcised . . . , having been buried with him in baptism.’ Clearly, for Paul the spiritual import of the New Testament sacrament of baptism—the outward sign and seal of the Spirit’s inner baptismal work—is tantamount to that of Old Testament circumcision.”[40] There are Baptists who would concur. Paul King Jewett, a Reformed Baptist, agrees that “the only conclusion we can reach is that the two signs, as outward rites, symbolize the same inner reality in Paul’s thinking. Thus circumcision may fairly be said to be the Old Testament counterpart of Christian baptism. . . . In this sense baptism, to quote the Heidelberg Catechism, ‘occupies the place of circumcision in the New Testament.’”[41] Reymond’s conclusion is that baptism and circumcision are “essentially the same ... a covenantal sign of the Spirit’s act of cleansing from sin’s defilement.”[42]

The emphasis on baptism is that it is a sign of the cleansing of sin. “Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament. . . . The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water. . . . Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person. . . . Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.”[43] The background for baptism is found in the Old Testament ritual washings (Lev 8:5-6; 14:8-9; 15) and their symbolic applications (Ps 51:1-2; 7-10; Ezek 36:25-26).

The reference of baptism to cleansing (Ezek 36:25-26; John 3:5; 1 Cor 6:11; and Titus 3:5) plus the connection of baptism to circumcision in Col 2:11-12 demonstrates that “baptism signifies more specifically the cleansing or purification from sin’s defilement and guilt.”[44] Reymond’s discussion of Romans 6 completely ignores the symbolism of immersion, emphasizing instead the relational character of baptism and the symbolism of union with Christ.[45]

As to the mode, many covenant theologians argue against immersion as the only mode or even the primary mode. Reymond argues that βαπτίζω does not necessarily mean “immerse.” The reference to “much water” in John 3:23 only means that there was sufficient drinking water for the masses that came to John the Baptist. The references to going down into water and coming up out of water (Matt 3:16; Mark 1:9, 10; Acts 8:36-39) are inconclusive. The act of baptism “was a separate act that followed upon the going down into and preceded the coming up out of the water. . . . Clearly these acts in no way constituted any part of the baptismal act itself.” He believes that the Ethiopian eunuch may have been reading Isaiah 53:7-8 (“So will [my Servant] sprinkle many nations”) and that this made him think of baptism. The household baptisms of Saul, the Philippian jailor, and Cornelius could not have been immersions. He argues from Hebrews 9:10 and 21 that baptism and sprinkling are identical. Romans 6 relates baptism not just to Christ’s death, burial and resurrection, but also to his crucifixion (as does Col 2:11-12). Therefore, immersion cannot be argued as justifiable. Instead baptism simply symbolizes the union of the believer with Christ. Reymond’s conclusion is that “there is not a single recorded instance of a baptism in the entire New Testament where immersion followed by emersion is the mode of baptism. The Baptist practice of baptism by immersion is simply based upon faulty exegesis of Scripture.”[46]

Berkhof argues that “the mode is quite immaterial. . . . Jesus did not prescribe a certain mode of baptism. . . . It is not likely that the multitudes that flocked to John the Baptist, nor the three thousand converts of the day of Pentecost were baptized by immersion.”[47]

Reymond argues that infants should be baptized for three reasons. First, there is “no direct command ‘Baptize only those who themselves make a personal profession of faith.’” Second, the New Testament instances of baptism based upon a credible profession of faith cannot be made normative. Third, Biblical principles have the force of commands “by good and necessary inference,” which ultimately means that “the sacramental continuity between the testaments is so strong that not to baptize children of believers would require some explicit word of repeal.”[48] His continuity between the testaments has forced him to develop an “inference” which requires him to identify circumcision with baptism. Believing parents are “to regard their children as . . . bonafide members of both the covenant of grace and the church of God.”[49] He then concludes that the “Reformed paedobaptist position is, of course, based upon the unity of the covenant of grace and the oneness of the people of God in all ages.”[50]

Feenstra adds that the silence of the New Testament on the baptism of infants is a “thunderous affirmation that infant baptism was so taken for granted that no explicit mention of it was necessary.”[51] This is a dangerous hermeneutic, for based on this all kinds of activity could be argued.

Berkhof acknowledges, “There is no explicit command in Scripture to baptize children; nor is there a single instance in which we are plainly told that children were baptized. But this does not necessarily make infant baptism un-Biblical.”[52] He then develops arguments similar to those already noted. In his discussion of the relationship between baptism and circumcision, Berkhof, convinced of the direct connection, argues, “The exclusion of New Testament children [from baptism] would require an equivocal statement to that effect.”[53]

Reymond explains that the reason only male infants were circumcised in the Old Testament, but both male and female infants are baptized in the New Testament is that God recognized and adapted himself to patriarchal culture of the Old Testament.[54] This seems to be grasping at straws; the creation of the nation of Israel would seem to indicate that instead of bowing to the heathen culture of the day, God instead was creating a unique culture for his people.

The various arguments favoring the sprinkling of infants are not convincing. Reymond’s “good and necessary inference” seems to be merely exegesis driven by a specific theology. This writer agrees with Wayne Ward, when he concludes that the attempt to tie baptism to circumcision “is a frantic effort to preserve a baptismal practice that arose later in church history by reading into it a meaning nowhere found in the New Testament.”[55]

Significance Of Baptism

The called are gathered into communities of believers – local churches. In fact, historically most Baptists have argued that the only manifestation of the church in the world is the local church, this gathered community of believers (however they have viewed the universal church). Nevertheless, to be part of the gathered church, the believer must be baptized. Baptists hold numerous beliefs which are related to these basic concepts.

First, the authority of baptism is Christ. Our Lord commanded his disciples to baptize (immerse); no one has a right to alter his commandment. He did not tell believers to be baptized in the Jordan, or to be baptized in a river, or to be baptized inside a church building, but he did say, be baptized; therefore, Baptists do not insist on the Jordan, or a river, or any other particular circumstance, but they do insist on baptizing.[56]

Baptist ecclesiology is based on the authority of the New Testament. Baptists generally accept baptism only from those institutions they consider to be truly baptistic, not because Baptists are necessarily opposed to these institutions, but because they have no choice but to accept the authority of Scripture. Denominational names are not conclusive; a church need not have “Baptist” in the name to be Baptist, and, conversely, not every church with the name “Baptist” is truly a Baptist church. Likewise, successionism is not necessary; a direct historical connection back to Jerusalem is not required for a church to be genuinely New Testament. In addition, the decision concerning what constitutes a church cannot be delegated to a convention or association. A true church is, in and of itself, responsible to the authority of Christ and the Scriptures.

Second, Baptists have historically insisted on immersion, primarily because the form is tied to the meaning. Much of Christendom has changed the form of baptism to pouring or sprinkling, even though most scholars agree that baptism in the New Testament was by immersion. A change in the form causes the loss of its power as a witness to the death and resurrection of Christ. Romans 6:3-4 and Colossians 2:12 use immersion to picture the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and of the believer. The Scriptures speak of being baptized into Christ’s death, being buried with him by baptism, and being planted in the likeness of his death and resurrection. Based on Romans 6, Erickson argues, “There is a strong connection between baptism and our being united with Christ in his death and resurrection.”[57] Sprinkling and pouring do not illustrate this truth in any sense. Many interpreters view Paul as referring to Spirit baptism, but whether the reference is Spirit baptism or water baptism, Paul is using the concept of immersion as a symbol for the Christian’s initial conversion experience.

The question is not what is the most appropriate manner of performing the rite of baptism, but what is the act to be performed. When someone attempts to alter the act, Baptists object. It is not merely a change in the mode of baptism to which we object. A change in the mode, we contend, is a change in the act. Sprinkling is not simply a change in the mode of baptism. Sprinkling simply is not baptism; pouring is not baptism. Immersion, and immersion alone, is baptism. Without immersion, the symbolism is not merely defective; the symbolism is nonexistent.

Third, Baptists insist on the baptism of believers. Baptists reject infant baptism. There is no direct evidence of infant baptism in the New Testament. There is significant evidence that only believers were baptized. Every one baptized in the New Testament was able to express his or her faith in Christ and willfully choose his own baptism.

Fourth, any discussions about baptism must focus on meaning. Baptism is a public declaration of the believer’s connection to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In the New Testament baptism followed salvation almost immediately (see Acts 2:38-41; 8:12; 9:17-18; 16:30-33).

Some see it as the “confession with the mouth” which, when preceded by “belief in the heart,” announces salvation (Rom 10:9).[58] Baptism “into” the name of Jesus Christ is best described as a declaration of identification with the Savior.

Historically, baptism was the way believers announced their conversion to Christianity in a variety of denominations. A question was raised in the Philadelphia Association in 1763 as to whether it was the duty of the pastor or the duty of the church “to examine the candidates, and to judge of their qualifications for Baptism.”[59] The question was not whether a person should be examined; it was only a question of whose responsibility was it. David Benedict, referring to Daniel Marshall, stated, “He became acquainted with a Baptist church, belonging to the Philadelphia Association; and as the result of a close, impartial examination of [his] faith and order, he [was] baptized by immersion, in the forty-eighth year of his life.”[60] Adoniram Judson spoke of examining and baptizing converts in Burma.[61] Benedict, in his biography of John Gano, pastor of the First Baptist Church of New York City and later Army Chaplain under George Washington, stated that one of Gano’s first duties as an ordained minister was to “examine candidates for baptism, who related what God did for their souls.”[62]

It was during the growth of the revivalist movement in the latter half of the 19th century that the public declaration by means of baptism was replaced with the altar call. Under this new approach, a person would proclaim his salvation by walking the aisle and having the pastor or evangelist announce that the person had become a believer. Baptism was optional for some of these evangelists. In many Baptist churches, baptism was pushed back until after a time of training and education.

Fifth, Baptists argue that baptism is the means of entry into a New Testament church; therefore, Baptists demand it as a precondition for membership. A few Baptists (particularly British Baptists) practice “open membership.”[63] Members are accepted upon their confession of faith, but baptism is an issue of personal conviction. Most Baptists, however, practice “closed membership.” Members are only accepted upon a confession of faith and baptism by immersion after salvation. Anything else imperils the very testimony that Baptist churches have historically held.

Baptism was designed and instituted as an initial rite. It is the first duty required of believers after repentance and faith, and is Christ’s own appointed mode of professing allegiance to him before the world. It is in its nature an initiatory badge of discipleship, required to be administered and received before admission to the church. The very first record of the progress of the gospel under the labors of the apostles, shows the order of church building in those days.[64]

Conclusion

Baptism is truly the “Water that Divides.” Baptists historically have held to the immersion of believers, upon their confession of faith, as the initiatory rite of obedience to Christ and, with rare exception, entrance into the membership of the local church. This is not merely a denominational difference. Baptists hold to their belief because it is based upon the authority of Christ and Scripture, because of the significance of the act, because of the biblical necessity of baptism only for believers, because it symbolically connects the believer to Christ, and because of its relationship to the local church. Some believe baptism creates an “unhappy division” in Christendom. Baptists argue, instead, that it creates a joyful obedience to Christ and to his commandments.

Notes

1. Dr. Larry R. Oats is the Dean and Professor of Systematic Theology at Maranatha Baptist Seminary.
2. Arthur L. Farstad, “We Believe In: Water Baptism,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 3 (Spring 1990): 3.
3. Farstad, 7-9.
4. J. I. Packer, Growing in Christ (Wheaton: Crossway, 1996), 131.
5. Didache, 7.
6. Eusebius Pamphilus, The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus, Bishop of Caesarea, in Palestine, 6.43.
7. Cyprian, Epistle 75: To Magnus, on Baptizing the Novatians, and Those Who Obtain Grace on a Sick-Bed, 12.
8. Cyril of Jerusalem, First Catechetical Lecture, 3.12.
9. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 3. 7.
10. Leonard Verduin, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren (Paternoster Press, 1964), 173. The Waldenses themselves claimed to be direct descendants of the Apostles. See also Donald Bridge and David Phypers, The Water That Divides (Ross-Shire, Great Britain: Christian Focus, 1998), 69.
11. H. Wheeler Robinson, Baptist Principles (London: Carey Kingsgate, 1935), 59.
12. Martin Luther, “The Holy Sacrament of Baptism,” Works of Martin Luther, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann (St. Louis: Concordia, 1960), 35: 29.
13. Martin Luther, “The Babylonian Captivity,” Works of Martin Luther, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann (St. Louis: Concordia, 1960), 36: 23.
14. Martin Luther, “The Holy Sacrament of Baptism,” Works of Martin Luther, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann (St. Louis: Concordia, 1960), 30: 448.
15. Verduin, The Reformers, 198-99.
16. He was only eight years old when Luther posted his theses.
17. He married the widow of an Anabaptist preacher. While he condemned them as “frenzied spirits” and “furious madmen,” he paid them the compliment of carefully defending his system against every one of their arguments. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.16.1.
18. Calvin, Institutes, 4.16.
19. John Calvin, Commentaries, John 3:22. See also Institutes, 4.15.19.
20. Calvin, Institutes, 4.15.19.
21. Bridge and Phypers, 77.
22. Verduin, 260.
23. While there were those who held to baptistic beliefs since the first church, the modern Baptist movement began after the Reformation, when churches began to use the name “Baptist.”
24. Acts 2:37-41; 8:12-17; 8:35-38; 9:18 (and 22:16); 10:44-48; 16:13-15; 16:30-34; 18:8; 19:1-7; 1 Cor 1:14 and 1:16. Certainly more baptisms took place than were recorded. 1 Cor 1:14-16 demonstrates the normality of the baptism of believers in each church.
25. Gal 3:27; 1 Cor 1:13-17 (six references); 10:2; 12:13; 15:29 (twice); Rom 6:3-4; Eph 4:5; and Col 2:12. Some may argue that these few references would indicate the lack of importance Paul placed on baptism. Paul, however, places baptism in high esteem in Rom 6 and Eph 4. While it may be debated specifically as to which baptism Paul is referring, his readers would certainly have had immersion in water as a backdrop to each of these discussions.
26. 1 Pet 3:21.
27. Wayne Grudem, Making Sense of the Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 143.
28. See Alexander Carson, Baptism in its Mode and Subjects (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1860) for a thorough defense of baptism by immersion.
29. G. R. Beasley-Murray, “Βαπτίζω,” in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 1: 144.
30. James A. Brooks, Mark, The New American Commentary 23 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1991), 42-43.
31. Anglican Church Joint Committees on Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Communion, Baptism and Confirmation Today (London: SCM, 1955), 34.
32. http://www.goarch.org/chapel/liturgical_texts/baptism.
33. Although there is evidence that the Jews used immersion for ritual cleansing of proselyte Jews, there is no discussion in Scripture concerning that act.
34. Luke 7:30 indicates that the Jewish religious elite refused to be baptized by John, therefore rejecting the counsel or will of God for them.
35. Packer, 96.
36. Not one example of the baptism of someone other than a person old enough to confess their faith can be found in any of these events. Grudem, Making Sense, 146.
37. L. Berkhof, Manual of Reformed Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1933), 311-12, 320.
38. Berkhof, 321-22.
39. Y. Feenstra, “Baptism (Reformed View),” in Readings in Christian Theology, ed. Millard J. Erickson (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 3: 373.
40. Ibid., 929.
41. Paul King Jewett, Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 89.
42. Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 930.
43. Reymond, 923.
44. Reymond, 926.
45. Reymond, 929.
46. Reymond, 935.
47. Berkhof, 316-17.
48. Reymond, 936.
49. Reymond, 937.
50. Reymond, 937.
51. Feenstra, 374.
52. Berkhof, 319.
53. Berkhof, 320.
54. Berkhof, 320.
55. Wayne E. Ward, “The Conflict over Baptism,” Christianity Today 11 (April 1967): 11.
56. John A. Broadus, Immersion Essential to Christian Baptism (Watertown, WI: Roger Williams Heritage Archives, 1880; 2003), 5-6. This writer understands that baptize in the Great Commission is a participle, but it is used in an imperatival construction.
57. Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 1109.
58. Bridge and Phypers, 153.
59. David Spencer, Early Baptists of Philadelphia (Philadelphia: William Syckelmoore, 1877), 90.
60. David Benedict, A General History of the Baptist Denomination in America (Boston: Lincoln and Edmands, 1813), 2: 352.
61. J. Clement, Memoir of Adoniram Judson: Being a Sketch of His Life and Missionary Labors (Auburn: Derby and Miller, 1853), 214.
62. Benedict, 2: 305.
63. A common argument is that a closed approach to membership puts Baptists in danger of becoming a sect. Bridge and Phypers, 152.
64. H. L. Gear, The Relation of Baptism to the Lord’s Supper (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1880), 23.

Prayer And God’s Omniscience

By Geoffrey Stertz [1]

Does God hear and answer the prayers of his saints? Is prayer for the sake of the saint or of God or both? Does God change his plans on account of the believer’s prayer? Can God, who is immutable, change at all? Is it possible to consider him to be consistently loving in regards to answering prayer when his will has already been established? Since God already knows what is going to take place, is there any valid reason to pray?

There is one other significant question. How does prayer relate theologically to God’s omniscience? The purpose of this article is to examine this question and attempt to determine how prayer relates to the omniscience of God. The article will expand on the question of this relationship, trace the topic briefly through both the Old and New Testaments, and investigate how it has been handled throughout church history. Finally, the author will present a theological and practical conclusion on the matter.

How Prayer Relates To The Omniscience Of God

Certainly as one explores any infinite attribute of God, he is left with gaps in his theology due to the finiteness of his understanding. One should be cautious in adopting a theology of God that does not recognize the depth of God’s being. Such attempts at theology have led some to veer toward ungrounded philosophy rather than biblically-based theology. These gaps, if come to correctly, should not frustrate the Bible student but rather deepen his appreciation for the fact that God is great and his greatness can forever be explored. However, rather than simply come to an understanding that gaps exist, the goal of the theologian should be to further define where the gaps exist.

Prayer is not only personal and regular for the believer, but it also defines the believer’s relationship to God to some extent. If a believer views prayer simply as a duty, his prayer life may be consistent, but it also might be consistently dull and shallow. If another views prayer as a means merely to achieve his desired goals, he may view it similarly to this author: “What counts is knowing who you want to be and asking for it. Through a simple, believing prayer, you can change your future. You can change what happens one minute from now.”[2] It does not take long to realize how important it is for the believer to have a proper understanding of how his prayer relates to God.

A specific aspect of this understanding is how one views his prayer in relation to God’s omniscience. Christ states in Matthew 6:8 that God knows the things the believer needs before he asks God for them. In 6:32, Christ similarly says that the believer need not be anxious about his needs because God knows them before the believer even asks. Not only does this raise the question as to the point of asking God for one’s needs (since he already knows), but it also questions the reason to anticipate getting what one asks for (since God’s foreknowledge already establishes the future). Without a proper understanding of how prayer relates to God’s omniscience, a believer may come to the conclusion that his relationship to God is of little meaning because what he prays for is not going to make a difference. Commenting on the teachings of Augustine, R.C. Sproul summarizes the dilemma in these two sentences: “If God is sovereign over the actions and intents of men, why pray at all? A secondary concern revolves around the question, ‘Does prayer really change anything?’”[3]

A Biblical Discussion Of The Relationship Between Prayer And God’s Omniscience

When coming to the Bible to answer this question, the primary goal of the believer should not be to search for relevance in his prayer life with God. Instead, one should first search for a biblical understanding of prayer and then determine how God’s people have related to him through prayer.

Old Testament

After the Fall, Scripture records very little of man praying to God until the time of the patriarchs. Cain cried out to God for mercy to be delivered from his situation and God answered his prayer (Gen 4:13-15, 24-25). Besides this, however, little exists regarding prayer before the flood. L. Paul Moore gives the example of Noah:

It is noticeable, in the matter of prayer or intercession, that after the Lord had revealed to Noah His purpose of destroying the whole earth with a flood, Noah does not attempt to plead with God, or to intercede for the ungodly. We are well aware that he was “a preacher of righteousness” (2 Pet 2:5) and that his preparing an ark was in itself a bold testimony to the revelation he had received from God. But Noah attempted no intercession God-ward![4]

When Abraham is introduced, however, the communion between God and man is much different. Moore says,

“With Abraham . . . begins this intimate converse, this free response of an obedient heart.”[5] With the rest of the patriarchs, this type of communion is similar. In Gen 25:21 Isaac prays for Rebekah to have a child and the text says, “The LORD was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.” Bruce Waltke explains the use of the niphal verb for the entreating of Yahweh:

The tolerative Niphal often involves the element of efficacy: what the subject allows to happen can indeed be carried through. Thus Paul Joüon glosses נִדְרַשׁ as “‘to let oneself be questioned,’ and that efficaciously so that it practically means ‘to answer’ (when speaking of God); נִזְהַר, ‘to let oneself be warned’ and that efficaciously and so practically ‘to bear in mind the warning’; נוֹסַר, ‘to let oneself be corrected, to be corrected’; נִעְתַּר, ‘to let oneself be entreated (efficaciously), to grant.’” The tolerative is often used of the deity.[6]

Jacob, even with his scheming, prayed to the Lord for a blessing as well as deliverance from his brother Esau and received both. It appears, at least from the surface, that God graciously answered the prayers of the patriarchs.

The manner in which the patriarchs spoke to God is notable as well. Moore notes that the tone of communion between God and man in the Pentateuch in general is quite remarkable:

As one reads the opening books of the Old Testament, he is profoundly struck with the seeming ease with which God, the Holy One, approaches man, either to command him or to converse with him. One is just as profoundly struck with the freedom, sometimes verging even upon impudence, with which man replies to God. And, in fact, it is the very freedom of intercourse which, for the reader of Scripture, makes it sometimes difficult to distinguish prayer from intimate conversation.[7]

Moses certainly exemplifies this type of communion from his first conversation at the burning bush to his speaking to God face to face in the tabernacle. Particularly interesting in Moses’ prayers is his intercession for Israel. While Abraham had an intercessory role with Sodom, Moses even more clearly stood in the way of God’s wrath to plead for his mercy on Israel. Victor Hamilton writes: “In language almost without equal for boldness in the Old or New Testaments, he urges God not to follow through on his intentions to wipe out his people (32:12).”[8]

Interestingly, within the same story, Moses records that God “repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people” (Ex 32:14). Hamilton investigates the idea of God’s repentance:

The Old Testament uses the verb nāham (repent? relent? change one’s mind?) thirty-four times with God as subject. Two texts (Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29) teach that God, unlike human beings, never needs to repent of sin. And he never repents of his choice of David (Ps. 110:4). But in the other thirty-plus passages that speak of God repenting/relenting, many times God is said to repent of “evil” (not sin!), which in a version such as the NIV is rendered as “calamity” or “disaster.” . . . In ch. 32 God’s words to Moses about Israel’s future are couched more in the form of threatened judgment than decree, and as such they invite and stimulate a prophetic intercessory response from Moses. Thus what God does in Exodus 32 is best characterized by mercy, than by change of mind.[9]

Moving from the Pentateuch into the monarchy, one observes similarly that God’s plans do not change. In 1 Sam 15:29, Samuel told Saul that God “will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret.” Yet, only six verses later, 1 Samuel recorded that God “regretted that he had made Saul over Israel.”

The regret or seeming change in God’s mind exists as somewhat of a mystery, but Robert Chisholm Jr. asserts that “not all statements of [God’s] intention are the same.”[10] Chisholm contrasts “divine decrees” with “announcements” or “conditional statements” and concludes:

If He has decreed a certain course of action or outcome, then He will not retract a statement or relent from a declared course of action. . . . Statements about God not changing His mind serve to mark specific declarations as decrees. They should not be used as proof texts of God’s immutability, nor should they be applied generally to every divine forward-looking statement. If God has not decreed a course of action, then He may very well retract an announcement of blessing or judgment. In these cases the human response to His announcement determines what He will do. Passages declaring that God typically changes His mind as an expression of His love and mercy demonstrate that statements describing God as relenting should not be dismissed as anthropomorphic.[11]

A parallel passage to the request made by Isaac in Gen 25:23 is found in 2 Chron 33:13, where Manasseh humbled himself before Yahweh after he had been captured by the Assyrians. In Manasseh’s prayer to Yahweh, the same tolerative niphal was used as in Gen 25:23. In both cases (Genesis and 2 Chronicles), the character prays, God “is intreated” (ESV “moved by his entreaty”), and God positively answers the prayer.

Most of the remaining notable passages in the Old Testament dealing with God’s omniscience and prayer deal more with the extent of his understanding rather than his response to prayer. Two passages in Psalm show the limitlessness of God’s knowledge.

In Psalm 139 David declares that God knows everything about him—specifically connecting God’s omniscience to man. In vs. 4 especially, David makes a remarkable statement regarding God’s knowledge. S. Edward Tesh translates the verse, “Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O Lord.”12 He goes on to say, “This is the height of God’s omniscience as it relates to the human being. God is able to read the very thoughts of an individual before those thoughts can be expressed in audible words (‏מִלָּה‎, millāh, ‘word’).”[13]

After declaring that God has a name for every star, the psalmist states in Psalm 147:5 that God is great and of great power and then asserts: “his understanding is infinite.” As an example of his infinite knowledge, God chose and named Cyrus to be his instrument in Isaiah 45 more than a century before his birth.

A final Old Testament passage which is especially instructive regarding prayer and God’s response to it is Daniel’s prayer in Daniel 10. In this chapter, Daniel received a burdensome message that set his heart to pray. Three weeks later, after being in spiritual and physical distress, an angel came and spoke with Daniel and told him that his words were heard three weeks earlier. However, due to “the prince of the kingdom of Persia,” the messenger was not able to come. Nevertheless, what the angel told Daniel was that he came because of (NAS – “in response to”) Daniel’s words. Roger Peterson comments about this story:

This should be a lesson to all who pray. When a child of God has humbled his heart and prayed, his prayer has been heard, even though the answer may be delayed. So one should be encouraged by Daniel’s experience to keep on praying until the answer comes and the victory is won. Persistence in prayer pays.[14]

New Testament

The New Testament provides many additional instructions and insights regarding God’s knowledge and man’s prayer. However, many of the passages have at least some correlation to an already revealed truth in the Old Testament.

In the gospels, Christ states in both Matthew 12 and Luke 6 that God already knows what the believer needs before he asks for it. The believer is to seek the kingdom of God. The question raised here is, “If God already knows what a believer needs, what is the point in asking?” This question will be addressed later.

Also, in Matthew 11:21 when Jesus is pronouncing the “woes” on the unrepentant cities where he had done his mightiest works, he says that if Tyre and Sidon would have seen the works which he did in Chorazin and Bethsaida, they would have repented in sackcloth and ashes. This statement demonstrates not only that God knows what will happen, but the possibilities of what could have happened or would have happened based on different contingencies.

Finally in Matthew, Jesus makes an astounding statement in his teaching to the disciples about the withered fig tree. He told his disciples in 21:22 that whatever they ask in prayer they would receive if they have faith. Larry Chouinard remarks:

It follows that Jesus is not suggesting that faith guarantees the reception of anything one may desire. The promise necessarily assumes a commitment to the will of God, and a willingness to forgo individual rights for the sake of the purposes of God. Jesus is the paradigm par excellence of what it means to “have faith and not doubt.”[15]

In John 21:17, Peter responds similarly to David’s statements in Psalm 139. After Christ repeatedly asks Peter if he really loves him, Peter says, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.”

Paul declared in Romans 8:26 that the Holy Spirit provides intercessory help for the believers in their weakness. Paul’s reason is that the believer does not know what to pray for as he should. It is interesting to think the Holy Spirit “cleans up” the prayers of the saints so that they are appropriate requests before God. Douglas Moo writes: “The wording of the clause indicates that it is not the manner, or style, of prayer that Paul has in view but the content, or object, of prayer – what we are to pray for.”[16] He continues:

This inability to know what to pray for cannot be overcome in this life, for it is part of “our weakness,” the inescapable condition imposed on us by our place in salvation history. Therefore, Paul does not command us to eradicate this ignorance by diligent searching for God’s will or by special revelation. Instead, Paul points us to the Spirit of God, who overcomes this weakness by his own intercession.[17]

Both Hebrews 4:12-13 and 1 John 3:20 indicate that God knows the thoughts of man’s heart.

Of all the New Testament books that stress the importance of prayer on the part of man, however, James is probably the most explicit. In the beginning of his letter, James urges the scattered saints to ask God for wisdom as they deal with their trials. However, he instructs them in 1:6 to ask in faith “with no doubting” and says that the person who doubts should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. Basically, if the believer does not expect that his prayer can be answered, he should not expect to have his prayer answered. Peter Davids writes:

The author, then, concludes his description of this doubter with a strong condemnation: his divided mind, when it comes to trusting God, indicates a basic disloyalty toward God. Rather than being a single-minded lover of God, he is one whose character and conduct is unstable, even hypocritical. No wonder he should expect nothing from God! He is not in the posture of the trusting child at all. For James there is no middle ground between faith and no faith; such a one, he will later argue (4:8), needs to repent.[18]

Later James says in 4:2-3 that the believer does not get the things he wants either because he does not ask for them, or because he asks for selfish reasons. Certainly God will not answer such prayers. James instead instructs the believer to humble himself; he goes on to promise that if the believer draws near to God, then God will draw near to him. From this passage it appears that God is ready and eager to respond and meet the believer’s needs, but chooses not to when the believer either does not ask or asks with selfish reasons.

Lastly, James focuses on prayer again in chapter 5, by addressing the problem of what to do when a believer is sick.[19] After he instructs his readers to have the elders to pray over and anoint the sick individual with oil in the Lord’s name, he says that “the prayer of faith shall save” him and then “the Lord shall raise him up.” These phrases together are remarkable in that one says that the prayer saves the sick and the other says that the Lord saves the sick. This demonstrates a compatibilistic understanding of how God relates to the believer, specifically in prayer. John MacArthur calls the prayers “a channel for God’s power.”[20] Throughout this passage, the focus seems to be on the prayer of faith that is effective. Certainly the glory goes to God, but the language used here puts a great amount of weight on the prayer.

Discussions Of Prayer And God’s Omniscience Throughout Church History

While the topic of prayer and God’s omniscience can be found throughout church history, much of what has been written regarding prayer is more on the devotional or pastoral level. Nonetheless, notable men in church history provide valuable insight into the discussion and also show how their theology of God’s sovereignty works itself out practically in the matter of prayer.

Augustine recognized the seeming contradiction of praying for something of which God already knows we have the need. He writes:

What is the use of prayer at all, if “our Father knoweth” already “what things we have need of”? . . . If so, Lord, why should I so much as pray at all? Thou wouldest not that I should use long prayers, yea rather Thou dost even bid me to use near none at all. . . . He would have thee ask that thou mayest receive, and seek that thou mayest find, and knock that thou mayest enter in. Seeing then that our Father knoweth already what is needful for us, how and why do we ask? why seek? why knock? why weary ourselves in asking, and seeking, and knocking, to instruct Him who knoweth already?[21]

Augustine obviously acknowledged to some extent the omniscience of God, especially as it relates to prayer. However, he left these questions unresolved. Using the imagery of the door on which the believer knocks, he wrote that the believer may not always get what he asks for. This he attributes to the benevolent sovereignty of God toward the one praying:

For this cause is it closed, not to shut thee out, but to exercise thee. Therefore, brethren, ought we to exhort to prayer, both ourselves and you. For other hope have we none amid the manifold evils of this present world, than to knock in prayer, to believe and to maintain the belief firm in the heart, that thy Father only doth not give thee what He knoweth is not expedient for thee. For thou knowest what thou dost desire; He knoweth what is good for thee. . . . Do not then hesitate to ask; ask, hesitate not; but if thou receive not, do not take it to heart.[22]

However, Augustine did not simply view prayer as an exercise without any effect. He concluded in a sermon on Matthew 17:19: “Whilst we live pour out our groans before the Lord our God, and endure the evils, that we may attain to the things that are good.”[23]

Calvin, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, has much to say about prayer. He writes:

To prayer, then, are we indebted for penetrating to those riches which are treasured up for us with our heavenly Father. For there is a kind of intercourse between God and men, by which, having entered the upper sanctuary, they appear before Him and appeal to his promises, that when necessity requires they may learn by experiences that what they believed merely on the authority of his word was not in vain.[24]

Calvin, while without a doubt believing in the absolute sovereignty of God, did not see a conflict between God’s sovereignty and the ability of man to have a meaningful part in God’s plans. He even said that believers, through prayer,

invoke the presence of his [God’s] providence to watch over our interests, of his power to sustain us when weak and almost fainting, of his goodness to receive us into favour, though miserably loaded with sin; in fine, call upon him to manifest himself to us in all his perfections.[25]

However, Calvin also raised the question about the use of prayer since God is omniscient. He wrote:

But some one will say, Does he not know without a monitor both what our difficulties are, and what is meet for our interest, so that it seems in some measure superfluous to solicit him by our prayers, as if he were winking, or even sleeping, until aroused by the sound of our voice?[26]

Calvin responded to this by stating that prayer is not so much for the sake of God as it is for the sake of man. He said that asking God is beneficial for the believer because (1) it causes him to seek God passionately, (2) it keeps him seeking the right things, and (3) it prepares his heart to receive God’s benefits with thanksgiving.[27] He then concludes that once the believer receives the request for which he petitioned the Lord, his faith is strengthened and he is incited all the more “to long more earnestly for his [God’s] favour.” He concluded:

It is very absurd, therefore, to dissuade men from prayer, by pretending that Divine Providence . . . is in vain importuned by our supplications, when, on the contrary, the Lord himself declares, that he is “nigh unto all that call upon him, to all that call upon him in truth” (Ps. 145:18). No better is the frivolous allegation of others, that it is superfluous to pray for things which the Lord is ready of his own accord to bestow; since it is his pleasure that those very things which flow from his spontaneous liberality should be acknowledged as conceded to our prayers. This is testified by that memorable sentence in the psalms to which many others corresponds: “The eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, and his ears are open unto their cry,” (Ps. 34:15).[28]

Commenting on the effectiveness of prayer as displayed in James 5, Calvin writes: “Again, since God so often declares that he will give to every man according to his faith he intimates that we cannot obtain any thing without faith. In short, it is faith which obtains every thing that is granted to prayer.”[29]

In summary, while Calvin believes that prayer is primarily for the believer, he certainly does not assert that prayer does not in any way move God to respond.

Glenn Kreider surveyed Jonathan Edward’s theology of prayer. He shows that Edwards believed in the effectiveness of prayer both in his theology and in his practice, and that Edwards made prayer an integral part of his revivalistic work. After surveying his theology and practice of prayer, Kreider concludes:

Jonathan Edwards was convinced that God hears and answers prayer. He prayed as if he believed God would answer. He encouraged others to pray as if human prayers impacted the Sovereign of the universe. The reason for this practice seems clearly to be that Edwards’ view of God’s providence was that prayer was an essential means by which God’s purposes are accomplished in this world.[30]

Augustus Strong observed various leaders throughout recent church history and commented as to their views of the effectiveness of prayer. “Prayer presupposes a God who hears and answers. It will not be offered, unless it is believed to accomplish objective as well as subjective results.”[31] He was critical of those who treat prayer like “mere spiritual gymnastics,” because they do not expect God to hear and answer. He remarked that “Horace Bushnell called this perversion of prayer a ‘mere dumb-bell exercise.’”[32] He also commented on William Hyde who wrote: “Prayer is not the reflex action of my will upon itself, but rather the communion of two wills, in which the finite comes into connection with the Infinite, and, like the trolley, appropriates its purpose and power.”[33] He said that liberals like Harnack and Schleiermacher limited prayer to “general petitions which receive only a subjective answer.”[34]

As for Strong himself, he especially investigated how or if prayer fits into the natural laws of the universe. He concluded:

When we remember that there is no true prayer which God does not inspire; that every true prayer is part of the plan of the universe linked in with all the rest and provided for at the beginning; that God is in nature and in mind, supervising all their movements and making all fulfill his will and reveal his personal care; that God can adjust the forces of nature to each other far more skilfully than can man when man produces effects which nature of herself could never accomplish; that God is not confined to nature or her forces, but can work by his creative and omnipotent will where other means are not sufficient,—we need have no fear, either that natural law will bar God’s answers to prayer, or that these answers will cause a shock or jar in the system of the universe.[35]

Overall, Strong views the universe as designed by a moral God for moral creatures and finds no problem with God changing the laws of nature to answer the request of His own. He, like Calvin, sees the tension between God’s sovereignty and man’s prayer but does not find them incompatible. Prayer, for Strong, does not lose its genuine relational quality simply because God knows what the believer needs.

Current Issues Pertaining To Prayer And God’s Omniscience

The major issue currently relating to prayer and God’s omniscience is open theism. C. Fred Smith says that the basic idea of open theism is that “God’s being is analogous to that of humans, and so God experiences reality in ways similar to the experiences of human beings.”[36] How that relates to prayer concerns God’s ability to know and, consequently, affect the future. As well, the open theist denies the immutability of God believing that in order for God to respond to humans, he must change in some way.

Clark Pinnock states that “the very concept of an act involves change.”[37]

Part of the discussion, then, centers on one’s definition of “change” as it relates to God. Some go so far to say that God does not truly have emotions because emotion causes some sort of change within God. It also might suggest that God is somehow persuaded by the things men do because he has an emotional experience from them. Thus, some on the classical side have shied away from the idea of God emoting altogether.

When it comes to prayer, open theism argues that God, in the classical theistic view, cannot truly respond to the believer’s prayer because this, again, would cause God to change. This would also mean that he is ignoring his omniscience when he answers the prayer, because in order to truly “respond” he could not foreknow his response. Thus, Richard Rice (an open theist) concludes that classical theists “have truncated the understanding of God’s love and have given the world a concept of God that makes prayer incoherent and that stifles the possibility of a rich and dynamic relationship with God.”[38]

Rice’s understanding, along with other open theists, does not correspond with classical theists, however. “Classical orthodox theology has always recognized that transcendence and immanence are both aspects of God’s being and of His relationship to creation.”[39] Believers can have a real, dynamic relationship with God, even with his transcendence. Part of this relationship is God responding to human beings, including answering their prayers.[40]

A Theology Of Prayer And God’s Omniscience

From Scripture it is quite clear that God has no limit to his knowledge, including his knowledge of the future. In Isaiah 46:10, after declaring that there is none like him, God says that he is the One who declares “the end from the beginning, from ancient times things that are not yet done.” He is able to predict the future and bring specific things to pass.

However, as to how man relates to God through prayer, the believer must have some sense of understanding as to how his petitions and supplications are received by God. Does his prayer matter if God knows all and will bring it to pass? Does prayer affect God at all?

Some would argue that prayer is strictly for the one who is praying. Scripture is clear that God does not need the assistance of man as if he has some sort of deficiency of ability or opportunity. He is the I AM who self-exists. Thus, to some, the idea of God acting on the basis of a person’s prayer is inconsistent with his omniscience and self-sufficiency. John D. Hannah concludes in his discussion exploring prayer and God’s sovereignty:

Thus prayer is understood as primarily a means of grace, a vehicle of progressive sanctification. Prayer is essentially an act of worship wherein homage is given to God alone through praise, adoration, confession, or request. The purpose of prayer, while it points alone to God as the source of all benevolences, is a help for the saint to strengthen Christian experience.[41]

Yet, to boil prayer down to simply an exercise of dependence for the believer does not reconcile with the overall teaching of Scripture. Nor does prayer appear to be simply a means to put one in a position of blessing. Rather,nScripture presents prayer as a means of relationship with God. God is certainly a God of relationships. Abraham is called a “friend of God” (James 2:23). Because he is thus, he desires the communion of his children. Proverbs 15:8 says that “the prayer of the upright is his delight.”

Not only this, but Scripture demonstrates God responding to prayer, at times as though the prayer “caused” or “allowed” God to act. Yet, when God acts, it is never against his will. James presents the fervent prayers of Elijah as the reason for the drought and the rain in his day. He even boldly asserts in 5:15 that “the prayer of faith shall save the sick.” As discussed above, God “changed” his plans for Israel as Moses interceded on their behalf. Hannah writes that prayer is a means (though not the only means) appointed by God for attaining one’s ends.[42] One might add to that the ends of others as well as the ends of God, since the believer is called to pray for others and to pray that God’s will be done. Pascal wrote, “God instituted prayer to lend his creatures the dignity of causality.”[43]

God sometimes accomplishes His sovereign purpose through the prayers of His people (Eze 36:36, 37; Jas 5:17, 18). Often what God does when a believer prays is bring that person into conformity with his will.[44] To say, therefore, that prayer changes the one who prays to God is obvious. One would learn to trust in him to supply his needs. It is certainly true that the one praying experiences a change in his mindset and, perhaps, actions. However, that does not necessarily mean that the One being prayed to does not change his disposition.

Is it possible that when one uses the word “change” in relation to human thinking that he attaches with it the idea of development? Suppose a ruler was implored to act on behalf of one of his subjects or a father to respond to one of his children. One might think that if the ruler or father decides to act after being implored that something was added to his thinking that was not there before that caused him to act. That is, his thinking changed because he understood further the situation or was persuaded to act because further understanding was brought to light, influencing him to act. This implies that his thinking developed, thus changing his actions. This type of change is more along the lines in which open theists think.

However, this development is not necessarily the case in every situation. Suppose a child asks his benevolent father for nourishment and the father desires for his child to say “please” before the child receives it. The father’s desire is to give the child nourishment regardless of his asking or saying “please,” yet this is the father’s modus operandi. The father has chosen not to give to the child until he asks for it. Once the child says “please,” the father changes his actions toward the child and gives him what he asks. This type of change is not based on a development in thinking, nor does it require the father’s nature to change. He is perfectly consistent throughout the exchange.

This is very similar to Christ’s parable of the unjust judge, yet in a negative sense. Nothing that the woman said convinced the unjust judge to act, nor did the unjust judge develop in his thinking or nature. Rather, it was simply the persistent asking that caused the judge to act.

It is important to bear in mind that the believer’s prayers do not “control” or “manipulate” God. It is often the cry of the Reformed scholars that belief in the “power” of prayer or the “effectiveness” of prayer will lead one to think that God is on puppet strings and a believer can pull his strings to get what he wants. In light of Scripture, understanding God this way is certainly an erroneous view of the sovereign God. “To desire that God would answer all our prayers is to desire omnipotence without omniscience.”[45]

Believing that God responds to the prayers of his saints not only does not violate his sovereignty, but it is also directly in line with Scripture. Prayer does not only involve petitions and intercessions but also confessions and praises. John promises that if the believer confesses his sins, God is “faithful and just to forgive” him and “cleanse him from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). One would not argue that God’s granting forgiveness upon the believer’s confession is his manipulating God. Rather, God has so chosen to condescend to men in this manner. Similarly, Proverbs 15:8 declares that God’s delight is in the prayer of the righteous. This is not manipulation or “string pulling” to bring God delight through our prayers. While the thought of one’s prayers making the holy and immutable God happy seems impossible, it, nonetheless, is the way in which Scripture presents God operating.

As another scriptural example which often involves prayer, James promises that if believers “draw nigh to God,” he will “draw nigh” to them. This promise does not mean that one is pulling God’s strings when one’s actions “cause” God to draw near to himself. Rather, God has chosen to operate within the promises and conditions that he has given.

Conclusion

The tension seems to be of an unlimited God who limits himself. He is not limited by time and space, but when he became a man, he limited himself to these parameters for the sake of man. When he condescends to hear and answer one’s prayers, he is not limited by the content of our prayers nor by the time in which we pray them; he chooses, rather, to operate to some extent on these grounds for the good of man and ultimately for his own glory.

None of these, however, demands essential change in the Divine. Instead, he is unchanging in essence and character but chooses at points of time and in various ways to interact with limited creatures. Christ made himself in the likeness of men for the sake of men. It is not, as the open theist would like to claim, that God is somehow essentially like that of humans, because the whole revelation of God proclaims otherwise. However, he, at times, operates on what seems to humanity to be a finite level as he interacts with finite beings.

Leaders throughout church history have recognized the sovereignty of God in relation to prayer, but have equally recognized that prayer consists of a real relationship between God and man. God does not need man. However, man needs God. Thus, men pray. God affords the believer the privilege of seeing him respond to those requests he makes in time of need. The Lord, indeed, is nigh unto all that call upon him.

It is important that as one develops his theology of prayer that he does so based on both the precepts as well as the examples of Scripture. Attempting to develop a theology of prayer beginning from one’s theological framework and then moving to Scripture will not allow one to see prayer in a truly biblical light. Since theological battles exist relating to the topic, one must be sensitive to allow Scripture to shape his thinking. Some have strayed to one side or the other as they have tried to protect God’s sovereignty or defend man’s relationship with God. However, Scripture presents a balance and does not see either as incompatible.

Overall, it is a comfort to know that the omniscient and omnipotent God relates to man in an intimate way, as a good father does his child. As Mary exclaimed in Luke 1:48, God regards the “low estate” of his servants. Because of this blessed attention God gives to man, the believer can be confident that his prayers matter to God, that God’s Spirit helps the believer in his requests to God, and that God, in his time and in his way, will respond to those requests in love.

Notes

1. Geoffrey Stertz is a student at Maranatha Baptist Seminary. The editor plans to include one article from a college or seminary student in each issue of the Journal as examples of the research and writing capabilities of our students.
2. Bruce Wilkinson and David Kopp, The Prayer of Jabez: Breaking Through to the Blessed Life (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2000).
3. R.C. Sproul. Does Prayer Change Things? (Lake Mary, FL: Reformation Trust, 2009), 8.
4. L. Paul Moore Jr., “Prayer in the Pentateuch Part 1,” Bibliotheca Sacra 98 (July 1941): 335.
5. Ibid., 334.
6. Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 385-90.
7. Moore, “Prayer in the Pentateuch Part 1,” 334.
8. Victor P. Hamilton, Handbook on the Pentateuch: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 223.
9. Ibid.
10. Robert B. Chisholm Jr., “Does God ‘Change His Mind’?” Bibliotheca Sacra 152 (October 1995): 389.
11. Ibid., 399.
12. S. Edward Tesh and Walter D. Zorn, Psalms (Joplin, MO: College Press, 2004), 479.
13. Ibid.
14. Roger L. Peterson, “A Study of Daniel’s Prayer Life in the Book of Daniel,” Central Bible Quarterly 21 (Spring 1978): 30.
15. Larry Chouinard, Matthew (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1997), 373.
16. Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 523.
17. Ibid., 524.
18. Peter Davids, The Epistle of James: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 75.
19. Whether the individual is physically sick or spiritually sick is debatable. See John MacArthur, James (Chicago: Moody, 1998), 276-79.
20. Ibid., 278.
21. Augustine, Sermon XXX, On the words of the Gospel, Matt. xvii. 19, “Why could not we cast it out”? etc., and on prayer.
22. Ibid.
23. Ibid.
24. John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 2002), 524.
25. Ibid., 525.
26. Ibid., 524
27. Ibid., 524-25.
28. Ibid., 525.
29. Ibid., 531.
30. Glenn R. Kreider, “Jonathan Edwards’ Theology of Prayer,” Bibliotheca Sacra 160 (July 1941): 454.
31. Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Valley Forge: Judson, 1963), 216.
32. Ibid.
33. Ibid.
34. Ibid.
35. Ibid., 217.
36. C. Fred Smith, “Does Classical Theism Deny God’s Immanence?” Bibliotheca Sacra 160 (2003): 23.
37. Clark H. Pinnock and John Sanders, The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1994), 36.
38. Smith, “Does Classical Theism Deny God’s Immanence?” 25.
39. Ibid.
40. Ibid., 33.
41. John D. Hannah, “Prayer and the Sovereignty of God,” Bibliotheca Sacra 136 (1979): 352.
42. Ibid.
43. Hamilton, Handbook on the Pentateuch (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 223.
44. D. Edmond Hiebert, Working With God Through Intercessory Prayer (Greenville, SC: Bob Jones, 1992), 1-3.
45. Strong, Systematic Theology, 216.

The Priorities of “The Fundamentals”

By Larry R. Oats [1]

In 1909, as Fundamentalism and theological Liberalism battled in the denominations, two Christian brothers purposed to publish a series of books which would set forth the fundamentals of the Christian faith. Lyman Stewart had helped to found the Hardison and Stewart Oil Company, which later became Union Oil Company of California, with Stewart as Vice President and later President. He attended one of the Bible Conferences at Niagara-on-the-Lake and became interested in publishing literature encouraging the Christian faith. He had grown up in a godly Presbyterian family and remained a member of the Immanuel Presbyterian Church, Los Angeles. His giving, however, was increasingly directed outside the Presbyterian denomination, perhaps because of his increasing interest in and support for dispensationalism and his concern over the increasing liberalism in Presbyterianism.[2]

In August of 1909, Stewart attended a service at the Baptist Temple in Los Angeles, where A.C. Dixon, pastor of Moody Church, was preaching. He believed he had found the man who could help fulfill his desire. When Dixon returned to Chicago, he established the Testimony Publishing Company, which then published the twelve volumes of The Fundamentals from 1910 to 1915. Each volume contained about 125 pages of articles written by many of the leading conservatives in America, Canada, and Great Britain. Lyman and his brother Milton each contributed about $150,000 to the project.[3]

A committee of men oversaw the work, although there is no evidence of the procedure they undertook to invite men to write, decide what articles would be included, or evaluate submissions. This committee originally consisted of three laymen (Henry P. Crowell, Thomas S. Smith, and D.W. Potter) and three clergymen (R.A. Torrey, Louis Meyer, and Elmore Harris, who died in 1911). Several others were eventually added to the committee. Torrey had recently left Moody Bible Institute for full-time evangelism; Meyer was working for the Presbyterian Board of Home Missions; and Harris was a Baptist pastor from Ontario and was serving as president of the Toronto Bible Training School.[4] In addition to the committee was the editor (actually called the Executive Secretary), who initially was A.C. Dixon (volumes 1-5). When he left to pastor the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London, Dr. Louis Meyer (a Jewish Christian evangelist) assumed the work of the Executive Secretary and oversaw the next five volumes. Upon his death in 1913, R.A. Torrey assumed editorship and produced the last two volumes. There was nothing said about who the editors or the committee members were until the final volume. Three volumes appeared in 1910, three more in 1911, three more in 1912, and the final three volumes appeared between 1913 and 1915.

The first volume was mailed to about 175,000 people in various areas of Christian ministry. The number of the second volume increased significantly. The third volume was sent to about 300,000 ministers. The number of copies of later volumes was reduced to 250,000 copies. By the time all twelve volumes were completed, a total of 3,000,000 copies had been printed and distributed free of charge.

The Fundamentals are currently available in a four-volume set, published first by The Bible Institute of Los Angeles[5] in 1917 and since republished by several publishers.[6] The four-volume set reordered the articles, organizing them into broad categories. In one way, this is helpful, enabling the reader to read through similar articles easily. In another, it disturbs the original “feel” of The Fundamentals. For instance, the personal testimonies are all found in volume four of the new edition; in the original set, they were scattered throughout the writings. Sixty-four authors wrote for The Fundamentals. The majority were dispensational and millenarian, but not all. The most thorough discussion of The Fundamentals is found in Ernest Sandeen’s The Roots of Fundamentalism.[7]

One way to establish the “Priorities of the Fundamentals” is by simply identifying how many articles were dedicated to specific topics. Sandeen likens the series of articles to a wheel, “its central hub composed of articles related to the Bible, surrounded by general doctrinal articles arranged like spokes leading to the rim where the more practical or peripheral concerns were handled.”[8] Every volume had articles devoted to the Scriptures. Seven were written in praise of the Scriptures; two others discussed archeological confirmation of the facts of Scripture. Fifteen more either directly attacked higher criticism or contested the critics’ interpretation of particular passages or concepts. Five articles dealt with the doctrine of inspiration. The articles written by George Bishop, A.T. Pierson and William Moorehead were presented at a biblical inspiration conference held by Pierson in Philadelphia in 1887 and reproduced in The Fundamentals. Those by James Gray and Leander Munhall were written specifically for The Fundamentals. The bibliographic sources for these last two articles are significant. Gray quoted from or alluded to Princeton professors Francis L. Patton, Charles Hodge, and John DeWitt, and millenarians such as Louis Gaussen, Nathaniel West, and James H. Brookes. Munhall quoted extensively from B.B. Warfield and also referred to Louis Gaussen, Princetonian A.A. Hodge, and British scholars B.F. Westcott and John Burgon. Gray and Munhall also made reference to the 1893 Presbyterian General Assembly statement which endorsed the Princetonian position on inspiration, although there was not the dependence on external authority in The Fundamentals that there had been in the Presbyterian statement.[9]

Liberal theology had attacked the deity of Christ, the reality of the biblical concept of the Godhead, and numerous other areas of traditionally accepted theology. Numerous articles, therefore, centered on these specific issues. The priorities of The Fundamentals were, first the Bible, then key doctrines (particularly Christology) that were under attack by the liberals of the day, and finally the practical outworking of those doctrines.

The Bible

One important focal point of The Fundamentals was “the defense of the orthodox view of Scripture.”[10] Seven articles focused on positive biblical topics: inspiration of the Scripture, unity of the Scriptures, and prophecy. Eighteen articles were written to defend Scripture from the attacks of higher criticism.

Inspiration, Inerrancy, Authority. James Gray wrote a positive, definitive article on inspiration, distinguishing it from revelation, illumination, and human genius. He identified the books, not the writers, as the objects of inspiration.[11] He was insistent that

the record for whose inspiration we contend is the original record . . . and not any particular translation or translations of them whatever. There is no translation absolutely without error, nor could there be, considering the infirmities of human copyists, unless God were pleased to perform a perpetual miracle to secure it.[12]

He adopted the 1893 Presbyterian Church of America statement on inspiration: “The Bible as we now have it, in its various translations and revisions, when freed from all errors and mistakes of translators, copyists and printers, (is) the very Word of God, and consequently wholly without error.”[13]

George Bishop agreed. He stated, “We take the ground that on the original parchment—the membrane—every sentence, word, line, mark, point, pen-stroke, jot, tittle was put there by God.” And he added that while the parchment may be destroyed by man or time, the words written there remain.[14]

Arguments for the inspiration of Scripture were varied. Bishop argued from internal evidence.[15] A.T. Pierson argued from the unity of the Bible.[16] Arno Gaebelein used fulfilled prophecy as the basis for his argument for inspiration.[17] Philip Mauro, a lawyer, wrote a strong article on the authority of Scripture in the life of the believer.[18]

James Gray answered the objection of those who would declare the inerrancy of the originals to be moot since we only possess copies which are not absolutely exact representations. First, those who reject inerrancy fail to see that the “character and perfection of the Godhead are involved in that inerrancy.”[19] Second, Gray compared the perfection of Jesus with the perfection of Scripture. The character of Jesus should not be considered imperfect merely because it has never been perfectly reproduced; neither, then, should the character of the Bible.[20] His third answer focused on textual criticism. If there was not an absolute original standard, then the work of textual criticism would be without value; therefore, the very desire and goal of textual criticism argued for an inerrant original.[21] He was confident that the attainment of that goal was not very far off. “Do not the number and variety of manuscripts and versions extant render it comparatively easy to arrive at a knowledge of its text, and does not competent scholarship today affirm that as to the New Testament at least, we have in 999 cases out of every thousand the very word of that original text?”[22]

James Orr rejected an infallible Church, but argued for an infallible Bible. Thus, he anticipated the recently proposed argument among one segment of Fundamentalism that the Bible gains its identify and authority from the Church. He was critical of Higher Criticism not because it was criticism, but because of the wrong basis and arbitrary methods which led to “demonstrably false results.”[23]

Marsden notes that the belief in inspiration was so strong that some of the writers tended toward dictation. He identifies specifically Gray’s and Bishop’s articles.[24] Gray had declared by “miraculous control” the Bible was an “absolute transcript” of God’s mind. Marsden misreads Gray, however, for Gray also stated, “And as to degrading the writers to the level of machines, even if it were true, as it is not, why should fault be found when one considers the result? . . . But we are insisting upon no theory . . . if it altogether excludes the human element in the transmission of the sacred word.”[25]

Bishop spoke of a “dictated inspiration,” “a Book dropped out of heaven.” However, Bishop also stated that each writer of Scripture was an organ, “although not an unconscious, or unwilling, unspontaneous organ.”[26] In addition, Dixon says of the Bible, “There are many writers, but one Author. These writers were not automatons. Each one shows his own style and personality which the Holy Spirit uses.”[27] It is clear that, while the writers of The Fundamentals believed that every word of the Bible was God’s Word, they rejected the mechanical dictation theory and held to the verbal-plenary view of inspiration.

Science. Science was addressed in only a few articles, all of which centered on creation and evolution. In this area one writer of The Fundamentals capitulated. While an anonymous layman flatly denied Darwinianism,[28] James Orr was willing to accept certain points of evolution. He stated,

The Bible was never given us in order to anticipate or forestall the discoveries of modern twentieth century science. The Bible, as every sensible interpreter of Scripture has always held, takes the world as it is, not as it is seen through the eyes of twentieth century specialists, but as it lies spread out before the eyes of original men, and uses the popular every-day language appropriate to this standpoint.[29]

Orr allowed for the six days of creation to be longer than solar days. He argued that it is difficult to see “how they [the six days] should be so measured [as twenty-four hour days] when the sun that is to measure them is not introduced until the fourth day.”[30] In a different article, he declared: “There is no violence done to the narrative [of Genesis 1] in substituting in thought ‘aeonic’ days—vast cosmic periods—for ‘days’ on our narrower, sun-measured scales.”[31] He rejected Darwinianism, but then stated, “Evolution is not to be identified offhand with Darwinianism. Later evolutionary theory may rather be described as a revolt against Darwinianism.”[32] He apparently accepted a theistic-evolutionary concept. “‘Evolution,’ in short, is coming to be recognized as but a new name for ‘creation,’ only that the creative power now works from within, instead of, as in the old conception, in an external, plastic fashion.”[33]

Henry Beach disagreed. In a scientifically oriented article, he argued that Darwinism was scientifically illegitimate.[34]Dyson Hague also disagreed. “Man was created, not evolved. . . . [T]he Bible does stand plainly against that garish theory that all species, vegetable and animal, have originated through evolution from lower forms through long natural processes. . . . [E]ven the theistic-supernaturalistic theory is opposed to the Bible and to science.”[35]

Higher Criticism. Marsden viewed the crucial issue “to have been perceived as that of the authority of God in Scripture in relation to the authority of modern science, particularly science in the form of higher criticism of Scripture itself.”[36] The writers did not reject higher criticism completely, but they did argue against the improper use of higher criticism. True criticism enters into its inquiries with an open mind, while false criticism was controlled by speculative thinking. There was common agreement among the writers that modernists were routinely prejudiced against the supernatural and miraculous. There were articles on specific higher critical issues.

One technical article on the authorship of Isaiah was written by George L. Robinson.[37] Another less technical article by Joseph Wilson was a thorough defense of the book of Daniel.[38] Both of these articles gave a fair representation of the higher critical views, but also presented solid biblical and linguistic arguments to support the biblical position. Andrew Robinson wrote a brief article defending the Pentateuch against the Graf-Wellhausen theory of its composition.[39] J.J. Reeve gave his personal testimony and argued that Higher Criticism was a result of accepting evolution and carrying evolutionary concepts into the development, or the “evolution,” of the Bible.[40]

Other articles dealt with higher criticism in a broader perspective. Hague identified liberal higher criticism with “unbelief,” “subjective conclusions,” “German fancies,” and “anti-supernaturalism.”[41] He argued that higher criticism discredits the Bible and that the theory of inspiration would have to be rejected or modified to a position very different from the commonly understood position.[42] The result was the elimination of the authority of the Bible and of Christ.[43]

Franklin Johnson, after listing eight fallacies, concluded that there is “intellectual consistency in the lofty church doctrine of inspiration” and that there is no possible way to position oneself between belief in inspiration and belief in higher criticism; they are mutually incompatible.[44]

Interestingly enough, in spite of routine attacks on German higher criticism, an article by the German writer F. Bettex and translated for The Fundamentals listed a string of biblical arguments in opposition to higher criticism.[45]

Archaeology. George Frederick Wright[46] and M.G. Kyle[47] used archaeological evidence to show the truth of scriptural statements. While there was some overlap in material, the articles used recent archeological discoveries to verify various historical references in Scripture. These articles were a positive corroboration of historical statements in Scripture designed to counteract higher critical attacks on the veracity of the Bible.

Theology

The second priority was theology, particularly the defense of the Godhead and the importance of salvation. Beale sees the most valuable contribution to be these articles which “supported particular doctrines that liberals disputed, as the deity of Christ, the atonement, and future retribution.”[48]

There were four general apologetics for Christianity, two articles argued for the existence of God, and seven articles concerned themselves with issues surrounding the deity and life of Christ. These thirteen articles “rank among the most judicious and well argued in the entire collection.”[49] Only one article dealt with the church, and that was by Anglican low-church bishop J.C. Ryle. His article dealt with the universal church and had no reference to the local church at all.[50] Two articles focused on the Holy Spirit and reflected some of the popular Keswick thought of the time.

William G. Moorehead focused on the deity of Jesus. He argued for the sinlessness of Christ and his omnipotence and omniscience; he also rejected the spurious gospels which denigrated Christ’s character or work.[51] B.B. Warfield also argued for the deity of Christ.[52] In his article, he recognized the dual roles of evidence and experience:

We believe in God and freedom and immortality on good grounds, though we may not be able satisfactorily to analyse these grounds. . . . The Christian’s conviction of the deity of his Lord does not depend for its soundness on the Christian’s ability convincingly to state the grounds of his conviction.[53]

He believed that the greatest argument for the deity of Christ was the existence of Christianity.[54] John Stock argued for the deity of Christ based almost entirely on the declarations of Christ himself.[55] James Orr based his belief on the virgin birth of Christ on scriptural testimony, from both the Old and New Testaments.[56] Torrey argued for a literal, physical resurrection of Christ from the dead.[57]

Thomas Whitelaw argued for the existence of God, in opposition to atheists (“There is no God”), agnostics (“I cannot tell whether there is a God or not”), and materialists (“I do not need a God; I can run the universe without one”).[58]

A more significant article, in light of the modernist/fundamentalist controversy, was one by Robert Speer on the Fatherhood of God.[59] His approach was a comparison of the “moral inadequacy of a mere belief in God” and “the moral and spiritual adequacy of a recognition of God as Father exposed in Christ as God.”[60] The article was not as much a condemnation of the modernist concept of God as the Father of all mankind, as it was a positive explication of the biblical concept of the Fatherhood of God, as shown by Christ’s relationship to God as his Father.

The personality and deity of the Holy Spirit were argued by Torrey.[61] He used the attributes of personality, his activity, and the comparison of the Holy Spirit with Christ as “another Comforter.” This was the only article that discussed the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.

The modernist concept of sin as a mere taint in man’s existence or some type of weakness of character or even a figment of a theologically perverted imagination was clearly rejected. Whitelaw defined sin in clear, biblical terms, describing its nature, origin and ultimate outcome.[62] A more technical article on sin, dealing with the biblical words and their meanings, was presented by Charles Williams.[63] A third article by Robert Anderson showed the ultimate results of sin—the judgment of God on mankind.[64] In opposition to modernist hopes of a universal salvation, Anderson declared mankind a failure, without excuse, hopelessly depraved, and lost. He also spoke briefly of modernism as “Neo-Christianism,” having no real connection to genuine Christianity.[65]

Two articles on the Atonement emphasized the only hope for salvation from the judgment of sin. Franklin Johnson rejected the moral influence theory as insufficient, with only the substitutional atonement as adequate to remove the penalty of sin.[66] Dyson Hague’s article was a combination of biblical theology and historical theology, showing that the consensus of Scripture and the Church in history was in support of a substitutional atonement.[67]

Thomas Boston argued against a number of modernist beliefs; he demonstrated that the church cannot save, that good education is not regeneration, and that an external change is not necessarily an indicator of salvation. Instead, salvation is an internal change wrought by the work of the Holy Spirit.[68] Faith was declared to be the only basis for justification.[69]

Practical Theology

While there were numerous academic articles dealing with higher criticism, doctrine, etc., there was a later emphasis on more popular themes, particularly beginning with Volume 7. The emphasis on the authority of Scripture was overriding and therefore came first in order; then followed the emphasis on the validity of experience and practicality. Experience, when divorced from doctrine, is dangerous; experience, when tied to the Scriptures, is strengthening. E.Y. Mullins, for instance, based his proof of Christianity almost exclusively on experience and the practical, noting that this brought Christianity into contact with the new philosophy of Pragmatism.[70]

The practical articles included five personal testimonies (appearing as the last article in each of the first five volumes, after which A.C. Dixon left), several articles attacking the “isms” of the day,[71] appeals for missions and evangelism,[72] discussions of the relationship between science and Christianity, and several miscellaneous pieces (including articles on prayer, the Lord’s Day, and money). The practical articles and the personal testimonies showed the importance of evangelism, personal spirituality, and prayer; there was little emphasis on ethical issues or issues of personal separation.

There was a strong emphasis on evangelism, especially in the later volumes. L.W. Munhall delineated the basic doctrines which underlay evangelism.[73] Genuine evangelism must be based upon discipleship; the evangelist must know experientially the power and joy of the gospel. Power from the Holy Spirit and faith in God are necessary as well. The field of evangelism is the world. The message is to be preached, proclaiming the message given by God. The preacher is also to be a martus, a martyr or witness to the faith he is proclaiming. The message is that sin is universal and produces eternal consequences, redemption comes through Jesus’ blood, Jesus rose from the dead, and justification comes only through the grace of God.

While thankful for the mass evangelism of Whitefield, Moody and Sankey, Spurgeon, and others, John Stone argued that the foremost means of evangelism was that employed by Christ himself, winning men one-by-one.[74] He warned of trying to focus on one specific method of evangelism: “When God’s Spirit leads, we are responsive to all kinds of openings and ways.”[75] Revival meetings provided a means for the unsaved to express an interest in salvation. Christians should be trained how to visit their neighbors and co-workers, in order to develop a friendship from which there can develop opportunities of evangelism.[76]

Charles Trumbull emphasized the role of the Sunday School in evangelizing the lost.[77] Three articles emphasized the necessity of missions.[78] Robert Speer argued that missions was a natural outworking of the nature of the Christianity, the character of God, and the purpose of the Church. In reaction to the social gospel, he argued that evangelism was the only way to save the world “from want and disease and injustice and inequality and impurity and lust and hopelessness and fear, because individual men need to be saved from sin and death, and only Christ can save them.”[79] Henry Frost identified the motives of missions as Christ’s atoning work on Calvary, Christ’s compassion for the lost, and Christ’s return for his own.[80]

Conclusion

Sandeen probably rightly concludes that the authors were not viewing themselves as taking the initial shots in the war with modernism, but rather that they were simply standing up for truth. The issues for the most part were a reaction to the current theological and religious scene; for instance, the doctrines of the Father and Christ were dealt with extensively, while the Holy Spirit was all but ignored. The theological articles were part of the fundamentalist/ modernist controversy and dealt with those issues which were seen as significant threats to orthodoxy in the early twentieth century.

The articles, for the most part, were not strident. The style, instead, was moderate. Millennial thought was in the background. Only two articles that were specifically premillennial were included, and the only overtly dispensational article was C.I. Scofield’s on grace.[81]

Sandeen attributes this to the irenicism of A.C. Dixon.[82] Keswick doctrine is present but not emphasized.

Sandeen concludes that the The Fundamentals reflected a “millenarian-conservative alliance dedicated at all costs to the defense of the cardinal doctrines of nineteenth-century American evangelicalism.”[83] The articles reflected the situation of the time. They were interdenominational in character, the writers coming from a variety of backgrounds. The later distinction between inerrancy and infallibility was not found in The Fundamentals. The writers were united in their view of an inerrant and infallible Bible, issuing from God, given through human writers, and preserved in the mass of the manuscripts. Issues divisive to fundamentalism as a movement were avoided; an example is the single article on the church, which avoided any reference to the local church or to church polity or distinctiveness. There was a common core of doctrine, identified in the articles on Scripture, God, Christ, and the practical issues; there was a willingness to disagree on other issues.

There was a confident spirit in The Fundamentals. Perhaps in light of a dependence on the validity of Baconian Common Sense philosophy, the writers exhibited an attitude that a declaration of truth, with clear and apparently convincing arguments, would be sufficient to win the day. It was not. The Fundamentals strengthened their own, but did little or nothing to convince the modernists of their day. On the positive side, however, Marsden believes The Fundamentals “had a long-term effect of greater importance than its immediate impact or the lack thereof.”[84]

Today’s Fundamentalist may learn much from The Fundamentals. Confidence in truth cannot be underrated.

The acknowledgement of the legitimacy of soul liberty is critical. The willingness to stand for truth, no matter what the world may think, cannot be abandoned. The insistence on a biblical basis for that truth is an absolute necessity.

Appendix

Articles in The Fundamentals

Author	Article	Vol. No. in 12-Vol. Set	Vol. No. in 4-Vol. Set
Hague, Dyson	The History of the Higher Criticism	1	1
Kelly, Howard A.	A Personal Testimony	1	4
Morgan, G. Campbell	The Purposes of the Incarnation	1	3
Orr, James	The Virgin Birth of Christ	1	2
Pierson, Arthur T.	The Proof of the Living God, as Found in the Prayer Life of George Müller, of Bristol	1	4
Torrey, Rueben A.	The Personality and Deity of the Holy Spirit	1	2
Warfield, B.B.	The Deity of Christ	1	2
Anderson, Robert	Christ and Criticism	2	1
Anonymous	Tributes to Christ and the Bible by Brainy Men not Known as Active Christians	2	3
Johnson, Franklin	Fallacies of the Higher Criticism	2	1
Kyle, Melvin Grove	The Recent Testimony of Archaeology to the Scriptures	2	1
Mauro, Philip	Modern Philosophy	2	4
Moule, Handley C.G.	Justification by Faith	2	3
Wright, George Frederick	The Testimony of the Monuments to the Truth of the Scriptures	2	1
Gray, James M.	The Inspiration of the Bible—Definition, Extent and Proof	3	2
Moorehead, William G.	The Moral Glory of Jesus Christ a Proof of Inspiration	3	2
Mullins, Edgar Y.	The Testimony of Christian Experience	3	4
Reeve, James Josiah	My Personal Experience with the Higher Criticism	3	1
Speer, Robert E.	God in Christ the Only Revelation of the Fatherhood of God	3	2
Studd, Charles T.	The Personal Testimony of Charles T. Studd	3	4
Whitelaw, Thomas	Christianity, No Fable	3	2
Bettex, Frederic	The Bible and Modern Criticism	4	1
Caven, William	The Testimony of Christ to the Old Testament	4	1
Heagle, David	The Tabernacle in the Wilderness: Did it Exist?	4	1
Mauro, Philip	A Personal Testimony	4	4
Orr, James	Science and Christian Faith	4	1
Dixon, Amzi C.	The Scriptures	5	4
Lyttelton, George	Observations on the Conversion and Apostleship of St. Paul	5	2
Mauro, Philip	Life in the Word	5	2
Torrey, Rueben A.	The Certainty and Importance of the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the Dead	5	2
Webb-Peploe, H.W.	A Personal Testimony	5	4
Anderson, Robert	Sin and Judgment to Come	6	3
Johnson, Franklin	The Atonement	6	3
McNicol, John	The Hope of the Church	6	4
Nuelsen, John L.	The Person and Work of Jesus Christ	6	2
Orr, James	The Early Narratives of Genesis	6	1
Pierson, Arthur T.	The Testimony of Foreign Missions to the Superintending Providence of God	6	3
Stock, John	The God-Man	6	2
Whitelaw, Thomas	Is There a God?	6	2
Bishop, George S.	The Testimony of the Scriptures to Themselves	7	2
Moorehead, William G.	Millennial Dawn: A Counterfeit Christianity	7	4
Munhall, Leander W.	Inspiration	7	2
Pierson, Arthur T.	Testimony of the Organic Unity of the Bible to Its Inspiration	7	2
Robinson, Andrew Craig	Three Peculiarities of the Pentateuch	7	1
Robinson, George L.	One Isaiah	7	1
Wilson, Joseph D.	The Book of Daniel	7	1
Wright, George Frederick	The Passing of Evolution	7	4
Anonymous	Evolution in the Pulpit	8	4
Beach, Henry H.	The Decadence of Darwinism	8	4
Burrell, David James	The Knowledge of God	8	4
Crosby, Howard	Preach the Word	8	3
Hague, Dyson	The Doctrinal Value of the First Chapters of Genesis	8	1
McNiece, R.G.	Mormonism: Its Origin, Characteristics, and Doctrines	8	4
Sydenstricker, H.M.	The Science of Conversion	8	4
Thomas, W.H. Griffith	Old Testament Criticism and New Testament Christianity	8	1
Williams, Charles B.	Paul’s Testimony to the Doctrine of Sin	8	3
Orr, James	Holy Scripture and Modern Negations	9	1
Pitzer, A.W.	The Wisdom of this World	9	4
Proctor, William C.	What Christ Teaches Concerning Future Retribution	9	3
Ryle, John Charles	The True Church	9	3
Spurgeon, Thomas	Salvation by Grace	9	3
Wilson, Maurice Emery	Eddyism: Commonly Called Christian Science	9	4
Wright, George Frederick	The Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch	9	1
Boston, Thomas	The Nature of Regeneration	10	3
Erdman, W.J.	The Holy Spirit and the Sons of God	10	2
Frost, Henry W.	Consecration	10	3
Lasher, George W.	Regeneration, Conversion, Reformation	10	3
Martin, Daniel Hoffman	Why Save the Lord’s Day?	10	4
Penn-Lewis, Mrs. Jessie	Satan and his Kingdom	10	4
Pentecost, George F.	What the Bible Contains for the Believer	10	4
Pierson, Arthur T.	Our Lord’s Teaching About Money	10	4
Pollock, Algernon J.	Modern Spiritualism Briefly Tested by Scripture	10	4
Stobo, E.J., Jr.	The Apologetic Value of Paul’s Epistles	10	4
Torrey, Rueben A.	The Place of Prayer in Evangelism	10	3
Troop, G. Osborne	Internal Evidence of the Fourth Gospel	10	1
Bowen, Charles A.	A Message from Missions	11	3
Erdman, Charles R.	The Coming of Christ	11	4
Foster, John McGaw	Rome, the Antagonist of the Nation	11	3
Gaebelein, Arno C.	Fulfilled Prophecy a Potent Argument for the Bible	11	2
Hague, Dyson	At-One-Ment, by Propitiation	11	3
Medhurst, T.W.	Is Romanism Christianity?	11	3
Scofield, Cyrus I.	The Grace of God	11	3
Whitelaw, Thomas	The Biblical Conception of Sin	11	3
Erdman, Charles R.	The Church and Socialism	12	4
Frost, Henry W.	What Missionary Motives Should Prevail?	12	3
Munhall, Leander W.	The Doctrines that Must be Emphasized in Successful Evangelism	12	3
Speer, Robert E.	Foreign Missions or World-Wide Evangelism	12	3
Stone, John Timothy	Pastoral and Personal Evangelism, or Winning Men to Christ One by One	12	3
Trumbull, Charles Gallaudet	The Sunday School’s True Evangelism	12	3

Notes

1. Dr. Larry R. Oats is the Dean and Professor of Systematic Theology at Maranatha Baptist Seminary.
2. Ernest R. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism 1800-1930 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978), 193. Sandeen gives one of the most thorough discussions of The Fundamentals, and this author acknowledges his dependence on his information.
3. On the cover of each volume was the statement, “Compliments of Two Christian Laymen.” The Stewart brothers were uninterested in publicity or public accolades for their work. The closest thing to a biography on these men appears to be “The Stewarts as Christian Stewards, the Story of Milton and Lyman Stewart,” Missionary Review of the World 47 (August 1924): 595-602. Their personal papers were donated to the Bible Institute of Los Angeles.
4. Sandeen, 196.
5. Lyman Stewart was a co-founder of the Bible Institute of Los Angeles.
6. A.C. Dixon, Louis Meyer, R.A. Torrey, eds., The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994). References to articles will be from the four-volume set, since few individuals have access to the original twelve-volume set. The articles are also available online at several websites, and most of these are based on the four-volume set as well. See the Appendix for a comparison of which articles appeared in the various volumes.
7. Sandeen, 188-207. The basic premise of Sandeen’s work has been negated by those who followed him, but the data presented is still valuable.
8. Ibid., 204
9. Ibid., 205.
10. David O. Beale, In Pursuit of Purity (Greenville: Bob Jones, 1986), 40.
11. James Gray, “The Inspiration of the Bible—Definition, Extent and Proof,” 2:9-11. All references to articles in The Fundamentals will refer to the four-volume set, since this set is more available than the twelve-volume set. Refer to the Appendix for a comparison of the volumes in which the articles originally appeared.
12. Ibid., 2:12.
13. Ibid., 2:43. L.W. Munhall also adopted this definition in his article, “Inspiration,” 2:45.
14. George S. Bishop, “The Testimony of the Scriptures to Themselves,” 2:92-93.
15. Ibid., 2:80-96.
16. Arthur T. Pierson, “The Testimony of the Organic Unity of the Bible to its Inspiration,” 2:97-111.
17. Arno C. Gaebelein, “Fulfilled Prophecy a Potent Argument for the Bible,” 2:112-143.
18. Philip Mauro, “Life in the Word,” 2:144-208.
19. Gray, “Inspiration,” 2:13.
20. Ibid.
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid., 2:14.
23. James Orr, “Holy Scripture and Modern Negation,” 1:97.
24. George Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism 1870–1925 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980), 120.
25. Gray, “Inspiration,” 2:16.
26. Bishop, “Testimony of the Scriptures,” 2:94.
27. A.C. Dixon, “The Scriptures,” 4:267.
28. “Evolution in the Pulpit,” 4:88-96.
29. James Orr, “The Early Narratives of Genesis,” 1:237.
30. Ibid., 1:237.
31. James Orr, “Science and Christian Faith,” 1:344.
32. Orr, “The Early Narratives,” 1:239.
33. Orr, “Science and Christian Faith,” 1:346.
34. Henry H. Beach, “Decadence of Darwinism,” 4:59-71.
35. Dyson Hague, “The Doctrinal Value of the First Chapters of Genesis,” 1:280.
36. Marsden, 120.
37. George L. Robinson, “One Isaiah,” 1:241-258.
38. Joseph D. Wilson, “The Book of Daniel,” 1:259-271.
39. Andrew Craig Robinson, “Three Peculiarities of the Pentateuch Which are Incompatible with the Graf-Wellhausen Theories of its Composition,” 1:288-292.
40. J.J. Reeve, “My Personal Experience with the Higher Criticism,” 1:349-50.
41. Dyson Hague, “The History of the Higher Criticism,” 1:10-13.
42. Ibid., 1:29.
43. Ibid., 1:33-34.
44. Franklin Johnson, “Fallacies of Higher Criticism,” 1:75.
45. F. Bettex, “The Bible and Modern Criticism,” 1:76-93.
46. George Frederick Wright, “The Testimony of the Monuments to the Truth of the Scriptures,” 1:293-314.
47. M.G. Kyle, “The Recent Testimony of Archeology to the Scriptures,” 1:315-333.
48. Beale, 40.
49. Sandeen, 205.
50. Bishop Ryle, “The True Church,” 3:313-319.
51. William G. Moorehead’s “The Moral Glory of Jesus Christ a Proof of Inspiration,” 2:61-79.
52. Benjamin B. Warfield, “The Deity of Christ,” 2:239-260.
53. Ibid., 2:240-41.
54. Ibid., 2:244.
55. John Stock, “The God-Man,” 2:261-281.
56. James Orr, “The Virgin Birth of Christ,” 2:247-260.
57. Reuben A. Torrey, “The Certainty and Importance of the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the Dead,” 2:298-322.
58. Thomas Whitelaw, “Is There a God?” 2:209-223.
59. Robert E. Speer, “God in Christ the only Revelation of the Fatherhood of God,” 2:224-238.
60. Ibid., 2:224.
61. R.A. Torrey, “The Personality and Deity of the Holy Spirit,” 2:323-337.
62. Thomas Whitelaw, “The Biblical Conception of Sin,” 3:9-24.
63. Charles B. Williams, “Paul’s Testimony to the Doctrine of Sin,” 3:25-39.
64. Robert Anderson, “Sin and Judgment to Come,” 3:40-52.
65. Ibid., 3:46.
66. Franklin Johnson, “The Atonement,” 3:64-77.
67. Dyson Hague, “At-One-Ment by Propitiation,” 3:78-97.
68. Thomas Boston, “The Nature of Regeneration,” 3:128-132.
69. H.C.G. Moule, “Justification by Faith,” 3:141-154.
70. E.Y. Mullins, “The Testimony of Christian Experience,” 4:314-323.
71. Millennial Dawnism, Mormonism, Eddyism (Christian Science), Spiritualism, Romanism, and Socialism.
72. All the articles of the last volume of the original twelve focused on evangelism. See the Appendix.
73. L.W. Munhall, “The Doctrines that Must be Emphasized in Successful Evangelism,” 3:155-167.
74. John Timothy Stone, “Pastoral and Personal Evangelism, or Winning Men to Christ One by One,” 3:178-198.
75. Ibid., 3:190.
76. Ibid., 3:190ff.
77. Charles Gallaudet Trumbull, “The Sunday School’s True Evangelism,” 3:199-217.
78. Robert Speer, “Foreign Missions, or World-Wide Evangelism,” 3:229-249. A similar article was Charles A. Bowen, “A Message from Missions,” 3:250-265.
79. Ibid., 3:238.
80. Henry W. Frost, “What Missionary Motives Should Prevail?” 3:266-277.
81. C.I. Scofield, “The Grace of God,” 3:98-109.
82. Sandeen, 205.
83. Ibid., 207.
84. Marsden, 119.