What do you think?
Rate this book
Christianity & Civilization #1
The Failure of the American Baptist Culture
Book by James B., Ed. Jordan
317 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1982
7 people are currently reading
95 people want to read
About the author
James B. Jordan
56 books142 followersJames B. Jordan is a Calvinist theologian and author. He is director of Biblical Horizons ministries, a think tank in Niceville, Florida that publishes books, essays and other media dealing with Bible commentary, Biblical Theology, and liturgy.
Jordan was born in Athens, Georgia, and he attended the University of Georgia, where he received a B.A. in comparative literature and participated in Campus Crusade for Christ. He served as a military historian in the United States Air Force and attended Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi but ultimately earned an M.A. and Th.M. from Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania with a master's thesis on slavery in the Bible. In 1993, he received a D.Litt. from the Central School of Religion for his dissertation on the dietary laws of Moses. From 1980 to 1990 Jordan was an associate pastor of a Presbyterian church in Tyler, Texas.
Jordan was born in Athens, Georgia, and he attended the University of Georgia, where he received a B.A. in comparative literature and participated in Campus Crusade for Christ. He served as a military historian in the United States Air Force and attended Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi but ultimately earned an M.A. and Th.M. from Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania with a master's thesis on slavery in the Bible. In 1993, he received a D.Litt. from the Central School of Religion for his dissertation on the dietary laws of Moses. From 1980 to 1990 Jordan was an associate pastor of a Presbyterian church in Tyler, Texas.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
February 7, 2023
Other than some of the outdated sections on old book reviews (which I skimmed), there are some really challenging and excellent chapters in this work. Jordan’s small editor’s introduction alone is extremely valuable in thinking about presuppositions. Other must read chapters that were helpful with good insights are from P. Richard Flinn (probably my favorite), Ray R. Sutton, and Peter A. Lillback.
April 8, 2014
I am a Reformed Baptist, so I went into this hoping to find a good challenge to my convictions regarding baptist theology. The opening essay by James Jordan made me think that I would be challenged and in some ways I was, but not in the ways Jordan made me anticipate.
For example, he writes, "Peter Lillback's essay in this symposium demonstrates with finality that there can be no such thing as a "Calvinistic" or "Reformed" Baptist." That's a big claim, but I found Lillback's essay was not quite so airtight.
At the outset, Jordan and North, especially, argue that America's theological culture is primarily baptistic in orientation. They argue this is the case because it is the fruit of revivalism that came out of the Second Great Awakening and has lived on to our day--particularly through fundamentalism. I am in basic agreement on this point.
North's essay in the beginning is excellent. He provides a good history and overview of Vantillian presuppositionalism and the schizophrenia of "the new Christian right." He argues that the Christian Right wants "moral government" without the prerequisite Christian theology. In essence, they want the fruit of Christian civilization without its root. He demonstrates the folly and futility of their position.
Kevin Craig's essay deals with the interaction of theology and politics and shows how Christians can transform culture and win it for Christ. In it he really brings Vantillian presuppositionalism to bear upon culture and demolishes the "myth of neutrality." There is no neutral ground and Christians must recognize this or continue to lose the culture war.
These first two chapters are some of the best in the book, but they aren't explicitly attacking baptist theology, so much as showing the failure of the church to act as salt and light in the culture.
Ray Sutton and Peter Lillback's essays in the middle of the book are really the backbone of the argument against baptist theology. Richard Flinn contributes a chapter here arguing that baptist theology operates on a different set of presuppositions than paedobaptist theology. He's obviously right in this--the two have a very different set of presuppositions.
Flinn argues that the baptist presuppositions operate as blinders and the debate cannot be done through exegesis, but must be dealt with by examining the presuppositions of the two positions. Again, I agree that our presuppositions blind us to the biblical argument, but I, of course, believe it is the paedobaptists that are blinded by their covenantal theology which is presupposed, rather than established scripturally.
Flinn begins his discussion "by investigating the meaning of baptism
as understood by the Reformers." Baptists don't begin with the Reformers, as we believe the Reformers were inconsistent in their understanding of baptism--confused by the tradition and forced into concocting a theological system to support an otherwise unscriptural practice.
Flinn then takes us to the Reformers views on the covenant--again they presuppose the covenantal continuity and impose their system upon the text. Baptist eschatology, according to Flinn, in a nutshell argues, "The Kingdom of God progresses from the external to the internal, from the temporal to the eternal, from the fleshly to the spiritual, from the earthly to the heavenly, from the visible to the invisible, from the objective to the subjective, from the corporate to the individual."
This is a bit simplistic, and largely what I believe, it is insufficient, and more sophisticated baptists would qualify this substantially and elaborate much more.
Here is the crux of his argument:
"No baptist would be crass enough to argue that under the New Covenant we do not have to do with "externals" - marriage, children, families, economics, justice, governments, and education. But the baptist wishes to argue that these pass away from the purview of redemption. Thus we can conclude judiciously that the whole baptist case hangs on this view of redemptive history. If this view cannot be substantiated exegetically, then Calvin's argument is simply irrefutable. If the baptist view of the eschaton is to be established, then at least the following must be proven: that the New Covenant, the covenant of Redemption, has no earthly, temporal, corporate, terrestrial, or national reference. Only then can the baptist case be established biblically, since the failure to baptize infants is predicated upon this proposition.
It is not sufficient to establish that the Old Covenant embraced this earthly reality. This is acknowledged by all concerned. Nor is it sufficient to prove that baptism is a sign and seal of personal faith and regeneration. Both camps acknowledge this, also. Rather baptists have to prove that baptism signifies personal faith and regeneration only. Moreover, baptists must establish that the New Covenant itself, of which baptism is the sign and seal, is no broader than the individual. 65 Or, to put it another way, the baptist must prove exegetically that families, work, economics, politics, etc. are not under the aegis of God's covenantal dealings with mankind."
It seems Flinn is dealing here, with an unsophisticated, and maybe even stereotypical baptist. I've written elsewhere that the baptist heritage is a bit embarrassing--intellectually. The Second Great Awakening, as most recognize, was a largely anti-intellectual movement and left American evangelicalism reeling intellectually and we all ought to be a bit ashamed of this. However, baptist theology has begun a resurgence and there are must better arguments out there now and these aren't really dealt with by Flinn at all. That's not fair to him, of course, as the book was published in the early 1980s.
In any case, Flinn does demonstrate very effectively, that fundamentalist baptist theology, at least as he sees it, is deficient and does not adequately understand the nature of the covenant. At the same time, he makes too much of covenantal continuity from the Old to the New. This is a failure with all covenant theologians--they flatten the two into one and fail to recognize the newness of the new and the discontinuity that is there.
Ray Sutton's essay is a bit uneven, but the last third of the essay is really challenging to the baptist position on the covenant. He really takes it to us and deals some heavy blows. His main thesis is the continuity of baptist thought from the anabaptists. He attempts to show the subjectivism native to anapbaptist thought and how this is, by nature, part of baptist thought. This is a serious charge and one of the greatest challenges to baptist theology.
Baptists are definitely prone to Pelagian, semi-Pelagian, and Arminian theology and this weakness is fundmental to baptist theology according to Sutton. I disagree that it is necessarily there at the foundation, but do agree that it is a problem that needs to be answered.
One of his more serious charges is that,
"Calvinistic Baptists must realize that their only success has been in the context of the Presbyterian and Reformed tradition. In Zurich, the land of "pure" Anabaptism, they lived in the shade of Zwingli and Calvin. In England, the Baptists floundered until they took over the Westminster Confession of Faith from the Presbyterians. The tendency of Baptistic groups to move away from Calvinism is explained by their theology of individualism. Covenantal theology has maintained that the basic unit of every sphere of society is the family, while Baptistic theology sees the individual, usually very atomistically, as the foundation. There is no room in Baptistic thought for seeing God claiming the child apart from the child's decision, so that decisionism is always the tendency of Baptist thought. Except where the Reformed structures of thought have restrained the outworkings of Anabaptism, it has failed."
Now, I agree that some baptists think this way, but I do not subscribe to this view of baptism that he's arguing against--nor would any consistent "Calvinistic Baptist." No such person would agree that God cannot claim "a child apart from the child's decision." This is not Calvinism, but Arminianism. His argument is a bit of a red herring--labeling Arminianism as Calvinism. Sutton is right that baptists tend to view the world atomistically and not covenantally, but this failure is due their misunderstanding the covenant. Paedobaptists fall in the other ditch. This is where Steve Wellum and Peter Gentry's "via media" approach (in Kingdom Through Covenant) is so helpful. There is a middle way, where we can stay true to Scripture without falling into ditches.
Sutton goes on to show how Anabaptism has infected baptists with all sorts of maladies including individualism, pietism, asceticism, subjective ethics, glorification of suffering, exclusivism, perfectionism, and preachers always preaching to conversion. This list is devastatingly accurate. In fact, they are my own list of primary problems with baptist churches. Again, this is a devastating critique--I agree that these are huge problems for baptists to deal with.
Toward his conclusion he makes another crushing indictment of the baptist position. He writes, "Anabaptism sees that contact with the world inescapably causes sin. But orthodoxy maintains that the world has been redemptively overcome, and that the evil in nature is parasitic." This leads to confusion on eschatology, the law, epistemology, and a host of maladies.
But I'm not willing to concede that these ills are necessary consequences to the believer's baptist position. They are its excesses, yes. But let's chasten our theology, and learn from our paedo brothers where we ought. The baptists aren't the only ones with big blind spots. Baptists have much to learn from covenant theology, and we must come to realize this, or continue to fail culturally.
Peter Lillback's essay on Calvin and the logical inconsistency of "Reformed Baptists" has much good, but really fails to deliver. If one presupposes Calvin's understanding of the covenant and covenant theology in general, one will naturally agree with Lillback that Calvinists cannot be baptists. But I disagree with Calvin's understanding of the covenant and see his a massive disconnect between his theology of baptism and his practice of infant baptism.
So technically speaking, Lillback is right--the two are mutually exclusive, but I still believe one can reject Calvin's practice on baptism, and subscribe to his theology and hold to a baptist position. Calvin, in my mind, is a baptist "at heart", and paedobaptist by tradition. Who, but a baptist could say this and REALLY mean it? "Baptism is a symbol of the forgiveness of sins; and who could be admitted to receive the symbol but sinners acknowledging themselves as such?" (Calvin in the Institutes)
I really appreciated Lillback's position on Calvin's view of the warning passages in Scripture. I agree entirely with him on this, and Tom Schreiner and Ardel Caneday (my father) have a great book on this very topic called "The Race Set Before Us." Both baptists--showing that baptists can hold to Reformed views here.
The remaining chapters are okay, but the best of the book is finished with Lillback's contribution. Craig Bulkeley does have an interesting "letter to a friend" that shows that religious liberty as espoused by Roger Williams and the baptists is an expression of irrationalism and is an unbiblical idea. He demonstrates that the argument itself is based upon "reason" which is itself the product of a biblical worldview where God is not only presupposed, but a necessary being. Arguing for "religious liberty" must necessarily be irrational as it allows people to "follow their conscience." The essay shows how this worked out to granting license to the people of Rhode Island in ways Williams had never conceived--in ways he actually condemned. But, he'd let the cat out of the bag, and it was too late to put it back. He doesn't tell us how we ought to tolerate other religions, but it is clear that the baptist notion of "religious liberty" is unbiblical and cannot be maintained in light of Vantillian presuppositionalism.
Overall the book has some great material and it really chastens the excesses of "American Baptist Culture." But it fails to deal any death blows. Baptist theology still stands, but it obviously needs some medicine to restore it to vitality. The medicine is out there--but baptists do seem reluctant to take it.
For example, he writes, "Peter Lillback's essay in this symposium demonstrates with finality that there can be no such thing as a "Calvinistic" or "Reformed" Baptist." That's a big claim, but I found Lillback's essay was not quite so airtight.
At the outset, Jordan and North, especially, argue that America's theological culture is primarily baptistic in orientation. They argue this is the case because it is the fruit of revivalism that came out of the Second Great Awakening and has lived on to our day--particularly through fundamentalism. I am in basic agreement on this point.
North's essay in the beginning is excellent. He provides a good history and overview of Vantillian presuppositionalism and the schizophrenia of "the new Christian right." He argues that the Christian Right wants "moral government" without the prerequisite Christian theology. In essence, they want the fruit of Christian civilization without its root. He demonstrates the folly and futility of their position.
Kevin Craig's essay deals with the interaction of theology and politics and shows how Christians can transform culture and win it for Christ. In it he really brings Vantillian presuppositionalism to bear upon culture and demolishes the "myth of neutrality." There is no neutral ground and Christians must recognize this or continue to lose the culture war.
These first two chapters are some of the best in the book, but they aren't explicitly attacking baptist theology, so much as showing the failure of the church to act as salt and light in the culture.
Ray Sutton and Peter Lillback's essays in the middle of the book are really the backbone of the argument against baptist theology. Richard Flinn contributes a chapter here arguing that baptist theology operates on a different set of presuppositions than paedobaptist theology. He's obviously right in this--the two have a very different set of presuppositions.
Flinn argues that the baptist presuppositions operate as blinders and the debate cannot be done through exegesis, but must be dealt with by examining the presuppositions of the two positions. Again, I agree that our presuppositions blind us to the biblical argument, but I, of course, believe it is the paedobaptists that are blinded by their covenantal theology which is presupposed, rather than established scripturally.
Flinn begins his discussion "by investigating the meaning of baptism
as understood by the Reformers." Baptists don't begin with the Reformers, as we believe the Reformers were inconsistent in their understanding of baptism--confused by the tradition and forced into concocting a theological system to support an otherwise unscriptural practice.
Flinn then takes us to the Reformers views on the covenant--again they presuppose the covenantal continuity and impose their system upon the text. Baptist eschatology, according to Flinn, in a nutshell argues, "The Kingdom of God progresses from the external to the internal, from the temporal to the eternal, from the fleshly to the spiritual, from the earthly to the heavenly, from the visible to the invisible, from the objective to the subjective, from the corporate to the individual."
This is a bit simplistic, and largely what I believe, it is insufficient, and more sophisticated baptists would qualify this substantially and elaborate much more.
Here is the crux of his argument:
"No baptist would be crass enough to argue that under the New Covenant we do not have to do with "externals" - marriage, children, families, economics, justice, governments, and education. But the baptist wishes to argue that these pass away from the purview of redemption. Thus we can conclude judiciously that the whole baptist case hangs on this view of redemptive history. If this view cannot be substantiated exegetically, then Calvin's argument is simply irrefutable. If the baptist view of the eschaton is to be established, then at least the following must be proven: that the New Covenant, the covenant of Redemption, has no earthly, temporal, corporate, terrestrial, or national reference. Only then can the baptist case be established biblically, since the failure to baptize infants is predicated upon this proposition.
It is not sufficient to establish that the Old Covenant embraced this earthly reality. This is acknowledged by all concerned. Nor is it sufficient to prove that baptism is a sign and seal of personal faith and regeneration. Both camps acknowledge this, also. Rather baptists have to prove that baptism signifies personal faith and regeneration only. Moreover, baptists must establish that the New Covenant itself, of which baptism is the sign and seal, is no broader than the individual. 65 Or, to put it another way, the baptist must prove exegetically that families, work, economics, politics, etc. are not under the aegis of God's covenantal dealings with mankind."
It seems Flinn is dealing here, with an unsophisticated, and maybe even stereotypical baptist. I've written elsewhere that the baptist heritage is a bit embarrassing--intellectually. The Second Great Awakening, as most recognize, was a largely anti-intellectual movement and left American evangelicalism reeling intellectually and we all ought to be a bit ashamed of this. However, baptist theology has begun a resurgence and there are must better arguments out there now and these aren't really dealt with by Flinn at all. That's not fair to him, of course, as the book was published in the early 1980s.
In any case, Flinn does demonstrate very effectively, that fundamentalist baptist theology, at least as he sees it, is deficient and does not adequately understand the nature of the covenant. At the same time, he makes too much of covenantal continuity from the Old to the New. This is a failure with all covenant theologians--they flatten the two into one and fail to recognize the newness of the new and the discontinuity that is there.
Ray Sutton's essay is a bit uneven, but the last third of the essay is really challenging to the baptist position on the covenant. He really takes it to us and deals some heavy blows. His main thesis is the continuity of baptist thought from the anabaptists. He attempts to show the subjectivism native to anapbaptist thought and how this is, by nature, part of baptist thought. This is a serious charge and one of the greatest challenges to baptist theology.
Baptists are definitely prone to Pelagian, semi-Pelagian, and Arminian theology and this weakness is fundmental to baptist theology according to Sutton. I disagree that it is necessarily there at the foundation, but do agree that it is a problem that needs to be answered.
One of his more serious charges is that,
"Calvinistic Baptists must realize that their only success has been in the context of the Presbyterian and Reformed tradition. In Zurich, the land of "pure" Anabaptism, they lived in the shade of Zwingli and Calvin. In England, the Baptists floundered until they took over the Westminster Confession of Faith from the Presbyterians. The tendency of Baptistic groups to move away from Calvinism is explained by their theology of individualism. Covenantal theology has maintained that the basic unit of every sphere of society is the family, while Baptistic theology sees the individual, usually very atomistically, as the foundation. There is no room in Baptistic thought for seeing God claiming the child apart from the child's decision, so that decisionism is always the tendency of Baptist thought. Except where the Reformed structures of thought have restrained the outworkings of Anabaptism, it has failed."
Now, I agree that some baptists think this way, but I do not subscribe to this view of baptism that he's arguing against--nor would any consistent "Calvinistic Baptist." No such person would agree that God cannot claim "a child apart from the child's decision." This is not Calvinism, but Arminianism. His argument is a bit of a red herring--labeling Arminianism as Calvinism. Sutton is right that baptists tend to view the world atomistically and not covenantally, but this failure is due their misunderstanding the covenant. Paedobaptists fall in the other ditch. This is where Steve Wellum and Peter Gentry's "via media" approach (in Kingdom Through Covenant) is so helpful. There is a middle way, where we can stay true to Scripture without falling into ditches.
Sutton goes on to show how Anabaptism has infected baptists with all sorts of maladies including individualism, pietism, asceticism, subjective ethics, glorification of suffering, exclusivism, perfectionism, and preachers always preaching to conversion. This list is devastatingly accurate. In fact, they are my own list of primary problems with baptist churches. Again, this is a devastating critique--I agree that these are huge problems for baptists to deal with.
Toward his conclusion he makes another crushing indictment of the baptist position. He writes, "Anabaptism sees that contact with the world inescapably causes sin. But orthodoxy maintains that the world has been redemptively overcome, and that the evil in nature is parasitic." This leads to confusion on eschatology, the law, epistemology, and a host of maladies.
But I'm not willing to concede that these ills are necessary consequences to the believer's baptist position. They are its excesses, yes. But let's chasten our theology, and learn from our paedo brothers where we ought. The baptists aren't the only ones with big blind spots. Baptists have much to learn from covenant theology, and we must come to realize this, or continue to fail culturally.
Peter Lillback's essay on Calvin and the logical inconsistency of "Reformed Baptists" has much good, but really fails to deliver. If one presupposes Calvin's understanding of the covenant and covenant theology in general, one will naturally agree with Lillback that Calvinists cannot be baptists. But I disagree with Calvin's understanding of the covenant and see his a massive disconnect between his theology of baptism and his practice of infant baptism.
So technically speaking, Lillback is right--the two are mutually exclusive, but I still believe one can reject Calvin's practice on baptism, and subscribe to his theology and hold to a baptist position. Calvin, in my mind, is a baptist "at heart", and paedobaptist by tradition. Who, but a baptist could say this and REALLY mean it? "Baptism is a symbol of the forgiveness of sins; and who could be admitted to receive the symbol but sinners acknowledging themselves as such?" (Calvin in the Institutes)
I really appreciated Lillback's position on Calvin's view of the warning passages in Scripture. I agree entirely with him on this, and Tom Schreiner and Ardel Caneday (my father) have a great book on this very topic called "The Race Set Before Us." Both baptists--showing that baptists can hold to Reformed views here.
The remaining chapters are okay, but the best of the book is finished with Lillback's contribution. Craig Bulkeley does have an interesting "letter to a friend" that shows that religious liberty as espoused by Roger Williams and the baptists is an expression of irrationalism and is an unbiblical idea. He demonstrates that the argument itself is based upon "reason" which is itself the product of a biblical worldview where God is not only presupposed, but a necessary being. Arguing for "religious liberty" must necessarily be irrational as it allows people to "follow their conscience." The essay shows how this worked out to granting license to the people of Rhode Island in ways Williams had never conceived--in ways he actually condemned. But, he'd let the cat out of the bag, and it was too late to put it back. He doesn't tell us how we ought to tolerate other religions, but it is clear that the baptist notion of "religious liberty" is unbiblical and cannot be maintained in light of Vantillian presuppositionalism.
Overall the book has some great material and it really chastens the excesses of "American Baptist Culture." But it fails to deal any death blows. Baptist theology still stands, but it obviously needs some medicine to restore it to vitality. The medicine is out there--but baptists do seem reluctant to take it.
March 30, 2015
A great book discussing the cultural and social implications of 200 years of Baptist culture in America. Some of the early chapters are slow going, but when the contributors start getting into the origins of Baptist theology and review some of the history of Anabaptism, the book really starts cooking. Chapters six, seven and eight are worth the price of the book, even at "rare out of print" prices. (or you could just download a free pdf copy - just google the title and hunt for a moment or two).
Chapter six, titled "Baptism, Redemptive History and Eschatology" argues that the difference over paedo vs. credo baptism is not a little one, but is the result of radically different views of the covenant, kingdom and eschatology.
Chapter seven, titled "The Baptist Culture" goes into a number of significant and illuminating errors and confusions the Anabaptists and their descendants, simply called Baptists, have. It reveals some of the strange and radical origins of Anabaptist theology in the ascetics and monastics of the counter reformation. It outlines some errors and tendencies of Baptist and Anabaptist theology, such as subjectivism, perfectionism, and exclusionism. The remainder of the essay is devoted to what this theology does to the civil government, church and family.
Chapter eight, titled "Calvin's Covenantal Response to the Anabaptist View of Baptism," by Peter Lillback, demonstrates conclusively that Calvin was a Federal Visionist, before there ever was a Federal Vision, by a guy who is not and never was a Federal Visionist. The essay ranges in many directions, from Calvin's understanding of covenant to the continuity between new and old covenants, between Calvin's view of letter and Spirit, and concludes with a great analysis of whether men can break the New Covenant or whether the New Covenant is possessed only (really) by the eternally elect.
The book tapers again towards the end and a few of the last chapters were a slog to get through. Nevertheless, some really important stuff here. It clearly draws the line between Baptist and Reformed theology.
Chapter six, titled "Baptism, Redemptive History and Eschatology" argues that the difference over paedo vs. credo baptism is not a little one, but is the result of radically different views of the covenant, kingdom and eschatology.
Chapter seven, titled "The Baptist Culture" goes into a number of significant and illuminating errors and confusions the Anabaptists and their descendants, simply called Baptists, have. It reveals some of the strange and radical origins of Anabaptist theology in the ascetics and monastics of the counter reformation. It outlines some errors and tendencies of Baptist and Anabaptist theology, such as subjectivism, perfectionism, and exclusionism. The remainder of the essay is devoted to what this theology does to the civil government, church and family.
Chapter eight, titled "Calvin's Covenantal Response to the Anabaptist View of Baptism," by Peter Lillback, demonstrates conclusively that Calvin was a Federal Visionist, before there ever was a Federal Vision, by a guy who is not and never was a Federal Visionist. The essay ranges in many directions, from Calvin's understanding of covenant to the continuity between new and old covenants, between Calvin's view of letter and Spirit, and concludes with a great analysis of whether men can break the New Covenant or whether the New Covenant is possessed only (really) by the eternally elect.
The book tapers again towards the end and a few of the last chapters were a slog to get through. Nevertheless, some really important stuff here. It clearly draws the line between Baptist and Reformed theology.
May 19, 2014
I really enjoyed and gleaned a lot from most of this book! Considering the fact that it was written in the 80's there were certain parts that were a little dated and a few essays that I skipped.
That being said many of the essays where extremely helpful in showing the disjointed and inconsistent nature of baptist theology, especially as it relates to the larger culture.
It's not the most accessible book so I'm not sure how widely I would recommend it. I will say that anyone interested in the relation between politics and theology will certainly find many interesting and helpful things in this work.
My favorite essays were:
The Editor's Introduction - James Jordan
The Intellectual Schizophrenia of the New Christian Right - Gary North
Media Theo-Pop - Michael R. Gilstrap
Baptism, Redemptive History, and Eschatology: The Parameters of Debate - Richard Flinn
The Baptist Failre - Ray Sutton
Calvin's Covenantal Response to the Anabaptist View of Baptism - Peter Lillback
That being said many of the essays where extremely helpful in showing the disjointed and inconsistent nature of baptist theology, especially as it relates to the larger culture.
It's not the most accessible book so I'm not sure how widely I would recommend it. I will say that anyone interested in the relation between politics and theology will certainly find many interesting and helpful things in this work.
My favorite essays were:
The Editor's Introduction - James Jordan
The Intellectual Schizophrenia of the New Christian Right - Gary North
Media Theo-Pop - Michael R. Gilstrap
Baptism, Redemptive History, and Eschatology: The Parameters of Debate - Richard Flinn
The Baptist Failre - Ray Sutton
Calvin's Covenantal Response to the Anabaptist View of Baptism - Peter Lillback
February 25, 2016
An interesting collection of essays critiquing American Baptist culture (which is the culture of more than just "Baptist" churches). Some of the essays are more well-written than others, and some are more polemic than others. I particularly benefitted from and enjoyed reading "The Intellectual Schizophrenia of the New Christian Right" by Gary North, "Baptism, Redemptive History, and Eschatology: The Parameters of Debate" by P. Richard Flinn, and "Calvin's Covenantal Response to the Anabaptist View of Baptism" by Peter A. Lillback. It's broader than your typical paedo vs. credo debate, and perhaps not the best introduction to the topic, but could be helpful for getting a larger view of the issues at stake.
Oh, and you can get the PDF of the book for free at: http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/do...
Oh, and you can get the PDF of the book for free at: http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/do...
Want to read
November 8, 2019Mentioned here.
April 13, 2020
Though I didn’t rate the book as a whole that highly, Flynn’s article on baptism is worth the price of the book.
August 18, 2024
A mixed bag of glorious truth, ideological critique, decisive strategy, and some unjust caricatures.
July 7, 2025
There are some really good essays here (hence the 3 stars), but the majority are outdated or outright skippable.
March 26, 2017
Lots of food for thought. As we drift from Calvinism to Revivalism, the whole culture pays.
June 25, 2013
Some of the material was a bit dated, specifically the chapter titled "The Moral Majority: An Anabaptist Critique" though still useful in principle.
Some of the material on baptism was quite helpful as it speaks in opposition of Mark Dever's practice of not baptizing younger children until such time as he can make a competent evaluation of their spiritual state.
From the chapter "Calvin’s Covenantal Response To The Anabaptist View of Baptism" by Peter A. Lillback, pages 224-225
Calvin writes:
If it is right for infants to be brought to Christ, why not also to be received into baptism, the symbol of our communion and fellowship with Christ? If the kingdom of heaven belongs to them, why is the sign denied which, so to speak, opens to them a door into the church, that adopted into it, they may be enrolled among the heirs of the kingdom of heaven? How unjust of us to drive away those whom Christ calls to himself! To deprive those whom he adorns with gifts! To shut out those whom he willingly receives!
But if we wish to make an issue of the great difference between baptism and this act of Christ, how much more precious shall we regard baptism, by which we attest that infants are contained within God's covenant, than the receiving, embracing, laying on of hands, and prayer, by which Christ himself present declares both that they are his and are sanctified by him? (IV. 16. 7)
His argument in essence is that regardless of how different the actions of Christ's embracing infants and infants being baptized may appear to be, their significance is identical. Calvin's concluding question must be answered by “none at all.”
Being received into the covenant (baptism) and being embraced by Christ and thus sanctified are not capable of being interpreted as the Anabaptists attempt. To them baptism is a blessing of a far greater sort than being brought to Christ. But how can this be since each implies the full acceptance and sanctification of Christ? What Calvin has done with this argument is to change the comparison from a greater spiritual reality (baptism) and a lesser spiritual reality (reception by Christ), to simply a matter about the external mode of offering the child to Christ. If the two actions imply the same thing, then there is no reason to prohibit infants from the sign of baptism on the ground that the unbelieving child is not entitled to the sign of spiritual grace.
This is because Christ has made abundantly clear that infants are received by him, and that to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.
Of course, the paedobaptist cannot find any water in this text. But, this is simply a matter of externals at this point since the spiritual equivalence of Christ's embracing infants and baptism has been established, which is the most critical point. The propriety of water for infants is established by the continuity of the covenant and the replacement of circumcision by baptism. Baptism, almost needless to say, implies water. For Calvin, then, Christ's embracing infants and promising them the kingdom of heaven is tantamount to attesting “that infants are contained within God's covenant.” For Calvin, the arms of Christ are the arms of the covenanting God.
This episode from the life of Christ corroborates the legitimacy of infant baptism for Calvin.
Some of the material on baptism was quite helpful as it speaks in opposition of Mark Dever's practice of not baptizing younger children until such time as he can make a competent evaluation of their spiritual state.
From the chapter "Calvin’s Covenantal Response To The Anabaptist View of Baptism" by Peter A. Lillback, pages 224-225
Calvin writes:
If it is right for infants to be brought to Christ, why not also to be received into baptism, the symbol of our communion and fellowship with Christ? If the kingdom of heaven belongs to them, why is the sign denied which, so to speak, opens to them a door into the church, that adopted into it, they may be enrolled among the heirs of the kingdom of heaven? How unjust of us to drive away those whom Christ calls to himself! To deprive those whom he adorns with gifts! To shut out those whom he willingly receives!
But if we wish to make an issue of the great difference between baptism and this act of Christ, how much more precious shall we regard baptism, by which we attest that infants are contained within God's covenant, than the receiving, embracing, laying on of hands, and prayer, by which Christ himself present declares both that they are his and are sanctified by him? (IV. 16. 7)
His argument in essence is that regardless of how different the actions of Christ's embracing infants and infants being baptized may appear to be, their significance is identical. Calvin's concluding question must be answered by “none at all.”
Being received into the covenant (baptism) and being embraced by Christ and thus sanctified are not capable of being interpreted as the Anabaptists attempt. To them baptism is a blessing of a far greater sort than being brought to Christ. But how can this be since each implies the full acceptance and sanctification of Christ? What Calvin has done with this argument is to change the comparison from a greater spiritual reality (baptism) and a lesser spiritual reality (reception by Christ), to simply a matter about the external mode of offering the child to Christ. If the two actions imply the same thing, then there is no reason to prohibit infants from the sign of baptism on the ground that the unbelieving child is not entitled to the sign of spiritual grace.
This is because Christ has made abundantly clear that infants are received by him, and that to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.
Of course, the paedobaptist cannot find any water in this text. But, this is simply a matter of externals at this point since the spiritual equivalence of Christ's embracing infants and baptism has been established, which is the most critical point. The propriety of water for infants is established by the continuity of the covenant and the replacement of circumcision by baptism. Baptism, almost needless to say, implies water. For Calvin, then, Christ's embracing infants and promising them the kingdom of heaven is tantamount to attesting “that infants are contained within God's covenant.” For Calvin, the arms of Christ are the arms of the covenanting God.
This episode from the life of Christ corroborates the legitimacy of infant baptism for Calvin.
July 4, 2013
I am so thankful for the baptists.. They are my people. They have held the day in so many ways. But, as to cultural transformation the baptists have not done well. This is because their theology has very little to say to this.. God has blessed the "evangelical" church (I'm an evangelical too but..) in spite of itself.
As to some of the best articles: Richard Flinn's is superb. infant baptist and credo-baptist presuppositions are well laid out. The author targets the false duality between the older covenant being "physical," "fleshly," "external", "temporal," "earthly," etc., and the new cov. as internal, spiritual and eternal.. In reality, both covenants were about both.. you can't reduce them so simply and yet this is done all the time by the baptists. The New Cov is better, deeper, and more personal but it's false to say that it's not earthy, ( Heb 6, Jn 15, Rom 11) fleshly, and external.
Michael Gilstrap's review of "The Rise of Personality Cults in American Chty" is very interesting. This is a neglected note about some of our insecurity in modern times.. We gravitate to popular preachers "out-there" who have no spiritual authority over us, who won't tell us to stop doing something, and who comfort us falsely. They may be great men and preaching a great message, the problem is when we consider them our pastors. I say this to myself too.. We OD on men, instead of Jesus.
Sutton's is worth it. Good historical lay-out.
Lillback's is way too long. Dexter's on Roger Williams is a total gold nugget in a culture that worships williams. It destroys the heroic victim tag that everyone believes about him. ("Sorry Roger, I know we're related, and you're my great, great, great etc., granddad or something but you did a lot of damage, even if you did found Rhode Island).
Just get the volume to read above articles..
As to some of the best articles: Richard Flinn's is superb. infant baptist and credo-baptist presuppositions are well laid out. The author targets the false duality between the older covenant being "physical," "fleshly," "external", "temporal," "earthly," etc., and the new cov. as internal, spiritual and eternal.. In reality, both covenants were about both.. you can't reduce them so simply and yet this is done all the time by the baptists. The New Cov is better, deeper, and more personal but it's false to say that it's not earthy, ( Heb 6, Jn 15, Rom 11) fleshly, and external.
Michael Gilstrap's review of "The Rise of Personality Cults in American Chty" is very interesting. This is a neglected note about some of our insecurity in modern times.. We gravitate to popular preachers "out-there" who have no spiritual authority over us, who won't tell us to stop doing something, and who comfort us falsely. They may be great men and preaching a great message, the problem is when we consider them our pastors. I say this to myself too.. We OD on men, instead of Jesus.
Sutton's is worth it. Good historical lay-out.
Lillback's is way too long. Dexter's on Roger Williams is a total gold nugget in a culture that worships williams. It destroys the heroic victim tag that everyone believes about him. ("Sorry Roger, I know we're related, and you're my great, great, great etc., granddad or something but you did a lot of damage, even if you did found Rhode Island).
Just get the volume to read above articles..
February 17, 2010
I read this a few years ago when I was just starting to hear about all the Federal Vision stuff. I thought it was very helpful back then. This book was actually promoting many of the so-called Federal Vision issues, long before anyone had come up with this title.
I recently re-read it for a debate I did on One- versus Two-Kingdom approaches to culture, eschatology, etc., and once again, this book came in very handy. There are some pretty meaty critiques M. Kline in here as well.
Some of the essays were just alright. They seemed a little out of place, especially the last two. But hands down, the best two essays were Sutton's and Lillback's: Sutton's for gaining a better understanding of the history of Anabaptist/Baptist thought (especially the Anabaptist connection with Franciscan pelagianism); and Lillback's for showing how inconsistent it is for Calvinists to put on a Baptist suit.
North's essay on the failure of the Religious Right in the 80's was also pretty insightful. He basically shows what a failure the American Baptist political scene was during this time. From Jimmy Carter to Jerry Falwell, many Baptists thought they had their political "savior," but were constantly let down.
Good stuff.
I recently re-read it for a debate I did on One- versus Two-Kingdom approaches to culture, eschatology, etc., and once again, this book came in very handy. There are some pretty meaty critiques M. Kline in here as well.
Some of the essays were just alright. They seemed a little out of place, especially the last two. But hands down, the best two essays were Sutton's and Lillback's: Sutton's for gaining a better understanding of the history of Anabaptist/Baptist thought (especially the Anabaptist connection with Franciscan pelagianism); and Lillback's for showing how inconsistent it is for Calvinists to put on a Baptist suit.
North's essay on the failure of the Religious Right in the 80's was also pretty insightful. He basically shows what a failure the American Baptist political scene was during this time. From Jimmy Carter to Jerry Falwell, many Baptists thought they had their political "savior," but were constantly let down.
Good stuff.
July 8, 2013
A collection of essays relating to baptists and contemporary culture. I have to admit, the first five chapters were rather dull, relating to critiques of the 1980's Moral Majority phenomenon.
However, part two of the book goes into Anabaptist thought and theology, and chapters six, seven, and eight were worth reading all by themselves. From criticisms of subjective theology and perfectionism, to Peter A. Lillback's doctoral thesis "Calvin's' Covenantal Response to the Anabaptist view of Baptism", these show that the debate between infant baptism and believers baptism isn't a small one. Baptists see the New Covenant as entirely inward and spiritual, and I came away from the book seeing the baptist view of the sacraments, eschatology, the covenant, and society in general as neo-platonic and gnostic. This definitely has the seeds of the later Federal Vision debate (which really isn't a new debate after all).
The last section of the book had chapters that seemed almost entirely unrelated, and were a slog to get through.
However, part two of the book goes into Anabaptist thought and theology, and chapters six, seven, and eight were worth reading all by themselves. From criticisms of subjective theology and perfectionism, to Peter A. Lillback's doctoral thesis "Calvin's' Covenantal Response to the Anabaptist view of Baptism", these show that the debate between infant baptism and believers baptism isn't a small one. Baptists see the New Covenant as entirely inward and spiritual, and I came away from the book seeing the baptist view of the sacraments, eschatology, the covenant, and society in general as neo-platonic and gnostic. This definitely has the seeds of the later Federal Vision debate (which really isn't a new debate after all).
The last section of the book had chapters that seemed almost entirely unrelated, and were a slog to get through.
August 9, 2013
Great background material on how America got where she is. Sure the Moral Majority isn't around per se, but the thinking in evangelical circles sure still is. This book is as or more relevant today than when first published. Contrary to some of the other reviews here, I found the first half of the book to be the most compelling.
February 11, 2022
One of the most thought provoking journals that was written almost 40 years ago and is still prevalent today. Classic reformed polemical thought at work
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews