Baptists and Presbyterians Together?
Tuesday, April 26, 2011 at 5:00AM C.H. Spurgeon was a Baptist legend. It's hard to overstate his influence. He preached to millions; he trained pastors and started orphanages; his writings are still read around the world.
Quick: Who succeeded Spurgeon at his church when he died? I didn't know the answer until a week ago. His name was Arthur Tappan Pierson. When Spurgeon was sick, he asked Pierson to fill in for him. When Spurgeon died, Pierson filled the pulpit for two years.
Here's the amazing part: Pierson was Presbyterian. Wikipedia states:
It is notable that Spurgeon asked a Presbyterian minister who had not been baptized as a believer to occupy the pulpit in his place. Pierson held the opinion that Christians could disagree on the mode of baptism and whether it should be administered to infants or believers only.
It's not like all of this happened without problems, and Spurgeon's brother did baptize him later. But I had no idea that Spurgeon invited a Presbyterian to preach for him. Baptists and Presbyterians worked together long before T4G. (We can perhaps forgive Spurgeon for some of the shots that he took against liturgy as well.)
Reader Comments (9)
We're quite winsome and friendly when you get to know us. ;)
I had no idea that Spurgeon's replacement was a Prebysterian!
I'm interested to know the bibliographical information for this. In Dallimore's biography of Spurgeon he seems to indicate that Pierson was only there for four months, then Thomas Spurgeon filled the pulpit for another four while Pierson was in America. After Pierson returned to the Met Tab, the church voted to have Thomas come back, which he did. But Dallimore doesn't draw out the timeline as clearly.As well as being a Presbyterian, Pierson was a dispensationalist, which was a view Spurgeon was strongly against (says Dallimore).Dallimore also says that Pierson was asked by the deacons and approved by the congregation, but doesn't seem to mention Spurgeon's prior involvement. And Pierson was only the "Officiating Minister," while James Spurgeon (Charles' brother) was the "Pastor in Charge."So I'm not exactly sure this is the same as T4G. Although it may give a positive indication of what he may think of such a gathering.Sorry for the length of this, I have other reasons for trying to think this through!
Hey Ian,I'm tied up today - but let me try to track this down a bit more. I'm still trying to absorb the idea of a Presbyterian dispensationalist.
Hehe. Actually, when Fundamentalism was in its ascendancy, a lot of the Northern Presbyterians were dispensational!
Further to Ian's comments, Lewis Sperry Chafer and most of the early Dallas Seminary profs were Presbyterians. Chafer ran afoul of the presbytery in later years, probably for good reasons. Back to the Spurgeon point: my (aging) memory tells me that when Spurgeon began his Pastors' College, he appointed a paedobaptist as the first Principal. I will have to check that. Calvinistic Baptists have often had a hard time deciding which part of their identity was more important.
Hi Dr. Fowler, I'd be interested to hear more about your last statement. I think I know where you're going with this, but I'd love a more elaborate take.
In the Christian battle Presbyterians are the army and Baptists are the navy; one uses more water than the other - simplistic I know but it felt good saying it.
Ian, sorry for the delay--I've been tied up in little things like the end of an academic year! What I have in mind is the sense of connection to those who agree with Calvinistic Baptists in only one half of their identity. Am I a Calvinist who happens to be a Baptist, or am I a Baptist who happens to be a Calvinist? With whom would I want to do, say, a joint evangelism project--Presbyterians or Arminian Baptists? Which of those would I invite to preach in my church? Which part of my identity is more crucial? Which part do I emphasize more in my teaching? Those are the sorts of questions that I have in mind, and I think a lot of people feel the ambivalence.