After a morning prayer time and breakfast we assembled for our first session of the day 'Bunyan the Baptist'. The speaker was Oliver Allmand-Smith from Ramsbottom.After a very brief introduction touching on Bunyan's greatness he referred to the 19th Century book by William Urwick containing the essay suggesting Bunyan was not a Baptist. (Bible Truths and Church Errors). Urwick's evidence is fourfold.
1. His baptism was in infancy and not as an adult. There is no evidence of his being baptised as a believer.
2. All his treatises on the subject against Baptists rather than for.
3. The way he and his church were treated by Baptists show he was not one of them.
4. He had his infant children baptised in the C of E.
This seemingly formidable body of evidence was easily answered. There is no record of Bunyan's baptism but there are almost no records of anyone else in the church being baptised. Bunyan considers infant baptism a sin though one to which he showed great toleration. The Baptist historian Thomas Armitage tackles the question of Bunyan having baptised children and points out that where such records are found they are incorrect and spring from confusion. Bunyan was a Baptist. His anti-Anglican writings show how unlikely it might be for him to have his children baptised in the Church of England. Bunyan's church was very strict with people who had dealings with the Church of England.
Having said this it is clear from Erwick that Bunyan was not in line with the Baptist view that links baptism and church membership. He refuse to believe that baptism was required for church membership. It, indeed, has nothing to do with the church, according to Bunyan. At one point Bunyan refused to release a Mrs Tilney from membership who wanted to join a church that required baptism for membership and even threatened excommunication.
Bunyan clearly saw baptism as a minor issue. Why? It was not out of weakness or any idea that the NT is unclear on baptism or some sort of ecumenism. Three reasons were proposed:
1. Because of his own conversion and spiritual pilgrimage.
2. Because of his determination to fight what he believed to be the battle of his day against dead religion.
3. Because of his determination to be united with all who were also seeking to fight the same battle.
It was his fear that baptism could promote dead religion that really drove him.
This was a most interesting paper not from a simply antiquarian point of view but raised vital issues for us to consider.
Oliver himself closed with three points
1. To exalt the individual's Christian experience over the corporate life of the visible local church is wrong. Bunyan's mistake is being repeated today minus the depth of experience and commitment that marked him.
2. We must follow the biblical pattern that is seen in Scripture where baptism and local church membership are taught and insisted upon.
3. To promote opposition to dead religion and broader unity at the expense of following the patterns laid down in Scripture for unity among God's people we are in error.
1. His baptism was in infancy and not as an adult. There is no evidence of his being baptised as a believer.
2. All his treatises on the subject against Baptists rather than for.
3. The way he and his church were treated by Baptists show he was not one of them.
4. He had his infant children baptised in the C of E.
This seemingly formidable body of evidence was easily answered. There is no record of Bunyan's baptism but there are almost no records of anyone else in the church being baptised. Bunyan considers infant baptism a sin though one to which he showed great toleration. The Baptist historian Thomas Armitage tackles the question of Bunyan having baptised children and points out that where such records are found they are incorrect and spring from confusion. Bunyan was a Baptist. His anti-Anglican writings show how unlikely it might be for him to have his children baptised in the Church of England. Bunyan's church was very strict with people who had dealings with the Church of England.
Having said this it is clear from Erwick that Bunyan was not in line with the Baptist view that links baptism and church membership. He refuse to believe that baptism was required for church membership. It, indeed, has nothing to do with the church, according to Bunyan. At one point Bunyan refused to release a Mrs Tilney from membership who wanted to join a church that required baptism for membership and even threatened excommunication.
Bunyan clearly saw baptism as a minor issue. Why? It was not out of weakness or any idea that the NT is unclear on baptism or some sort of ecumenism. Three reasons were proposed:
1. Because of his own conversion and spiritual pilgrimage.
2. Because of his determination to fight what he believed to be the battle of his day against dead religion.
3. Because of his determination to be united with all who were also seeking to fight the same battle.
It was his fear that baptism could promote dead religion that really drove him.
This was a most interesting paper not from a simply antiquarian point of view but raised vital issues for us to consider.
Oliver himself closed with three points
1. To exalt the individual's Christian experience over the corporate life of the visible local church is wrong. Bunyan's mistake is being repeated today minus the depth of experience and commitment that marked him.
2. We must follow the biblical pattern that is seen in Scripture where baptism and local church membership are taught and insisted upon.
3. To promote opposition to dead religion and broader unity at the expense of following the patterns laid down in Scripture for unity among God's people we are in error.
No comments:
Post a Comment