A Brief Statement on Baptists and Inter-Church Relations

Baptists believe that the New Testament model for inter-church relations does not allow for any ecclesiastical authority outside the local church. Each congregation is under the direct headship of Christ. According to Chapter 26 in the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, when members from various churches meet together to consider matters that may be of mutual concern to many congregations, delegates from the individual churches are simply named “messengers”, and “these messengers assembled are not entrusted with any church-power (properly so called), or with any jurisdiction over the churches themselves.”

On Suffrage Within the Church in Electing Elders

3 points about the above video:

1. Yes, it may have been made with sexist intention, and sexism is wrong.
2. It is, however, genuinely ironic and funny.
3. The real point is that most people have not been educated or prompted to consider their right to vote, and that definitions matter. (This is why I used to show this video when teaching Political Science; I think that someone could have just as easily gotten a bunch of guys to thoughtlessly sign a petition against men's suffrage.)

With that goofy introduction out of the way: this post is not about women's suffrage, or suffrage in general. This post is about suffrage within the church, specifically in regard to the election of elders. I believe that, just as people in society at large have not adequately thought through issues related to voting, we within the church have not adequately thought through the role that voting plays in our congregations.

Concerning suffrage within the church, the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 declares:

"Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes."

In line with this statement, I was brought up under a tradition of regular church business meetings, wherein the congregation would vote on various issues facing the church. Though, at times, the business meetings were viewed as alternately either boring or contentious, no one questioned whether they should be occurring.

In college, I lived in a different town, and I became involved in an independent church, the pastor of which was very strong on the elder-rule model of church government. He basically believed that the congregation did not need to vote on anything. Whereas I remained convinced that the New Testament gives warrant for the congregation electing deacons, I followed my then-pastor's conviction that elders should be appointed by other elders, and that the elders should make virtually all of the decisions for the congregation as a whole; I did not see that the need for any church vote regarding the installation of elders. I believed that my conclusions on this matter were warranted from Titus 1:5, in which Paul instructed Titus (who was a pastor), "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city, as I directed you." This passage seemed to indicate the Titus himself, and not the various congregations, was in charge of installing elders for the congregations.

When I became a student at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, my thinking on elders unilaterally appointing other elders was challenged. Surprisingly, the decisive challenge (moving me back into a more historically Baptist direction) did not come from a Baptist, but from a Presbyterian. For a Missions class, I was required to read Robert Reymond's Paul, Missionary Theologian. In discussing aspects of church government seen in Paul's missionary activity, with specific reference to Acts 14:23, Reymond notes:

The verb xειροτονέw literally means ‘choose, elect by raising hands’. The action described here probably means that Paul as an apostle simply appointed elders when he first planted a church, just as missionaries often do today when they first plant a church. This ‘appointing’ did not preclude, however, his seeking the church’s will in the matter by asking the congregation for a show of hands. (502n10)

The idea seems to be that elders will initiate the choosing of other elders, but that the congregation will play an important role in confirming the calling of those elders. Practically speaking, this makes sense in at least two ways:

1. Men who may be considered for the role of elder might tend to put on more of a pious manner when around the already-appointed elders than when around others.  Members of the congregation who are not elders may have insight into ways that a man's character does not line up with the qualifications of an elder.

2. In general, if the congregation does not respect a certain man (perhaps not through specific moral fault in the man, but rather through his not having labored among them for an adequate time), then–if that man is installed as an elder with no formal congregational input–it might be hard for the congregation to accept the new elder's pastoral authority.

John Calvin had made a similar point as Reymond, in an even more expansive way, when he considered the question, 'Should a minister be chosen by the whole church, or only by colleagues and elders, or by the authority of a single pastor?' Calvin answered:

Those who attribute this right to one individual quote the words of Paul to Titus “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city” (Tit. 1:5); and also to Timothy, “Lay hands suddenly on no man” (l Tim. 5:22). But they are mistaken if they suppose that Timothy so reigned at Ephesus, and Titus in Crete, as to dispose of all things at their own pleasure. They only presided by previously giving good and salutary counsels to the people, not by doing alone whatever pleased them, while all others were excluded. Lest this should seem to be a fiction of mine, I will make it plain by a similar example. Luke relates that Barnabas and Paul ordained elders throughout the churches, but he at the same time marks the plan or mode when he says that it was done by suffrage. The words are, Χειροτονήσαντες πρεσβυτέρους κατ᾽ εκκλησίαν (Acts 14:23). They therefore selected (creabant) two; but the whole body, as was the custom of the Greeks in elections, declared by a show of hands which of the two they wished to have. Thus it is not uncommon for Roman historians to say, that the consul who held the comitia elected the new magistrates, for no other reason but because he received the suffrages, and presided over the people at the election. Certainly it is not credible that Paul conceded more to Timothy and Titus than he assumed to himself. Now we see that his custom was to appoint bishops by the suffrages of the people. We must therefore interpret the above passages, so as not to infringe on the common right and liberty of the Church. Rightly, therefore, does Cyprian contend for it as of divine authority, that the priest be chosen in presence of the people, before the eyes of all, and be approved as worthy and fit by public judgment and testimony, (Cyprian, Lib. 1 Ep. 3). Indeed, we see that by the command of the Lord, the practice in electing the Levitical priests was to bring them forward in view of the people before consecration. Nor is Matthias enrolled among the number of the apostles, nor are the seven deacons elected in any other way, than at the sight and approval of the people (Acts 6:2). “Those examples,” says Cyprian, “show that the ordination of a priest behoved not to take place, unless under the consciousness of the people assisting, so that ordination was just and legitimate which was vouched by the testimony of all.” We see, then, that ministers are legitimately called according to the word of God, when those who may have seemed fit are elected on the consent and approbation of the people. (Institutes 4.3.15)

After the above statement on suffrage within the church in electing elders, Calvin then gives the following important word:

Other pastors, however, ought to preside over the election, lest any error should be committed by the general body either through levity, or bad passion, or tumult. (Ibid.)

With all of this in mind, I  believe that when it comes to electing elders, the already-appointed elders should take a lead role in both bringing new candidates for eldership before the congregation and in presiding over the election of new elders. HOWEVER, candidates for eldership must be confirmed by the whole congregation. The biblical warrant for the congregation both electing officers and exercising church discipline (Matt 18:17) means that there is definitely a congregational aspect to church government.

I will say that I am still a bit uncomfortable with the Baptist Faith and Message declaration about "democratic processes," simply because the term "democratic" has such philosophical and historic baggage. HOWEVER, I fully concur with the statement in the Reformed Baptist Confession (1689):

The way appointed by Christ for the calling of any person, fitted and gifted by the Holy Spirit, unto the office of bishop or elder in a church, is, that he be chosen thereunto by the common suffrage of the church itself; and solemnly set apart by fasting and prayer, with imposition of hands of the eldership of the church, if there be any before constituted therein; and of a deacon that he be chosen by the like suffrage, and set apart by prayer, and the like imposition of hands. 
( Acts 14:23; 1 Timothy 4:14; Acts 6:3, 5, 6 )
 (26.9, emphases added)

How is Christ the Head of the Church?

The Church is composed of all Christ’s true disciples. The Church is one holy catholic [meaning: global]
body, founded upon the apostolic teaching as found in Scripture. According to Christ’s commandment, Christians are to associate themselves into particular congregations or churches. I believe that the Lord Jesus is the only Head of the Church, and in Him is invested supremely all power for its government.

If Jesus is the only Head of the Church, and if Jesus is currently seated at God the Father's right hand until His enemies are made a footstool, and we cannot see Him face-to-face until His second coming, then how does Christ exercise His headship–His authority–over the Church?

As Head of the Church, Jesus–whom we do not currently see face-to-face–exercises His authority over His people through the apostles He appointed. Though we can't see the apostles face-to-face either, we have access to the apostles’ teaching through the Holy Spirit-inspired New Testament writings. NOTE: 

• New Testament writings must have a place of prominence in considering the headship of Christ over the Church.
• This is NOT to denigrate the Old Testament. Through the words of Christ our Lord and His apostles, we know that the Old Testament scriptures are equally inspired with the New Testament. ALL Scripture is the very Word of God transmitted by Him in a verbal, plenary manner (Matt 5:18) and is as truthful and authoritative as God Himself (John 17:17). Its authority is derived from its Author and not from the opinions of men (2 Pet 1:20-21). All Scripture was given by inspiration of God, is infallible and inerrant, and is the sufficient, final arbiter of all disputes concerning matters of life and godliness (2 Tim 3:16-17).
• The New Testament scriptures, however, are especially instructive to the Church, as they illuminate how we are to live in the current New Covenant era, which was inaugurated through the historical, earthly ministry of Christ. (“Testament” means “covenant,” so the New Testament scriptures are those applied to the New Covenant community.)

Through the New Testament scriptures, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and written down by the apostles (or by their close associates), Christ exercises authority over His Church by establishing points of doctrine, the pattern of church government, principles of gathered worship, and procedures for church discipline to be followed in the local congregations. 

Points of Doctrine

The first way in which Christ exercises authority over His Church is by establishing points of doctrine; that is, Christ gives us specific teachings, which we must confess and believe. Christ is the Word of God from the beginning (being God Himself and with God, John 1:1), and so we look to the entire canon of Scripture for our doctrine. However, Christ is specifically exalted as Head over the Church in the new covenant era, and we see certain teachings—about the trinity, for example, or the nature of the afterlife—come into much clearer focus following the historical work of Christ. Right doctrine allows us to know Christ better, to glorify Him for who He is, and to tell others about Him with confidence. Right doctrine leads to greater harmony among believers, as the unity of the church congregation must be grounded in doctrinal agreement.

Pattern of Church Government

The second way in which Christ exercises authority over His Church is by establishing the pattern of church government. The regular officers of a Church are of two kinds: [1.] Bishops, Pastors, or Elders (as appointed by other Bishops, Pastors, or Elders and agreed upon by the congregation) and [2.] Deacons (as elected by the congregation). SEE: Acts 20:17, 28; Phil. 1:1; Titus 1:5. 

In The Loveliest Place, Dustin Benge notes:

[Christ heads His Church] through the instrumentality of godly leaders (1 Thess. 5:12-13; Heb. 13:7, 17). Pastors, elders, and deacons are representatives of Christ's authority over the church. Paul summarizes the purpose of these shepherds this way: "to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ" (Eph. 4:11-12)... authority the leaders of the church possess is a delegated authority from Christ. It is always Christ, and Christ alone, who governs the church. The sole responsibility of those given charge in leading, teaching, preaching, and serving her is to declare and apply the instructions of Christ as revealed in his written word.

By establishing the pattern of church government, and tying the authority of church government directly to the Bible–hemming in officers, so that they do not go beyond God's Word–Christ exercises His own authority over His Church.

Principles of Gathered Worship

The third way in which Christ exercises authority over His Church is by establishing principles of gathered worship. 

As the elders of Grace Heritage Church have noted:

Worship is the corporate expression of the delight, awe, and thankfulness that come from knowing our infinitely glorious and sovereign God and Savior. Because the distance between God and His creatures is so great, the only acceptable way of approaching God in worship must be revealed to us by God Himself. Therefore, He may not be worshiped in ways invented by us. This principle protects us from idolatrous worship and focuses our energies on those activities through which God has called us to draw near.

Congregational worship of God is composed of: the reading of the Scriptures; preaching, and hearing the Word of God; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in our hearts to the Lord; prayer; the giving of tithes and offerings; greetings and announcements; as also the administration of baptism, and the Lord's Supper. These are to be performed in obedience to him, with understanding, faithfulness, and affection. Moreover, solemn humiliation with fastings, vows, and thanksgivings upon special occasions ought to be used in an holy and religious manner.

Procedures for Church Discipline

The fourth way in which Christ exercises authority over His Church is by establishing procedures for church discipline. Church discipline is to be conducted according to the commands of Christ recorded in Matthew 18:15-17 and the commands of the Apostle written in passages such as 1 Corinthians 5:1-13, 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15, 1 Timothy 5:19-20, and Titus 3:10-11. Church discipline shows the Church's submission to Christ and demonstrates the seriousness with which the Church views Christ's call to follow Him in holiness.

Conclusion

Practically speaking, how is Christ the Head of the Church on a week-to-week basis? Christ exercises His headship over local congregations in four ways: by establishing points of doctrine, the pattern of church government, principles of gathered worship, and procedures for church discipline to be followed in the local congregations. By recognizing Christ's headship, and by seeking to discern specifics of His headship through looking intently into His Word, the Church is empowered in:

1. living harmoniously (members seeking Christ's will rather than their own preferences)

2. enjoying and glorifying Christ for who He is and what He has done for us

"That Man of Sin"

In the Summer 2005 edition of Founders Journal, Dr. Sam Waldron published an article arguing that churches should use the 1689 Baptist Confession as their statement of faith. Dr. Waldron argued that the 1689 Baptist Confession is the “best available local church confession.” In making his arguments, Waldron was clear in stating that Scripture alone is infallible, and that—as with all lengthy confessions—some revisions should be considered. One area of the 1689 Baptist Confession that needs “a slight revision,” Waldron argued, is Chapter 26, Paragraph 4: that the Pope of Rome is that Antichrist: the “man of sin” who will be destroyed at Christ’s return. Waldron wrote:

[T]his statement ought not to have been made or be part of our confession today. This is one of those places where a slight revision of the 1689 Confession is necessary. In my experience (having become a Reformed Baptist pastor in 1977 and having shepherded two Reformed Baptist churches during that time), Reformed Baptist churches today, when they express their allegiance to the Confession in their constitutions, commonly make an exception of this statement.

Whereas it seems wise for a confession of faith to forego being overly specific in its eschatological (that is, "end-times") views–and therefore to forego identifying the Pope or papacy with a single end-times Antichrist–it is important to note that there are definite reasons that the Particular Baptists who originally adopted the 1689 Confession came to the conclusion that they did. Whether or not the “man of sin” mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 is a single individual who will hold the Roman Catholic office of “pope,” the papacy is certainly anti-Christ in the broad sense (1 John 2:18). In fact, the papacy is diametrically opposed to all three persons of the trinity. Consider some of the titles that the Pope claims for himself: “Holy Father,” “Pontiff,” and “Vicar of Christ:”

 

¨    God alone should be called “Holy Father,” as Jesus directly commanded His disciples in Matthew 23:9.

¨    Jesus Christ is the only pontiff. “Pontiff” means “bridge,” or—in religious settings—the high priest mediating between God and Man. Jesus is the only mediator between God and Man (1 Tim 2:5); in the New Covenant era, He is the only High Priest  (Heb 8:1; 10:14).

¨    The Holy Spirit is the only vicar of Christ. (“Vicar” means “substitute.”) See: John 14:16, 26.

[The above observations are adapted from points made by Phillip Jensen at the 2016 Together for the Gospel Conference.]

Conclusion: Confessional Subscription

In light of the Pope’s blasphemous claims, along with Waldron’s concession about the particular wording found in the 26.4, how should churches that subscribe to the 1689 Confession view its statements concerning the papacy? 

[N]ote that the primary doctrine expressed in 26:4 is the exclusive headship of Christ over the church.  As a secondary doctrine, the confession condemns as blasphemy the pope’s usurpation of Christ’s title.

So what does it mean to subscribe to this doctrine? 

1. A strict subscriptionist [one who seriously takes the doctrines expressed in the 1689 Confession as an accurate summary of biblical teaching] must agree that Christ is the only Head of the Church, and that no man may usurp that title. 

2. A strict subscriptionist must agree that the system of papacy is a manifestation of the spirit of antichrist, and that part of the purpose of God the Holy Spirit in revealing antichrist to us was to prepare us to reject the papacy.  He must agree that God has rejected the papacy, and that Christ will utterly destroy it at the Judgment.

3. A strict subscriptionist must recognize that the papacy was the primary manifestation of the spirit of antichrist - at least during the age and location of the authors of our confession. 

It is important to take Reformed confessions seriously and to understand why they make specific claims concerning the papacy. It is important to resist—and not compromise in resisting—the spirit of the anti-Christ, wherever it might be found. Finally, it is vitally important to glorify Christ alone as the Head of the Church, “in whom—by the appointment of the Father—all power for the calling, institution, order, or government of the Church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner.”

In Defense of Christ's Bride

Introduction: David Miller

David Miller, a long-time evangelist, was one of the trustees for the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS) in the midst of the Conservative Resurgence when Dr. Albert Mohler came into office as President of SBTS. Each time that I have heard him speak–during some chapel messages at SBTS, during some plenary sessions at the G3 Conference, during some question and answer sessions, and during some interviews–David Miller has displayed godly wisdom and a passion for Christ and His gospel. I have definitely heard David Miller give clear gospel presentations, proclaiming the good news of justification by faith alone in Christ alone in a compelling way, and I am truly thankful for his witness to the Lord. In many ways, David Miller is an awesome man of God. David Miller deserves respect. I do not want the rest of this post to take away from this point.

HOWEVER, I do think that David Miller, within Baptist circles, is an example of someone who has been known to promote what is known as Landmark doctrine, which includes a denial of the universal Church. I believe that it is important for Baptists to understand Landmarkism and to be ready to give a response.

In a sermon preached on September 20, 2007 at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary chapel service (I happened to be in attendance that day, and the audio is available HERE), David Miller ridiculed the idea of the universal church as follows:

Did any of you ever know of a universal, invisible body? Did you ever know of a universal, invisible building? Did you ever know– and may the Lord have mercy upon the poor fellow who marries a universal, invisible bride. I don’t know about you, brethren, but I like something more tangible in a bride. Sophisticated academic credentials just are not required at this point, to conclude that when the Bible talks about the church, it’s not talking about some universal, invisible entity; it’s talking about a local, visible congregation. I like to ask my friends who believe in the universal church: where does your church meet? And who is its pastor? Benny Hinn? And who receives its tithes and offerings? And what are its missionary, educational, and evangelistic enterprises? Oh, no: the church is local and visible.

At the 2014 G3 Conference (which I also happened to attend, and which had "The Church from a Biblical Perspective" as its topic), David Miller delivered similar words against the doctrine of the universal church, arguing that the church is ONLY present in its local expression.

When Miller spoke of “sophisticated academic credentials”– coupled with a statement earlier in his sermon about Baptist thinking concerning the church “now days”– he sought to give the impression that the idea of a universal, invisible church is a modern invention of academics, heretofore unknown in Baptist life. But the doctrine of the universal church has a long history: indeed, one stretching back to the Bible. Baptists should confess the doctrine of the universal church for three reasons: Baptist confessions of faith teach this doctrine, the Bible teaches this doctrine, and there are serious implications for denying this doctrine.

The Universal Church in Baptist Confessions of Faith

The first reason Baptists today should joyfully and confidently confess the doctrine of the universal church is that Baptist confessions of faith teach this doctrine. Baptists have historically affirmed the universal Church. This is demonstrated in many Baptist confessions of faith, including the Second London Baptist Confession, the Abstract of Principles, and the Baptist Faith and Message.

1. The Second London Baptist Confession (2LBCF, often called the "1689," for when it was adopted by a Baptist General Assembly of churches in London) was “the confessional statement of the church or association of every one of the 293 delegates who gathered in Augusta, Georgia, to organize the Southern Baptist Convention in 1845”, and it is still used by many Reformed Baptist congregations. The 2LBCF begins Chapter 26 (“Of the Church”) with the statement:

The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

2. The Abstract of Principles, used as the doctrinal standard at SBTS (where Miller was a trustee) since 1858 and quoted approvingly by Miller in another venue, declares that the Church is composed of all Christ's true disciples, distinguishing between "the Church" [capital "C"] and "particular societies or churches."

3. The Baptist Faith and Message 2000, the confession of faith for the Southern Baptist Convention, declares that in addition to local congregations of baptized believers: 

The New Testament speaks also of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.

The doctrine of the universal church is not just some "now days" invention of an academic elite, it is a teaching that is represented in foundational Baptist confessions of faith.

The Universal Church in the Bible

The second reason Baptists today should joyfully and confidently confess the doctrine of the universal church is that the Bible teaches this doctrine. As important as it is to learn from voices in church history, the Bible was given by inspiration of God, and it is infallible and inerrant, being the sufficient, final arbiter of all disputes concerning matters of life and godliness (2 Tim 3:16-17). Concerning the universal church, all of the Bible texts cited as proofs in the Baptist confessions should be examined, including Hebrews 12:23, Colossians 1:18, and Ephesians 5:23.

1. Hebrews 12:23 speaks of "the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in Heaven."

2. Colossians 1:18 speaks of Christ being "the Head of the Body, the Church."

3. Ephesians 5:23 (coming after the Holy Spirit in the previous chapter- 4:4- had declared that there is "one body") again speaks of Christ as the head of the Church calling the Church "His body, of which He is the Savior."

As noted by the great Baptist theologian J.L. Dagg in Chapter 3 of his Manual on Church Order, none of these verses can carry the meaning of a single, local, visible congregation. Christ is the Savior of His Church alone; He is the Savior of all who are in His Church. Baptists, Presbyterians, or the man on the island who gets saved from a Bible washing up on the beach: anyone who trusts in Christ is a part of His body and His bride.

Miller asserted (on this subject) that the Bible speaks of a “glory church” that “does not yet exist,” but will exist in Heaven. It is this church, he says, that we should understand Ephesians 5:25-27 indicates in speaking of the church as Christ’s bride. Miller states: “Even that glory church is going to be local and is going to be visible.”

To this, I would simply assert that the “glory church” already exists, though it is not yet fully revealed (1 John 3:2). The “glory church” in Heaven is not some different body of Christ, for there is “one body” (Eph 4:4), and all believers are already counted as being seated with Christ in the heavens (Eph 2:6).

Some Implications of Denying the Universal Church

The third reason Baptists today should joyfully and confidently confess the doctrine of the universal church is that there are serious implications for denying this doctrine. Denying the doctrine of the universal church has implications for the salvation of non-Baptists, for the confidence of Christians scattered due to persecution, and for the faithfulness of Christ to His bride. 

1. Denying the universal church has implications for the salvation of non-Baptists. Miller and others who hold to Landmarkism, denying the universal church, define local churches in a baptistic manner. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that EITHER no-one other than Baptists are saved (I once heard this explicitly proclaimed when visiting a Baptist church in south Georgia that turned out to be a Landmark congregation) OR people who remain in other denominations while believing in Christ ARE saved, but they are NOT a part of the Church. Neither of these positions are tenable.

2. Denying the universal church has implications for the confidence of Christians scattered due to persecution. If universal persecution breaks out and all Christians are scattered, then Christ would have no body or bride upon the earth. NOTE: this is not merely a hypothetical situation. In the apostolic age and during the systematic persecutions of the Church in the Roman Empire, the Church was scattered. But Christ says that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church. His body and bride remains even if all church doors are closed.

3. Denying the universal church has implications for the faithfulness of Christ to His bride. A denial of the universal Church makes Christ a polygamist. If there is not one single Bride composed of the elect of all ages–if the church only exists as local expressions of various churches–then Christ has brides scattered throughout the globe. Again, this position is untenable.

Baptists are not the only Christians, and Christians outside of Baptist church membership rolls are still members of the Church: Christ's body and bride. Christians scattered by persecution are still part of Christ's body and bride; the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Christ's body and bride. Christ is not a polygamist; rather, He is a faithful husband to a single Bride: His elect from all nations.

Conclusion

Baptists today should joyfully and confidently confess the doctrine of the universal church for (at least) three reasons: Baptist confessions of faith teach this doctrine, the Bible teaches this doctrine, and there are serious implications for denying this doctrine. In his teaching about the church, David Miller has asserted that we do not teach enough about the nature of the church. In this assertion, he is correct. HOWEVER, the appropriate correction for this problem is to turn to 9Marks or some very similar resource. It is NOT appropriate to hyper-correct a lack of ecclesiology by turning to a Landmarkist denial of the universal Church. Landmarkism leads to terrible implications, it is denied by the Baptist confessions of faith, and it is not in line with Scripture.