Introduction
Earlier this year, former MBTS professor Matthew Barrett announced that he was becoming Anglican. Then last week, Barrett lauded one of his PhD students, Connor Shackleford, for his maturity and courage in making the same theological shift. If one were making assessments based upon social media posts alone, it would appear there is currently an increasing trajectory toward what is often called “High Church Christianity.” But social media often fails to paint the picture of the current climate. (For instance, people don’t typically post about holding to the same theological views they’re already convinced of; a few loud voices don’t determine what everyone believes, etc.). Therefore, I write to encourage those who are still committed Confessional Baptists and to exhort us to remain so. Below are three reasons “Why I’m Still a Baptist” and why you should be too.
I. Hermeneutics
One of the reasons Barrett stated for his shift to Anglicanism was that the Baptist hermeneutic is “modern to the bone.” Barrett makes this claim after expressing his displeasure with the Southern Baptist Convention for rejecting the Nicene Creed in a resolution at their 2025 annual meeting. But is the Baptist hermeneutic truly “individualistic” as Barrett says? I propose not, given the rich and robust hermeneutic methodology of the Confessional Baptist Tradition.
Baptists affirm Sola Scriptura. We affirm that Scripture is a sufficient rule for our faith and practice. We affirm that Scripture is authoritatively from God and that His voice speaking to us in Scripture must be heeded.
But we also affirm Scripture as the Norma normans—or as the Rule that rules. In other words, we are not anti-confessional, anti-creedal, or anti church history. We affirm the high value of edifying documents authored by men in history. But these writings, which help us to better understand Scripture, are a norma normata or a rule that is ruled. That is, they are under the supreme authority of the Bible. I contend that this is neither “modern” nor “individualistic.”
Reading the Baptist Tradition more thoroughly may help to better appreciate the Baptist hermeneutic. The 18th-century theologian John Gill wrote about the value and necessity of confessions and creeds in his introduction to his Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity. Benjamin Keach wrote a tome on interpreting types to better understand Scripture. The likely editor of the 1689 Confession, Nehemiah Coxe, demonstrates masterful hermeneutical abilities in his defense against Trinitarian and Christological heresies. The Second London Confession of Faith itself has multiple paragraphs on Bible interpretation in its first chapter. The Baptists have a historically thoughtful theology of Bible interpretation. Let us take up and read.
II. Credo Baptism
The Baptist hermeneutic which teaches me that Scripture alone is the supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined (2LCF 1:10) leads me to affirm Credo Baptism. There is no command nor example in the Holy Scripture of an infant being baptized. (Baptist Catechism, Q.99) Infant Baptism is not necessarily contained in Holy Scripture. Infant Baptism is not the antitype of Old Covenant circumcision; regeneration is. Acts 2:38-39 does not teach Infant Baptism, since those who receive this New Covenant sacrament are not just described as “your children” but are epexegetically labeled “everyone who the LORD our God calls to himself.” In other words, “you,” “your children,” and “everyone” are effectually called and regenerate believers.
Rejecting Infant Baptism doesn’t make you an individualist who ignores church history. And being Reformed doesn’t necessitate affirming Paedo Baptism.[1]
For those wrestling with this doctrine, I encourage you to read Fred Malone’s book The Baptism of Disciples Alone. Then read Baptism in the Early Church by Hendrick F. Stander and Johannes P. Louw. For the best sermon I’ve heard on Acts 2:38-39, I point you to a message preached by Mr. Rexford Semard.
III. Congregational Church Governance
Peter Toon (an Anglican author) acknowledged that modern Anglican ecclesiology is foreign to the Bible. He said:
“The modern Anglican … does not see any blueprint for the polity and government of the church written in Scripture. He is too well aware that biblical studies have shown that there is no one form of ordained ministry and church government found in the books of the New Testament.”[2]
17th-century Anglicans did not affirm this view; there are other Anglicans who likely affirm that their ecclesiology is Scriptural. But Toon is content to construct an innovative ecclesiology based on how things happened in history.
Baptists would deny this as an acceptable approach and would instead turn to the Holy Scriptures to construct our argument for church order. Instead of creating an artificial hierarchy of Bishops over local churches, we understand that Bishops or Overseers are the same church office as Elders/Pastors within one local church. We further see the local church as those who have been given the keys of the kingdom from Christ to let in her own members, to remove them with church discipline, and to elect her own church officers. Moreover, local churches voluntarily associate with other churches instead of imposing authority over one another.
To better understand Plural-Elder Led Congregationalism, I refer you to Dr. Waldron’s helpful contributions in the book “Who Runs the Church?”.
A Concluding Word
Much more could be written about Baptist covenant theology, religious liberty, regenerate church membership, etc. But for now, I leave you with a phrase likely coined by Confessional Baptist Caleb Bobryck, which I hope is trendier than converting to Anglicanism:
“Stay Baptist, My Friends.”
[1] Even the Post Reformation historian Richard Muller said that John Gill belonged “to the Reformed confessional tradition.” He further stated that “this must be acknowledged despite the pointed disagreement between Baptists and the Reformed confessional tradition over the doctrine of Infant Baptism.”
Richard A. Muller, “John Gill and the Reformed Tradition: A Study in the Reception of Protestant Orthodoxy in the Eighteenth Century,” in The Life and Thought of John Gill (1697-1771) a Tercentennial Appreciation, edited by Michael Haykin. (New York: Brill, 1997), 51.
[2] Paul E. Engle and Steven B. Cowan, eds., Who Runs the Church?, Zondervan Counterpoints Collection (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 58.
Austin McCormick is a Pastor of Covenant Baptist Church (Clarksville, TN). He holds a B.A. in Biblical Studies from Spurgeon College, a M.A. in Pastoral Studies and a M.Div from Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary. By God’s free and sovereign grace, Austin was saved early in his adulthood. He is married to Rachel, and together they have three children: Geneva, Benjamin, and Bristol.
