Systematic Theology (Volume 3 of 3)Strong, Augustus Hopkins
Religion
Systematic Theology (Volume 3 of 3)
Strong, Augustus Hopkins
Baptists -- Doctrines; Theology, Doctrinal
A Christian pastor can either rule, or he can have the reputation
of ruling; but he can not do both. Real ruling involves a sinking
of self, a working through others, a doing of nothing that some
one else can be got to do. The reputation of ruling leads sooner
or later to the loss of real influence, and to the decline of the
activities of the church itself. See Coleman, Manual of Prelacy
and Ritualism, 87‐125; and on the advantages of Congregationalism
over every other form of church‐polity, see Dexter,
Congregationalism, 236‐296. Dexter, 290, note, quotes from
Belcher’s Religious Denominations of the U. S., 184, as follows:
“Jefferson said that he considered Baptist church government the
only form of pure democracy which then existed in the world, and
had concluded that it would be the best plan of government for the
American Colonies. This was eight or ten years before the American
Revolution.” On Baptist democracy, see Thomas Armitage, in N.
Amer. Rev., March, 1887:232‐243.
John Fiske, Beginnings of New England: “In a church based upon
such a theology [that of Calvin], there was no room for prelacy.
Each single church tended to become an independent congregation of
worshipers, constituting one of the most effective schools that
has ever existed for training men in local self‐government.”
Schurman, Agnosticism, 160—“The Baptists, who are nominally
Calvinists, are now, as they were at the beginning of the century,
second in numerical rank [in America]; but their fundamental
principle—the Bible, the Bible only—taken in connection with their
polity, has enabled them silently to drop the old theology and
unconsciously to adjust themselves to the new spiritual
environment.” We prefer to say that Baptists have not dropped the
old theology, but have given it new interpretation and
application; see A. H. Strong, Our Denominational Outlook, Sermon
in Cleveland, 1904.
B. Erroneous views as to church government refuted by the foregoing
passages.
(_a_) The world‐church theory, or the Romanist view.—This holds that all
local churches are subject to the supreme authority of the bishop of Rome,
as the successor of Peter and the infallible vicegerent of Christ, and, as
thus united, constitute the one and only church of Christ on earth. We
reply:
First,—Christ gave no such supreme authority to Peter. Mat. 16:18, 19,
simply refers to the personal position of Peter as first confessor of
Christ and preacher of his name to Jews and Gentiles. Hence other apostles
also constituted the foundation (Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:14). On one occasion,
the counsel of James was regarded as of equal weight with that of Peter
(Acts 15:7‐30), while on another occasion Peter was rebuked by Paul (Gal.
2:11), and Peter calls himself only a fellow‐elder (1 Pet. 5:1).
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account