AN ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF THE INTERPRETATIONS OF J. C. O’HAIR, CORNELIUS STAM, AND CHARLES BAKER CONCERNING THE ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH, WATER BAPTISM, AND THE COMMISSION OF THE CHURCH A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of Piedmont Baptist College and Graduate School Winston Salem, North Carolina In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy by Adam O. Christmas May 2011 Copyright © 2011 Adam Orlando Christmas All rights reserved. Piedmont Baptist College and Graduate School has permission to reproduce and disseminate this document in any form by any means for purposes chosen by the Seminary, including, without limitation, preservation or instruction. APPROVAL SHEET AN ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF THE INTERPRETATIONS OF J. C. O’HAIR, CORNELIUS STAM, AND CHARLES BAKER CONCERNING THE ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH, WATER BAPTISM, AND THE COMMISSION OF THE CHURCH Adam Orlando Christmas ______________________________________________________ Dr. Larry Tyler, Committee Chair, Dean of the Graduate School ______________________________________________________ Dr. Barkev Trachian, Director of Graduate School ______________________________________________________ Dr. Hoyle Bowman, Distinguished Professor of Systematic Theology Date __________________________ To my wife, Kristin for supporting me through everything And to my children, Emily and Ethan for motivating me to succeed And to my parents, Jesse and Betty for instilling in me the will to persevere And to my family, by my blood and His for encouraging me in word and deed Acknowledgments First, I would like to thank my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, for all that He has done for me. Without Him, I would never have had the ability or opportunity to make it through this academic process. “To Him be glory both now and for ever” (2 Pet. 3:18). Secondly, I would like to thank my family for their unwavering encouragement and faith in me throughout this arduous process. My wife, Kristin, made more sacrifices than anyone in order to help fulfill the plan that the Lord has for me; for that she deserves much praise (Prov. 31:30). My children, Emily and Ethan, experienced the unfortunate loss of time with their daddy so that he could meet the requirements placed upon him and I look forward to making this time up to them. My parents, Jesse and Betty, helped shape me into the man I am today; without their verbal and financial support, it would have been very difficult to graduate in a timely manner. To the rest of my family, thank you for your continual support. Next, I would like to thank Dr. Charles T. Shoemaker for encouraging me to choose Piedmont Baptist College and Graduate School for post-graduate work and Piedmont for providing me with an education that is unequaled. In addition, a few key individuals at Piedmont that warrant mentioning are Dr. Larry Tyler, for chairing my dissertation committee, and Dr. Barkev Trachian and Dr. Hoyle Bowman, for assisting me throughout the dissertation writing process. Your insight and guidance were extremely beneficial and greatly appreciated. Then, I would like to thank all those who assisted me during this extensive writing process: Dr. Charles Shafer, for providing expert formatting and grammatical advice; Dr. John Williams, for contributing valuable textual guidance; John Slater, for offering assistance throughout my research; Jason Brown, for all the ministry help supplied; and Kevin Roberts, for the various tasks performed so I could spend time with my family. Finally, I would like to thank Dr. Thomas C. Messer and Trinity Baptist Church and College for contributing financially during my final year of the PhD program. I should also give special thanks to my students at Trinity Baptist College for their encouragement and understanding throughout this stage of the PhD program; and for everyone else who was not named, but continually offered me up to the Lord in prayer throughout the dissertation writing process, thank you! iii ABSTRACT AN ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF THE INTERPRETATIONS OF J. C. O’HAIR, CORNELIUS STAM, AND CHARLES BAKER CONCERNING THE ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH, WATER BAPTISM, AND THE COMMISSION OF THE CHURCH Adam O. Christmas Moderate ultradispensationalism found its historic inauguration within the teachings of three men: J. C. O’Hair, Cornelius Stam, and Charles Baker. These individuals purported that the doctrine they instructed was a true resemblance of biblical “dispensationalism.” This research aims to determine if this assertion is correct on the basis of the accepted hermeneutic of dispensationalism: the grammatical-historical method. The question that this research seeks to answer is, “Did the historic proponents of moderate ultradispensationalism, Stam, O’Hair, and Baker, arrive at their ecclesiology concerning the origin of the Church, water baptism, and the commission of the Church by interpreting ecclesiological passages in harmony with the grammatical-historical method, the hermeneutic which leads to a truly dispensational theology?” From this question, the purpose of this research is to analyze and evaluate the interpretations of O’Hair, Stam, and Baker concerning iv v the origin of the Church, water baptism, and the commission of the Church in order to determine their adherence to the grammatical-historical method of interpretation. This research utilizes the principles of the grammatical-historical method of hermeneutics and the “Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics” as the criteria for analyzing and evaluating the interpretations of O’Hair, Stam, and Baker. These principles are as follows: 1) context, 2) other Scripture, 3) grammatical considerations, 4) historical background, and 5) genre. They are utilized by forming them into a series of questions in order to determine an overall evaluation (i.e. “Is this interpretation in harmony with the context of the text?”). The results of the evaluation is that the interpretations of O’Hair, Stam, and Baker, concerning the origin of the Church, water baptism, and the commission of the Church, are not in harmony with the principles of the grammatical-historical method of hermeneutics and the “Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics.” Therefore, the conclusion is that they employed a different hermeneutic; and further research necessitates investigation in order to ascertain that exact hermeneutic they applied. TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii ABSTRACT iv Chapter Page 1. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................1 Statement of the Problem ......................................................................3 Research Question and Thesis ......................................................4 Subsidiary Questions .....................................................................4 Direction of the Research ......................................................................6 Outline of Research........................................................................6 Delimitations...................................................................................8 Limitations ....................................................................................10 Assumptions.................................................................................11 Clarification of Terms ...................................................................19 Significance of the Study .....................................................................41 2. LITERATURE REVIEW.........................................................................43 Literature Written by Ultradispensationalists........................................43 Relevant Literature by J. C. O’Hair...............................................44 Relevant Literature by Cornelius Stam.........................................59 Relevant Literature by Charles Baker...........................................76 Literature Written Critical of Ultradispensationalism ............................90 vi vii Books Written Critical of Ultradispensationalism ..........................91 Theses and Dissertation Written Critical of Ultradispensationalism........................................................101 Articles Written Critical of Ultradispensationalism ......................105 Conclusions .......................................................................................109 3. METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN OF RESEARCH ..............................111 Background to the Method Design.....................................................113 The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics .....................113 The Grammatical-Historical Method of Hermeneutics ................114 Principles of the Method Design ........................................................118 Context.......................................................................................119 Scripture with Scripture ..............................................................123 Grammatical Considerations ......................................................126 Historical Background ................................................................133 Literary Genre ............................................................................135 Implementation of the Method Design ...............................................139 Questions of Inquiry ...................................................................140 Evaluation of Data......................................................................141 4. ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION...........................................................143