An Examination of Bishop Jerry Hayes’s “A Study in Infant Water Baptism.”

A recent Facebook discussion and blog post has prompted me to write this response to Bishop Jerry Hayes’s article “A Study in Infant Water Baptism.” Bishop Hayes, as early as 2012 (article “Manifesto of the Disciples of the Way (Apostolic),” has advocated infant water baptism (IWB), but (to my knowledge) his 2018 blog article is his first attempt at formally defending this position.

Before I jump into my disagreement with Bishop Hayes on infant water baptism, I would like to express and praise Bishop Hayes on an area in which we agree. Bishop Hayes offers a powerful examination of so-called “Christian homes” when compared to Muslim and Jewish households. I agree with Bishop Hayes to the extent that raising our children to live as Christians is not an option. As children (even as teens), they do not get to decide whether or not they will attend church services and/or live according to the principles of Christ. As parents, we are commanded to raise our children “in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Ephesian 6:4). However, I disagree with Bishop Hayes’s conclusion to this principle. Although “one is born a Muslim” or “one is born a Jew,” the fact that they were “born” a Muslim or Jew does not automatically necessitate that they will “remain” a Muslim or Jew. Circumcision for Jews does not guarantee that they will remain faithful to their Jewish faith (the same can honestly be said in regards to infant water baptism). It is because a child has been raised in a household of faith and develops their own relationship in the faith to their God that they then remain in that faith; not the fact that they were circumcised or baptized as an infant. “TRAIN UP a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it” (Proverbs 22:6).

In his blog, Bishop Hayes offers one of the most shocking confessions I have ever read from a minister who claims to be Apostolic. Bishop Hayes proclaims, “Yes, I confess that the New Testament teaches to be ‘Born Again.’ However, I AM NO LONGER SURE of the need of each succeeding generation of Christians being required to have the EXACT new birth experiences as did the first” (bold emphasis mine JLW). So, in other words, Bishop Hayes is saying that the second generation does not necessarily have to be “born again” in the same manner as their parents. I wonder if this includes being “born of the Spirit?” Bishop Hayes argues that the parents’ faith transposes to the infant child to the extent that the infant (and by “infant” we really mean a baby who is unable to speak; Latin infans = “speechless’) is a proper candidate for baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, who never needs to be rebaptized as an adult. Then by this same token, is Bishop Hayes willing to say that a Holy Ghost-filled parent’s spirituality also transposes to their infant child to the extent that the infant child is already “filled with the Holy Spirit” to the extent that they never are required to experience the baptism of the Holy Ghost as an adult? If not, why not.

Bishop Hayes claims several times in his blog, “The challenge arises when we must admit that the New Testament gives no example of any but first generation converts. I mean, we have no biblical example of how second and succeeding generation were made Christians.”  However, this statement overlooks the fact that the New Testament DOES instruct us how second and succeeding generations ARE TO BE MADE Christians!

 

Acts 2:38–39, Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. FOR (gar – because) the promise is to you (first generation), and to your children (second generation), and to all that are afar of, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.”

 

The Gospel Call to REPENT and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ is not limited to first generation converts. In fact, this Gospel Call is not limited to third or fourth generation converts. This Gospel Call is unto “as many as the Lord our God shall call.” Whether your parents, grandparents, or even great-grandparents were all tongue-talking, Holy Ghost-filled, Jesus Name-baptized believers; you, yourself, need your own experience of Repentance, Baptism in Jesus’ Name, and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost.

As with most of Bishop Hayes’s so-called “Orthodox” doctrines, he strongly appeals to Church history, and by that we mean the writings of the Ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene “Church Fathers.” In my opinion, it is highly inconsistent for a man to claim to uphold the historical Modalistic (Monarchian) doctrine of the Godhead, and then claim that the 2^nd and 3^rd Century opponents of Modalism represent true, historical, Apostolic teaching. Bishop Hayes claims, “Infant Water Baptism was universal in Christian society from the first century onward and was not brought into question until the Anabaptist [16^th century].” This statement is factually inaccurate on several accounts.

First of all, NOTHING has been “universal” in Christian society – every! Even in the 1^st century church, there were divisions concerning doctrines, whether it be concerning keeping the Law, eating meat sacrificed to idols, or even whether the resurrection had already taken place. Even when the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb and other prominent Apostles such as Barnabas, Paul and James the Lord’s brother were still alive, there was division in the church. So the idea that any particular doctrine has been “universally” taught from the 1^st century is just incorrect.

Secondly, Bishop Hayes’s statement that infant water baptism “was not brought into question until the Anabaptist [16^th century]” is equally incorrect and unfactual. All you have to do is read the end of Bishop Hayes’s article and see where; even he admits that, Tertullian opposed infant water baptism. So, Bishop Hayes actually presents contradicting information in his blog – originally says it was not disputed until 16^th century, but then admits Tertullian (155–205) also rejected infant water baptism. And here is food for thought on this supposed “universal” practice of infant water baptism: Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origen, etc. do not represent early Oneness (modalistic) Apostolic theology. So, it seems that Bishop Hayes finds himself at odds with the church history he likes to quote. As mentioned earlier, it is highly inconsistent to claim that you identify with the historical, Modalistic view of the Godhead, which the early “Church Fathers” opposed, and then claim that these Trinitarian opponents to Modalism represent the Orthodox-Apostolic position on infant water baptism.

These Catholic writers often wrote in opposition to such sects as the Monarchians, Montanist, Donatist, etc. especially in regards to baptism, and since we know for sure that Tertullian opposed infant water baptism (On Baptism, chapter 18) and he also converted to the Montanist, then what other groups (Donatist, Monarchians, Novatianist, etc) likewise opposed infant water baptism? What we do know from Tertullian at least is that infant water baptism was not “a universal practice that was unquestioned by Christian authorities until the time of the Protestant Reformation” as Bishop Hayes claims. As usual with Bishop Hayes, his misrepresentation of Church history overshadows his theology.

Before moving on to Bishop Hayes’s Scriptural arguments he thinks affirms infant water baptism, let’s address his comments on the New Birth of John 3:5. Bishop Hayes proclaims, “Jesus told Nicodemus that the Jewish people must be born again (John 3:1-8).” The new birth experience of John 3:5 is not limited to Jewish people. In fact Jesus’s final “Great Commission” proclaims that this New Birth message of water and Spirit baptism is to be preached to ALL NATIONS (Matt 28:19; Mark 16:15–16; Luke 24:47). Bishop Hayes concludes his assessment of the New Birth by stating, “The children of Christians are holy seed, and, as a result are born Christians, and are eligible for all Christian prerogatives …” Of course, he offers no Scriptural support for such statement. Being born into a Christian home does not automatically make you a Christian. Unlike the Jewish faith, Christianity is not a “family” that you are born into; rather it is a “family” that you are BORN AGAIN into. No passage states or even implies that a parent’s faith and belief automatically transfers to their children. John 3:16 states “Whosoever believes in Him shall not perish.” Belief is on the part of the “whosoever,” not someone else. No Scripture indicates that a parent’s belief automatically transposes to their children or stands in proxy for their children.

Question # 1 ––  Bishop Hayes’s Question #1 does not really give any Scriptural proof for infant water baptism, but simply directs the reader to Questions # 2 and 3.

Question # 2 –– Question 2 addresses why some oppose infant water baptism in regards to belief and repentance being prerequisites for water baptism (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 8:36–37). Bishop Hayes responded, “The first thing we must do is to knowledge [sic] that the New Testament is silent on how second generation Christians were made.” As mentioned earlier, the New Testament is NOT silent on how second generation Christians are to be made. The command to repent, be baptized in Jesus’s Name and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost is declared upon “you” (first generation) “and to your children” (second generation). Thus, we should readily expect a second generation Christian, such as Timothy (Acts 16:1) to have likewise repented of his own sins, been baptized in Jesus’s Name and received the gift of the Holy Ghost (2 Timothy 1:6). It does not seem likely that a Jewish convert (Timothy’s mom) who did not have her son circumcised would then allow her infant child to be baptized. Obviously the context of Acts 2:38–39 has BOTH first AND second-generation conversion in view.

Bishop Hayes further postulates that the command to “repent” as a prerequisite for baptism in Acts 2:38 was “crowd specific” only to those Jews present for killing Jesus Christ. Bishop Hayes likewise asserts, “Moreover, Acts 2:38 is the only New Testament text that associates water baptism with repentance … But there is only ONE text that connects repentance and water baptism (Acts 2:38)” (upper caps emphasis – Bishop Hayes). Actually, Acts 2:38 is NOT the only passage that connects repentance to water baptism! The Great Commission recorded in Luke 24:47 indicates, “REPENTANCE and remission of sins should be preached to ALL NATIONS beginning at Jerusalem.” Thus, repentance as a prerequisite to water baptism is not crowd specific to only those 1^st century Jews, but is a prerequisite to ALL NATIONS. We likewise understand from Acts 10:44–48 and 11:15–18 that repentance was a prerequisite for the Gentiles to receiving the Holy Ghost and being baptized in the name of Jesus.

One should understand that “for the remission of sins” in Acts 2:38 grammatically modifies BOTH “repent” and “be baptized.” This is where Catholic error comes into play. Catholics teach that the “work” of baptism (without faith) is what remits sin. Baptism alone is not “for the remission of sins.” The text clearly states, “Repent AND be baptized for the remission of sins.” Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ without repentance does not grant remission of sins. Thus, since an infant (infas = speechless) does not possess the ability or knowledge to repent, then baptizing them in Jesus’s Name does NOT communicate “remission of sins.” Likewise, in Mark 16:16, “HE that believes AND is baptized shall be saved,” BOTH belief AND baptism result in salvation –– and that is personal belief i.e. “he that believes,” not some sort of unbiblical proxy belief. An individual must believe for themselves and be baptized in order to be saved. Thus, because an infant in incapable of believing in Jesus Christ, then they are not a valid candidate for baptism.

Bishop Hayes’s affirmation of infant water baptism is directly linked with his misunderstanding of “original sin.” Bishop Hayes states, “The sin of Adam, is not a sin that can be repented of, whether one is an infant or an adult – it can just be remitted.” I will not even begin to get into the errors of Hayes’s doctrine of original sin. However, this ideology is contrary to Acts 2:38 in which “remission of sins” grammatically modifies both “repent” and “be baptized.” Any sin that is not repented of cannot likewise be remitted! “Remission of sins” is dependent upon BOTH repentance AND baptism.

Question # 3 –– Here Bishop Hayes offers his affirmatives for practicing infant water baptism. The first of which is an appeal to Old Testament Circumcision. Bishop Hayes argues that since infants were circumcised in the Old Testament and (according to Hayes) “Christian Covenant Theology views Water Baptism as Christian circumcision (see Colossians 2:11–12)” then infant water baptism is valid. However, there are several problems with this argument. First of all, water baptism in and of itself is not New Testament circumcision. New Testament circumcision is the “remission” or “cutting off” of sin that takes place through repentance and water baptism. If Bishop Hayes truly believes that Old Testament circumcision is the “type and shadow of baptism (i.e. circumcision)” then by this same token infant water baptism would only be valid for male infants when they are eight days old. Does Bishop Hayes limit infant water baptism to only male infants? If not, then he is not truly following the example of his so-called type and shadow of Old Testament circumcision. Likewise, Colossians 2:11–12 offers no proof for infant water baptism because verse 12 indicates that those who are water baptize express their faith of the operation of God (“YOU are risen though the faith”). Infants are incapable of expressing their faith of the operation of God, and therefore are not valid candidates for water baptism.

Once again, Bishop Hayes argues his doctrine of “original sin” by appealing to Psalm 51:5, “Behold I was shapen in inquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” However, commentators indicate that “shapen in inquity” is explained by “in sin did my mother conceive me” and indicates that David was conceived in sin through an adulterous relationship with a concubine. Many commentators refute any idea of “original sin” or “Adam’s sin” being the subject of Psalm 51:5.

Bishop Hayes’s next argument for infant water baptism is the so-called “apostolic example … provided for IWB in the fact that  whole households were water baptized in the book of Acts of the Apostles (10:24, 44, 48; 16:15; 16:31–34; 18:8; see also First Corinthians 1:16); it is logically assumed that the households included small children and infants.” Bishop Hayes’s first reference does not say anything about a “whole household” being baptized, let alone small children and infants. This is actually all based on an illogical conclusion. Acts 10:24 denotes that Cornelius called together “his kinsmen and near friends.” Nothing said of infants and children. Acts 10:44 indicates that the Holy Ghost fell on “all of them which heard the word.” Now because Luke penned the word “ALL” (pas), will Bishop Hayes have us to believe that the Holy Ghost fell on the infants and small children who likewise spoke with tongues and magnified God (Acts 10:46)? Peter’s command to be baptized was only to those who had received the Holy Ghost (Acts 10:47). Thus even if there were infants and small children in the crowd, Peter’s command for baptism was only to those Gentiles who received the Holy Ghost and had spoken with tongues:

 

Acts 10:47, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

 

As far as Bishop Hayes’s “logical assumption” that these households included children, Hayes further states that to argue that these households may not have included infants and children is “to take a mischievous, if not an outright dishonest, position.” Thus, Hayes has already (falsely) set up any critique of his position as dishonest. I think it is more dishonest to firmly argue that any of these households would “logically” include infants and small children. While the idea is certainly “possible,” this is a far cry from a so-called “logical assumption.” In fact, Bishop Hayes’s doctrine depends upon these household including infants –– which he cannot firmly establish. We can cite many “households” throughout the Bible that did not include children. For example, for most of their lives Zacharias and Elizabeth’s “household” did not include a child. A “household” in 1^st century times could have comprised of a Matriarch/Patriarch and adult servants. The fact is that Bishop Hayes’s so-called “apostolic example” is nothing more than a false assumption.

            Even in the case of these “households,” the context does not demand that infants were baptized. Take for example, Lydia. Before Lydia was baptized she “worshipped God” and  “the Lord opened her heart.” There were prerequisites Lydia met before being a valid candidate for baptism, prerequisites that are impossible for an infant to meet. In the case of the Philippian jailer’s house (Acts 16:33–34), Luke indicates that the jailer “rejoiced, believing in God WITH ALL HIS HOUSE.” Does this mean that even the infants in his house rejoiced and believed in God? Well, obviously not, because they are incapable at that young age to rejoice and believe in God. Thus we understand that references to “all his” are qualified to be those who have the capacity to “rejoice” and “believe” in God.

The same is true with Crispus and his house in Acts 18:8. The text CLEARLY says that Crispus “believed on the Lord WITH ALL HIS HOUSE” and “many Corinthians HEARING BELIEVED, and were baptized.” This obviously establishes that “hearing” and “believing” the word (which infants are incapable of) are prerequisites to be water baptized. Again, is Bishop Hayes suggesting that even infants “believed on the Lord?” No, he does not because Bishop Hayes promotes some strange doctrine that the parents’ faith and belief somehow transfers to their children as proxy, which makes them valid candidates for baptism. Such is NEVER taught in the Bible.

Bishop Hayes mentions 1 Corinthians 1:16 where Paul indicates that he “baptized also the household of Stephanas” as some proof of infant water baptism. Again, Hayes’s argument is built upon an assumption that he cannot prove –– that there were infants in Stephanas’s house; but even if there were infants in his house, it would not necessitate infant water baptism because also declared that “the house of Stephanas” had “addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints.” Does this also include infants? Did infants who cannot even speak “addict themselves to the ministry of the saints?” Obviously not.

Lastly, Bishop Hayes appeals to Paul’s allegory in 1 Corinthians 10:1–4 of how the Israelites (including children) all passed through the Red Sea and were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea. This is actually an argument he read from a Facebook post on his thread on the topic of Infant Water Baptism. Bishop Hayes thinks this is proof that infants are valid candidates for water baptism –– the “water” of the New Birth. However, Bishop Hayes conveniently overlooks the fact that, not only did they pass through the Red Sea, but were also “under the cloud” and “baptized unto Moses IN THE CLOUD and the sea” and “did ALL drink the same spiritual drink.” The “cloud” and “drink” are obvious allegories of the baptism of the Holy Ghost (see 1 Corinthians 12:13). Once again, since babies also passed under the cloud and drank of that spiritual drink, does this mean in the New Testament that somehow the parents’ Holy Ghost baptism experience (like their faith and belief, as Hayes claims) somehow mystically transfers to the infants? Obviously not! Then to force New Testament infant water baptism into the context of 1 Corinthians 10:1–4 is not only poor exegesis, it id false theology.

Thus, the doctrine of infant water baptism must be rejected as false theology, and NOT a component of the “apostles’ doctrine.” Every argument submitted to promote infant water baptism is either based upon assumption and conjecture or false Catholic theology and history. There are no examples in the book of Acts of infants being baptized. As a matter of fact, the Bible specifies that in the revival in Samaria, those that were baptized were “men and women” –– not infants. The doctrine of infant water baptism promotes a false hope to those persons who were baptized as infants –– without faith, without belief, without repentance, and thus without the remission of sins and salvation.

Reading Review: Calvinism in Baptist Churches

This is a short reading review that I did in Theology 2 Class for my undergrad at Central Baptist College. The article we had to review dealt with the history of Calvinism and Predestination as taught in the American Baptist churches.

I found Steve Lemke’s article “History or Revisionist History?” interesting and yet dizzying at the same time. With all of the various flavors of Baptists mentioned in the article—Southern Baptists, Calvinistic English Particular Baptist, General Baptist, etc.—I couldn’t help but think of the scene from Forrest Gump where Bubba describes the various recipes of shrimp!

            It’s a bit of an irony to me that a Baptist would write concerning other variations of the Baptist denomination in regards to who is more Calvinistic. What Lemke might want to research in regards to “History or Revisionist History” is the fact that John Calvin and his early followers persecuted the Anabaptist and Lollards. The act of “Anabaptism” or “re-baptism” of adults by immersion was a capital crime. Typically, Catholics condemned these sects to be burned at the stake, whereas Lutherans and Calvinists condemned them to drowning—apparently much more humane. John Calvin, himself, was instrumental in the condemnation of Michael Servetus, a modalistic Anabaptist who was burned at the stake for practicing “re-baptism” and authoring the book On the Errors of the Trinity. So, a Baptist’s appeal to Calvinism is just beyond me. It seems to me, if Baptists want to appeal to the roots of their denomination, they would reject the teachings of their forefathers’ persecutors, and line up to the theology of their martyrs.

            The whole Calvinism—Arminianism, East coast—West coast, mentality is just superfluous to me. Personally, I’m not concerned with how many points Calvin’s TULIPS have, or what the Philadelphia Confession or Second London Confession adopted. My theological views are based upon the Scriptures alone, not a creed or confession. If I understand correctly the history given in the article, the American Baptist churches have been at odds with one another concerning the doctrines of Calvinism and Arminianism since their beginnings. Some Baptists only teach three or four points of Calvin’s TULIP doctrine, whereas other Baptists (I’m assuming the BMA is one of them given what I’ve heard from professors at CBC) teach all five points as “the minimal threshold for Calvinism.” Lemke expressed, “Furthermore, many significant five-point Calvinist thinkers express nothing but disdain for four-point Calvinism” (p.230). This is kind of an oxymoron when you compare it to all five points of Calvinism. If the five-point TULIP doctrine is indeed the TRUTH, then the “irresistible grace” will draw all those who are predestinated to be saved into this “truth.” Which on the flip side would mean that those who never embraced the full five-point TULIP doctrine are/were apparently predestinated to be lost. This revolving proposition also opens the door to the question, “Does ‘irresistible grace’ allow for denominationalism?” In other words, does the “irresistible grace” call some believers to be Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, or even Oneness Pentecostals? Or do those that have been predestinated to be saved eventually become one of the five-point TULIP flavored Baptists? It seems like a circular proposition to me.

            I, of course, reject Calvinism i.e. the TULIP doctrine. I don’t claim to affirm Arminianism either, whether what I believe concerning the Scriptures is in harmony with this doctrine or not. Again, the theology I believe is not based upon creeds or confessions, but upon sola Scriptura—the Scriptures alone.

            The TULIP doctrine is an acronym or acrostic for: Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints. I will briefly examine each of these points from a Scriptural perspective.

 

 

TOTAL DEPRAVITY: In Calvinism, Total Depravity doesn’t just mean that mankind is depraved in the sense of being sinners or that all are sinners. Rather, Calvinism teaches a form of “Total Inability” in that man cannot come to God of his own free will for salvation. This totally denies the Scriptural aspect of Obedience to the Gospel. 2 Thess 1:8 clearly teaches that when Christ returns He will take vengeance upon those who have not obeyed the Gospel. Acts 6:7 describes those who were “obedient to the faith.” Whereas Romans 10:16 describes those that are not obedient to the Gospel. This is the same word (hupakouō) used in regards to servants obeying masters and children obeying parents (Col. 3:20-22). Salvation is a free choice (Rev. 22:17).

 

 

UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION: Calvinism teaches that God has already chosen those who are to be saved, and those who are predestinated to be lost. To borrow a political statement, according to Calvinism: “Some lives matter!” 2 Peter 3:9 states that God is not willing that ANY should perish, but that ALL should COME to repentance. The active voice in chōrēnsai (come) puts the action upon the person to repent, not an “unconditional” reaction. According to Calvinism, God is not only willing that some should perish, but has actually predestinated that some will perish! Acts 17:30 says that God has commanded ALL men to repent – not just those that He has predestinated.

 

 

LIMITED ATONEMENT: Calvinism teaches that Christ died only for “the elect.” This totally contradicts 2 Cor. 5:14-15 that Christ died for ALL. 1 John 2:2, Jesus is the propitiation for our sins, and NOT for ours ONLY, but also for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD. This is not a limited atonement only for an “elect,” but is an atonement available for all.

 

 

IRRESISTIBLE GRACE: Calvinism basically teaches that Grace is a force that cannot be rejected no matter if you want to be saved or not. This goes hand-in-hand with total depravity in that supposedly man does not have a choice in salvation. Again, this contradicts the Scriptures that we are to OBEY the Gospel, and those who do not obey the Gospel will be judged (2 Thess 1:8; Acts 6:7; Rom. 10:16). Acts 7:51 specifically mentions those that “resist the Holy Ghost,” thus Grace is something that can be resisted.

 

 

PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS: This is commonly known as the “once saved, always saved” doctrine. 2 Peter 2:20-21 clearly describes conditions of people who AFTER they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, they are AGAIN entangled therein. It would have been better for them no to have known “the way of righteousness” than to have known it and to “TURN AWAY” from the holy commandment delivered to them. This is explicit proof that once a person comes to “full and accurate knowledge” (Jameson, Faussett, Brown) of Jesus Christ that they can then “turn away” from Christ and “again” be entangled in the sin or pollutions of the world. The word epignōsis (full knowledge) is used all throughout the NT in the reference to “knowing” Jesus Christ through salvation.

 

 

            Thus, I would personally reject Calvinism as being unbiblical, and given that Calvin persecuted modalistic Anabaptist (Servetus) I wouldn’t appeal to any of his teachings.

The Absolute Deity of Jesus Christ

Here is a link to a video of a Power Point presentation I made for Theology 1 class in my undergrad at Central Baptist College.

The Absolute Deity of Jesus Christ

Anthropology: Dichotomy or Trichotomy

This is a paper I wrote in Theology 2 class in my undergrad at Central Baptist College.

Biblical anthropology is the study of human beings as they relate to God. The main aspect of biblical anthropology is the nature or constitution of man—both the outer and inner man. Genesis 2:7 states, “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” The phrase “became a living soul” (Genesis 2:7) does not refer to the inner, immaterial aspect of man. Rather, “soul” (nephesh) is used in this passage to describe the entire person or that man became an animated being, cf. Numbers 19:13 where “whosever” touches a dead body (nephesh), “that soul (nephesh)” was cut off from the congregation of Israel. Nevertheless, this passage also illustrates a difference between the idea of the physical, material aspect of man—that which was “formed,” and the inner, immaterial aspect of man—the breath of life. The physical and spiritual natures of man are also indicated in Job 33:4, “The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life,” and Job 32:8, “But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.” Jesus also noted the distinction between the material and immaterial person in Luke 24:39 where He encouraged the disciples to handle his hands and feet because a “spirit hath not flesh and bones.”

            The physical, material aspect of man is that which is discernable by sight and touch (Luke 24:39). This nature of man is referred to as “flesh” (John 3:6), “flesh and blood” (1 Corinthians 15:50), body (Matthew 14:12), and “outward man” (2 Corinthians 4:16). The material aspect of man is also used to refer to the complete being of a person. For example, in Acts 2:17, when God says that He will pour out His Spirit “upon all flesh,” the term “flesh” is used regards to the entire person not just the skin that covers the body. This is easily understood given that Spirit is said to “dwell in” believers (Romans 8:9). The term “flesh” can also refer to the inner desires of a person specifically in regards to sin. The idiom “lust of the flesh” is not limited simply to those desires that appeal to the natural flesh, but also include inward desires such as lust, hate, envy, etc. (Galatians 5:19-21).

            The physical, “outward man” is distinguished from the immaterial “inward man.” The distinction between the material and immaterial aspect of man is described as “soul and body” (Isaiah 10:18; Matthew 10:28) or “body and spirit” (Daniel 7:15; 1 Corinthians 7:34). The question, then, in regards to the study of biblical anthropology is this: are there two parts of the immaterial, inner man—soul and spirit, or do the terms “soul” and “spirit” refer to the same immaterial nature? These two views are referred to as Trichotomy—man is made up of three parts: body, soul, and spirit; or Dichotomy—man is comprised of two parts: material (body) and immaterial (soul/spirit).

            Among early church theologians, the “trichotomic conception of man found considerable favor with the Greek or Alexandrian Church Fathers,” however leading theologians in the Latin Church “distinctly favored the twofold division of human nature” (Clark). The Dichotomy view also gained much support among both Roman Catholic and Protestant Reformers. In the nineteenth century, Trichotomy became favored among German and English scholars such as Olshausen, Beck, Delitsch, White and Heard. Modern scholars and theologians are equally divided concerning this issue of biblical anthropology.

Trichotomy

            Trichotomy understands humans as being composed of three parts or natures: body, soul, and spirit. The foundation of the trichotomy view is the idea that “Man is made in the Image of the Triune God” (Stewart). Stewart argues that Trinitarian theology is the “single greatest reason to believe in our tri-part nature: God is Three in One. Man in God’s Image is three in one.” This idea can be traced back as far as Augustine who reasoned that if God is triune, then the best reflection of His triune nature would be found in humans who were created in the image of God (Erickson). However, this is not an adequate parallel because even if we understand a tri-part nature in man, the body, soul, and spirit are not three separate and distinct persons as Trinitarians distinguish between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. At best, the body, soul, and spirit can be described as “modes of being” of one person. Thus, a Trichotomist comparison of body, soul, and spirit to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit would lead to one of two possibilities (1) each person in the Godhead is only 1/3 God, given that body, soul, and spirit each comprise a “part” of the complete man, or (2) the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not three separate and distinct persons, but are three “modes of being” (Erickson, Christian Doctrine).

            Trichotomist appeal to 1 Thessalonians 5:23 as their greatest Scriptural proof for a three-fold nature of man. In his final address to the Thessalonians, Paul stated, “Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” On the surface this passage appears to teach a three-part division of the whole man: body, soul, and spirit. However, given that this passages is simply a final prayer of Paul towards the Thessalonians, these words should not be regarded as a detailed treaty on the material and immaterial man. Philip Schaff commented, “Language thus used should not be too closely analyzed” (Schaff, Popular Commentary on the New Testament). Marvin Vincent agreed, “It is useless to attempt to draw from these words a technical, psychological statement of a threefold division of the human personality” (Vincent). Most commentators simply recognize this statement as being a literary repetition i.e. using synonyms for effect. We might compare this to the way Paul distinguished adultery from fornication in Galatians 5:19, yet the same term fornication includes adultery in passages such as Matthew 19:9; Acts 15:20; and 1 Corinthians 6:18. Taken to extreme, the Trichotomist interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 5:23 would lead to the conclusion that Mark 12:30 in fact teaches a four-fold division of man: “And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.”

            The only other passage in the Bible that seems to teach a distinction between the soul and spirit is Hebrews 4:12, “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.” However, the term “soul” (psyche) can easily be understood to refer to the entire person, including the material man. In Acts 2:27, speaking of the resurrection of Christ, it was prophesied, “For you will not abandon my soul to Hades.” The word “soul” in regards to Christ’s resurrection can only refer to the complete person—both material and immaterial. Thus, in Hebrews 4:12 the dividing of “soul and spirit” seems to indicate the division of the immaterial (spirit) from the complete person (material—soul).

Dichotomy

            The Dichotomy view understands man as being comprised of two parts—material (body, flesh), and immaterial (soul/spirit). According to the Dichotomy view, the terms “soul” and “spirit” are used synonymously to refer to the same immaterial nature of man. A careful study of the Scriptures shows that the terms “soul” and “spirit” are used interchangeably. For example, Job 7:11, “Therefore I will not refrain my mouth; I will speak in the anguish of my spirit; I will complain in the bitterness of my soul.” The final clause “complain in the bitterness of my soul” is simply an emphatic repetition of the proceeding statement, “speak in the anguish of my spirit.” The same is true with Isaiah 26:9, “With my soul have I desired thee in the night; yea, with my spirit within me will I seek thee early: for when thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness.” Isaiah was not saying that he sought the Lord at night with one aspect of his inner being, and in the morning with a different aspect. In Luke 1:46-47, Mary used this same parallelism in her song of praise, “My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.”

            What is said of the soul is also said of the spirit. The Scriptural formula for humans in some passages is “body and soul” (Isaiah 10:18; Matthew 6:25), while in others “body and spirit” (Daniel 7:15; 1 Corinthians 6:20). Death is described as the soul departing (Genesis 35:18) or “gave up the ghost” (ekpsychō—out of breath from psyche i.e. soul). Yet in other passages death is referred to as giving up the spirit (Psalm 31:5; Acts 7:59). In addition, the dead in heaven are referred to as both “spirits” (Hebrews 12:23) and “souls” (Revelation 6:9). Any distinctions seen between the terms “soul” and “spirit” may be explained as “the word ‘spirit’ designates the spiritual element in man as the principle of life and action which controls the body; while the word ‘soul’ denominates the same element as the subject of action in man” (Clark).

 

Conclusion

            The Scriptures seem to indicate a two-fold division or dichotomy of man: material (physical body/flesh) and immaterial (soul/spirit). The ramifications of this conclusion play an important part on our view of the humanity of Christ. The Trichotomist are faced with the question of whether or not Jesus had a human “soul” separate and distinct from His divine Spirit, given that they distinguish the soul from the spirit. However, to the Dichotomist this is no issue at all, and is confirmed by the fact that Jesus could say “Now is my soul troubled” (John 12:27), yet later read that Jesus was “troubled in spirit.” Thus, the Dichotomy view better explains the dual nature of Jesus Christ: the immaterial Deity (spirit) manifest in material flesh (humanity) cf. John 1:1, 14; 1 Timothy 3:16.

 

Work Cited

Clark, R. Scott. Reformed Basics on Dichotomy and Trichotomy. 14 March 2014. Web. 22 November 2016.

Erickson, Millard. Christian Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001. Print.

—. Making Sense of the Trinity. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000. Print.

Schaff, Philip. "Popular Commentary of the New Testament." Excursus A. On the Pentecostal Miracle. New York: T&T Clark, 1890. E-Sword Module.

—. Popular Commentary on the New Testament. n.d. E-Sword Module.

Stewart, Spencer. Dichotomy versus Trichotomy. El Dorado: Project one28 Publishing, 2010. Print.

Vincent, Marvin. Word Studies. n.d. E-Sword Module.

Modalism in Early America

This is a thesis paper I wrote for American Nation in my undergrad at CBC. In this paper I acknowledge the history of Modalistic (early Oneness) believers in the American colonies.

 

 

MODALISM IN EARLY AMERICA

 

 

Early America was settled by Europeans looking to start a fresh life. Some families looked to the New World as a place of opportunity to own land and raise a family. Others, however, sought refuge in the American colonies from religious persecution in Europe. Several religious groups, such as the Puritans and Pilgrims, are usually highlighted in the pages of text books. However, one thing that is commonly overlooked is the Modalistic view of many of these early American settlers.

            Modalism is an anti-Trinitarian view not to be confused with Unitarianism. Unitarianism is a doctrine that not only denies the doctrine of the Trinity, but also rejects the deity of Jesus Christ.[1] Modalism, however, is a name that has been ascribed by historians to those who reject the Trinity and “believe in both the individual oneness of God and the full deity of Jesus Christ.”[2] Modalism (now referred to as “Oneness”) understands the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as manifestations, modes, or relationships that the one God has displayed to man.

            Prior to the colonization of American, Modalistic Anabaptist suffered persecution in Europe at the hands of both the Catholic Church and the Reformers. Martin Luther disputed against Modalistic Anabaptist over the issues of the Godhead and baptismal formula:

“The practice of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is no new phenomenon in the history of the Church. Martin Luther encountered a dispute over the formula in his day.”[3]

John Calvin was instrumental in petitioning the tribunals to sentence Michael Servetus, a Modalistic Anabaptist, to death, as a heretic for re-baptism and for publishing his book On the Errors of the Trinity. On October 26, 1553, “the court found Servetus guilty of anti-Trinitarianism and anabaptism . . . and condemned him to be burned at the stake.”[4] Anabaptist described themselves a pious Christians who had been baptized into Christ and “speak with tongues.”[5] Likewise, various sects of the Quakers or Friends movement also “denied the received doctrine of the Trinity.”[6] The Early Quakers saw no distinction between the pre-Incarnate Christ and the Father. In addition, the Quakers understood the distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as “defined in terms of operation and manifestations rather than of Persons.”[7] Both Anabaptist and Quakers suffered persecution from the Church of England.[8] Therefore many of these Anabaptists and Quakers sought asylum in American colonies.

In 1681, King Charles II awarded a charter to a large piece of land in America to William Penn as payment for a debt the king owed Penn’s father of sixteen thousand pounds sterling.[9] Penn was anxious to secure this land as a both a retreat to those who suffered religious persecution, and to establish a form of government which would serve as an example to other nations.[10] William Penn was well acquainted with religious persecution, having priorly been imprisoned in England for attending Quaker meetings, and for publishing several tracts including The Sandy Foundation Shaken in which he condemned the doctrine of the Trinity as being a tradition of man and nowhere found in Scriptures.[11] Penn was falsely accused of denying the deity of Jesus Christ and confined to the Tower of London unless he recanted his doctrinal beliefs. Later, Penn answered this charge from prison with his tract Innocency with Her Open Face in which he stated that Jesus Christ is “the same one holy, just merciful, Almighty, and eternal God, who in the fulness of time took, and manifested in the flesh,”[12] thus further affirming his view of the deity of Christ.

Penn’s desire was for a colony free of religious persecution. Although many Quakers had immigrated to North American, New England Puritans were equally hostile to them as the Anglicans were in England. Early Quaker meetings are described as members “quaking” or “trembling” under the influence of the Holy Spirit.[13] William Penn alluded that he had been baptized into Christ’s name[14] and baptized with the Holy Ghost and fire.[15] Thus, modalism and early forms of Pentecostalism made its way into North America via the Quakers, the German Anabaptists, and other similar sects.

Shortly after the Great Awakening of Jonathan Edwards and other Congregationalist, Unitarian churches began to form in America.[16] However it may be that many of these congregations were unwarrantedly regarded as Unitarian, when in fact they recognized the deity of Christ.[17] Denominational beliefs were not as distinct from one another as they might be today. For example, early Baptist churches declared in their articles of faith that believers must be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.[18] Likewise, the early Plymouth Brethren “in some of their numerous ramification, and other sects, have grounded upon the words, ‘be baptized, everyone of you, in the name of Jesus Christ,’ a tenet that baptism should not be conferred in the name of the Trinity, but in that of Jesus alone.”[19] So, it is highly probable that various congregations or Christians sects in early America were in fact Modalist.

It is interesting that whereas Quakers were active in converting Puritans, Anglicans, and other denominations to Quakerism, Pennsylvania was a sanctuary to all religious beliefs. The Christological views of early American Quakers may have been eclipsed by William Penn’s political aspiration of a colony or state with religious freedom, nevertheless, the religious freedom he granted to all belief systems set the standard that would shape our Constitution and our Nation. Likewise, the Modalistic views of early American settlers helped pave the way for anti-Trinitarian or Oneness Christian revivals of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

 

Work Cited

“A Brief Confession or Declaration of Faith, 1660.” 1999. The Reformed Reader. 16 April 2016. <http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/tsc.htm>

Bernard, David, The Oneness of God (Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame, 1993)

Blunt, John Henry, ed., Dictionary of Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Parties and Schools of Religious Thought (London: Rivingtons,1874)

Braght, Thomas J. van, Martyrs Mirror of the Defenseless Christians, trans. Joseph F. Sohm (Waterloo, Ont.: Herald Press, 1938)

Hughes, Mrs. (Mary), The Life of William Penn (Boston: Monroe & Francis, 1828)

Penn, William, A Collection of the Works of William Penn volume 1 (London: J. Sowle, 1726)

             The Sandy Foundation Shaken (Trenton, NJ: Francis S. Wiggins, 1827)

Slick, Matt. “What is Unitarianism?” n.d. CARM. 16 April 2016. <https://carm.org/what-unitariansism>

Stokes, G.T., The Acts of the Apostles (New York: Armstrong, 1893)

Synan, Vinson, Aspects of Pentecostal - Charismatic Origins (Plainfield, NJ: Logos Int., 1975)

Weisser, Thomas, Anti-Trinitarianism of Early Quakers (n.p., 1985)

Williams, G.H., The Radical Reformation (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962)

---

[1] Slick, Matt. “What is Unitarianism?” n.d. CARM. 16 April 2016. <https://carm.org/what-unitariansism>

[2] Bernard, David, The Oneness of God (Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame, 1993) 15

[3] Synan, Vinson, Aspects of Pentecostal - Charismatic Origins (Plainfield, NJ: Logos Int., 1975) 158

[4] Williams, G.H., The Radical Reformation (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962) 614

[5] Braght, Thomas J. van, Martyrs Mirror of the Defenseless Christians, trans. Joseph F. Sohm (Waterloo, Ont.: Herald Press, 1938) 400

[6] Wallace, Robert, Antitrinitarian Biography (London: E.T. Whitfield, 1850) 1:115

[7] Weisser, Thomas, Anti-Trinitarianism of Early Quakers (n.p., 1985) 7

[8] Wallace., 138

[9] Hughes, Mrs. (Mary), The Life of William Penn (Boston: Monroe & Francis, 1828) 51

[10] Ibid.

[11] Penn, William, The Sandy Foundation Shaken (Trenton, NJ: Francis S. Wiggins, 1827) 10

[12] Hughes, 55

[13] Blunt, John Henry, ed., Dictionary of Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Parties and Schools of Religious Thought (London: Rivingtons,1874) 464

[14] Penn, William, A Collection of the Works of William Penn (London: J. Sowle, 1726) 1:268

[15] Ibid., 238

[16] Blunt, 606

[17] Ibid.

[18] “A Brief Confession or Declaration of Faith, 1660.” 1999. The Reformed Reader. 16 April 2016. <http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/tsc.htm>

[19] Stokes, G.T., The Acts of the Apostles (New York: Armstrong, 1893) 140-41