Suggested Changes to the Baptist Confession of 1689 - Chapter Two

I would like to continue my series of posts offering some suggestions for possible changes to the Confession. I will take up each of these chapters one at a time. Today I will focus my attention upon chapter 2, "Of God and Of the Holy Trinity." I would like to offer two suggestions for possible changes to this chapter.

First, I would suggest updating the language of paragraph 1 where it describes God as having no "passions." The paragraph currently reads:

The Lord our God is but one only living and true God; whose subsistence is in and of himself, infinite in being and perfection; whose essence cannot be comprehended by any but himself; a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions .... [Italics mine.]

To my mind, the term passions is problematic today, since it gives the impression to many that God experiences nothing like what we would call affections or emotions. But I agree with Wayne Grudem when he writes, "We can define the unchangeableness of God as follows: God is unchanging in his being, perfections, purposes, and promises, yet God does act and feel emotions, and he acts and feels differently in response to different situations" (Systematic Theology : An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, p.163). Grudem then goes on to observe:

Of course, God does not have sinful passions or emotions. But the idea that God has no passions or emotions at all clearly conflicts with much of the rest of Scripture, and for that reason I have not affirmed God’s impassibility in this book. Instead, quite the opposite is true, for God, who is the origin of our emotions and who created our emotions, certainly does feel emotions: God rejoices (Isa. 62:5). He is grieved (Ps. 78:40; Eph. 4:30). His wrath burns hot against his enemies (Ex. 32:10). He pities his children (Ps. 103:13). He loves with everlasting love (Isa. 54:8; Ps. 103:17). He is a God whose passions we are to imitate for all eternity as we like our Creator hate sin and delight in righteousness. (p.166)

Although we would not reject the doctrine of divine impassibility in this way, I think most Reformed Baptists would essentially agree with this perspective, namely that God does have emotions, even if we might state it a bit differently. For example, James Renihan wrote an article back in 2008 entitled Are You Passionate?. In this article he argued:

And making matters even more confusing for serious minded believers, our Confession tells us that God is “without body, parts, or passions.” This is an important theological point, often misunderstood. While we speak somewhat simplistically of emotions, our tradition spoke more specifically, not about emotions, but about affections and passions. Affections are righteous attributes which have their source within God; passions are unrighteous attributes which have their source outside of God. Our Triune Lord has true affections, but he has no passions.

Now, whether or not one agrees completely with Renihan's assessment of the way the language was used in the 17th century*, it is clear that he does not think the writers of the Confession intended to rule out any and all affections (or emotions) in God. So, why leave the old language in the Confession when it might give the wrong impression? Why not change the language in order to make the true intention of the Confession clear to modern readers?

I think Stan Reeves has done a good job of clarifying the language in his modern version of the Baptist Confession of 1689. Here is how he suggests we reword the opening statement of 1.1:

The Lord our God is one, the only living and true God. He is self-existent and infinite in being and perfection. His essence cannot be understood by anyone but him. He is a perfectly pure spirit. He is invisible and has no body, parts, or changeable human emotions .... [Italics mine.]

I think Stan's offering solves the problem nicely, and so I second his proposal.

Second, I would suggest altering paragraph 3 in some way so as to at least explicitly allow people to take exception to the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son, and perhaps the coinciding doctrine of the eternal procession of the Spirit as well. So, for example, at Immanuel Baptist Church we have decided to keep the original wording of the Confession out of deference to the longstanding tradition (going back at least to the Nicene era) while adding a footnote explicitly allowing an exception. Here is how the pertinent sentence reads, together with the corresponding footnote:

In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word (or Son), and the Holy Spirit,27 of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided;28 the Father is of none neither begotten nor proceeding, the Son is eternally begotten of the Father,29 ....

29 Jo. 1:14, 18. Note: The Elders at Immanuel recognize that the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son is based upon an understanding of the Greek word monogenēs as meaning only begotten, whereas it is commonly understood to mean one and only by most modern scholars. In our judgment, then, a man may on such grounds see no need to affirm a doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son as the best way to describe the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son, and we would not require an affirmation of this doctrine in such an instance.

Our suggestion, as indicated, is fully in keeping with a growing scholarly consensus regarding the meaning of the crucial term monogenēs. For example, modern translations are beginning to reflect the new understanding of the term as meaning one and only. This would include the New International Version, the English Standard Version, the Holman Christian Standard Bible and the NET Bible, which offers the following reasoning for its choice of the words one and only in John 1:14:

tn Or "of the unique one." Although this word is often translated "only begotten," such a translation is misleading, since in English it appears to express a metaphysical relationship. The word in Greek was used of an only child (a son [Luke 7:12; Luke 9:38] or a daughter [Luke 8:42]). It was also used of something unique (only one of its kind) such as the mythological Phoenix (1 Clem. 25:2). From here it passes easily to a description of Isaac (Heb 11:17 and Josephus, Ant., 1.13.1 [1.222]) who was not Abraham's only son, but was one-of-a-kind because he was the child of the promise. Thus the word means "one-of-a-kind" and is reserved for Jesus in the Johannine literature of the NT. While all Christians are children of God, Jesus is God's Son in a unique, one-of-a-kind sense. The word is used in this way in all its uses in the Gospel of John (1:14; 1:18; 3:16, and 3:18).

It is thus not unusual to find contemporary Reformed theologians who essentially agree with this assessment, including men such as Robert Reymond from the Presbyterian side (in A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, p.324f.) and Wayne Grudem from the Baptist side (Systematic Theology, Appendix 6, "The Monogenēs Controversy: 'Only' or 'Only Begotten,'" pp.1233-1234). But I happen to like the brief treatment by J. Oliver Buswell who, in his Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, is careful to affirm the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ while denying the doctrine of eternal generation:

Careful lexicographical studies prove beyond a question that the word monogenes is not derived from the root gennao, to beget or generate, but is derived from genos, kind or class. The word therefore means 'in a class by himself,' 'the only one of his kind,' or in other words 'unique.' The French Bible correctly reads 'son fils unique' for our English 'his only begotten Son.' The word 'unique' would not be euphonious in English in John 3:16, but that would be the correct reading.

We have above examined all the instances in which 'begotten' or 'born' or related words are applied to Christ, and we can say with confidence that the Bible has nothing whatsoever to say about 'begetting' as an eternal relationship between the Father and the Son.

The suggestion that we completely drop the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son is somewhat revolutionary. We might be misunderstood. Some would not see that we should thus clarify the absolute essential equality of the Son with the Father. Yet, the only individuals who would understand the meaning are those who ought to understand the reason. I can personally accept the ancient creeds without equivocation, for when one says 'begotten but not created,' he is reducing the word begotten to absolute zero. Yet I do believe that the 'eternal generation' doctrine should be dropped.

If we drop eternal generation, what then shall we say of eternal Sonship? That is an entirely different matter. There can be no doubt -- and we have presented sufficient evidence above for the meaning of the phrase, 'Son of God' --; that the 'Father, Son, and Holy Spirit' are words intended by the writers of the Scriptures to indicate eternal relationships within the Triune Godhead. All that is necessary for us to retain the full richness of the meaning of Sonship without retaining the non-Scriptural doctrine of eternal generation, is for us to understand and assimilate what has been said above of the doctrine of Sonship. The Son is not presented as generated, as a subordinate, or an inferior in any sense. But when Jesus called Himself Son of God, and claimed that God was His own Father, this was, in the language in which it was understood, 'making himself equal with God' (John 5:18). (Vol.1, p.110f.)

On the basis of such evidence, I suppose one could decide to simply remove from the Confession altogether the reference to the eternal generation of the Son and, perhaps, the reference to the eternal procession of the Spirit (which developed analogously to the doctrine of eternal generation). Frankly, I would have no problem with this option. However, as I have already indicated, at Immanuel we decided to keep the wording as is for at least two reasons: 1) out of humble deference to such a longstanding and important tradition and, more importantly, 2) due to the continued disagreement in some quarters concerning the true meaning of monogenēs. For it would be our contention that, if monogenēs does really mean only begotten, then a doctrine of eternal generation is indeed necessary, as our forefathers in the faith clearly understood, even if we cannot say with any clarity what such a doctrine actually means.

* For the exchange between James Renihan and Robert Gonzales on the meaning of passions see here. Dr. Gonzales has also written an interesting and helpful set of articles on Divine impassibility and passibility, about which I have previously reported here.

What is a Reformed Baptist Church?

Back in July I posted a brief defense for Why I Call Myself a Reformed Baptist. In that article I also mentioned a poll I had conducted in 2007-2008 that revealed some significant diversity among those who would call themselves Reformed Baptists. I have also previously cited a paper by Jim Savastio entitled What is a Reformed Baptist Church?, in which he summarized well the (sometimes frustrating) diversity in the usage of the term Reformed Baptist.

Today I would like to inform the blog's readers of yet another attempt to define what it means to be a Reformed Baptist. This paper is also entitled What is a Reformed Baptist Church?, and it was written back in 1999 by Andrew Kerkham, the pastor of Tauranga Reformed Baptist Church in Papamoa, Tauranga, New Zealand.

Here is the the complete text for your consideration:

WHAT IS A REFORMED BAPTIST CHURCH?

1. IT HOLDS TO HISTORIC CHRISTIANITY

It holds to the essential doctrines of the historic Christian faith as set out in creeds such as the Apostles' Creed, Nicene Creed and Athanasian Creed.

1.1 The Bible: The Bible in its original writings is fully inspired by God, and is therefore the supreme and final authority for belief and practice.

1.2 God: God is one in essence, eternally existing in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

1.3 Jesus Christ: Jesus is the incarnate Son of God, born of the virgin Mary, and is therefore truly God and truly human; he lived a holy and sinless life, died on the cross bearing our guilt as our vicarious substitute, rose bodily from the dead, ascended into heaven, and will return personally, visibly, and in power and glory.

1.4 The Human Race: God created human beings in his own image, but Adam the first human being sinned, and through this transgression every one of us inherits a sinful nature which results in personal transgression and guilt, incurring the penalty
of death, both physical and spiritual.

1.5 Salvation: Salvation is through regeneration by the Holy Spirit (the new birth), justification by faith alone without works of righteousness, and sanctification by the indwelling Holy Spirit which produces the fruits of righteousness including good works.

1.6 The Future: There is a future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, the just to eternal blessedness in heaven and the unjust to eternal banishment in hell.

2. IT HOLDS TO REFORMATION DISTINCTIVES

It holds to the great doctrines emphasized during the Reformation as set forth in documents such as the Belgic Confession, Canons of Dort, Heidelberg Catechism, Westminster Confession of Faith, and Baptist Confession of Faith (1689). These may be summed up in the threefold statement:

Sola scriptura - Sola gratia - Sola fide

Scripture alone - Grace alone - Faith alone

2.1 Sola Scriptura: The Bible in its original writings is verbally and fully inspired by God and therefore the inerrant Word of God to the human race; it is therefore the
supreme and final authority for belief and practice. (For a modern statement see
the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, 1978). Neither human reason, experience nor the Church can be our final authority. Therefore liberal theology (which exalts the authority of human reason), the charismatic movement (which exalts the authority of human experience) and Roman Catholicism (which exalts the authority of the church) are all viewed as inadequate systems of belief.

2.2 Sola Gratia: Salvation is entirely by the grace of God. The implications of this statement are summed up in the so-called "Five Points" (TULIP):

2.2.1 Total inability (or, total depravity): Sin has affected human beings to the extent that every part of our beings—body and soul, mind will and emotions—have been contaminated by sin, so that no one is able to do anything to gain salvation. We are therefore all under the condemnation of God.

2.2.2 Unconditional election: Since we are incapable of effecting our own salvation, God in his grace has chosen to call out specific individuals from the condemned human race to be his people. This election is unconditional in that is it based entirely on God's grace and good pleasure, not on any merit, neither intrinsic nor foreseen, in us.

2.2.3 Limited atonement (or, particular redemption): If election is particular (individual) and Christ's death is a vicarious and substitutionary sacrifice, then the atonement is limited in its design or purpose to the elect.

2.2.4 Irresistible grace (or, efficacious calling): If the Father has elected specific individuals for salvation, and the Son has died a substitutionary death for them, then the Holy Spirit in time calls them irresistibly and efficaciously to salvation.

2.2.5 Perseverance (or, security) of the saints: If the Father has specifically elected us, and the Son has died specifically in our place, and the Holy Spirit has irresistibly called us to eternal life, then our salvation is secure, for (by God's grace) we shall persevere in holiness to the end and be assured of heaven.

2.3 Sola Fide: In salvation we are justified by faith alone.

2.3.1 Justification: Justification is God's forensic (legal) declaration
that a sinner is not guilty. This declaration is based entirely on the
righteousness of Christ, who himself bore the sinner's penalty of death in
his substitutionary death on the cross. Since we have no righteousness of
our own, in justification Christ's righteousness is imputed (reckoned, accounted) to the sinner.

2.3.2 Faith: Justification is effected through the instrument of faith. This faith involves various aspects, in particular, knowledge, assent and trust.

2.3.3 Faith alone: Justification is by faith alone. Justification is not on the basis of our own merit or righteousness, nor is it on the basis of baptism or penance.

3. IT HOLDS TO BAPTIST DISTINCTIVES

It holds to Baptist distinctives that distinguish it from non-Baptist churches, namely:

3.1 The Church: The Church is the whole company of those who have been redeemed by Jesus Christ and regenerated by the Holy Spirit. The local church, as a manifestation of the universal church, is a community of believers in a particular place where the Word of God is preached, the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper are observed, and scriptural discipline is exercised. It is fully autonomous, and remains so notwithstanding responsibilities it may accept through voluntary
association.

3.2 Congregational Church Government: A constituted church meeting, under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and through the guidance of the Scriptures, is the highest court of authority for the local church. Elders and deacons are chosen and lead through the common consent of the church itself. Each individual member has a right and responsibility to participate fully in the life and government of the church, particularly in the appointment of its leaders.

3.3 Believer's Baptism: Baptism is an outward sign of an individual's union with Christ in his death, burial and resurrection, and is a confession of personal regeneration, repentance and faith. Its scriptural mode is immersion in water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

3.4 The Priesthood of Believers: Each believer has direct access to God through
Christ our High Priest, and shares with him in the work of reconciliation through intercession, worship and faithful service.

3.5 Liberty of Conscience: Each believer has the right to private conscience, and has an obligation to interpret the Scriptures responsibly and to act in the light of
his/her conscience, and should not be coerced by any State, secular, ecclesiastical or religious group in matters of faith. Nevertheless, it is right and proper that like-minded believers should express their fellowship in voluntarily submitting to confessions, creeds and statements of faith.

4. THE EFFECTS OF THESE DISTINCTIVES ON PRACTICE

The effects of these historic, reformed and baptist distinctives should be seen in the life and practice of the church as follows:

4.1 Preaching: Preaching of the Word of God is the method that God has ordained for proclaiming the name of Christ and building up the body of Christ. No other methods (e.g. music, films and other art forms; debate, discussion, broadcasting or other communication forms) should detract from or replace the faithful and public exposition of the Scriptures and the preaching (proclamation) of the gospel of Christ.

4.2 Evangelism: While God knows who the elect are, we do not, so God has ordained that his church should preach the gospel (the good news) of his salvation to all people throughout the world. Evangelism is conducted with confidence, knowing that it does not depend on human persuasiveness, but on the irresistible working of the Holy Spirit. Evangelism is based on the preaching of the Word of God, and both
the message and the method of evangelism must be founded on Scriptural principles.

4.3 Worship: Worship is viewed as a serious and reverent approach to God, who is majestic, glorious and holy. Worship therefore should be free from all superficiality, frivolity and irreverence. Although worship is conducted in a serious and reverent manner, it is also joyful as we rejoice in the God of our salvation.

4.4 Godly Living: Individual believers are expected, on the grounds of Scripture and as proof of their salvation, to live godly lives in obedience to the Law of God, to seek to be holy even as God is holy, to love one another as Christ has loved them, and to do good works as an expression of the love of Christ within them.

© 1999 by Andrew Kerkham

kerkham at gmail dot com

I am in essential agreement with Pastor Kerkham, as I would imagine most Reformed Baptists are. For those who are interested, he has also penned a modern English version of the Baptist Confession of 1689.

Suggested Changes to the Baptist Confession of 1689 - Chapter One

In an earlier post, I wrote about the suggestions offered by Tom Nettles regarding Chapter 20, "Of the Gospel, and of the extent of the Grace thereof." I also took note of a suggested alteration of Nettles' proposal offered by Bob Gonzales. Today, however, I would like to begin a series of posts offering some suggestions of my own for quite a few chapters of the Confession. I will take up each of these chapters one at a time.

I will begin with Chapter 1, "Of the Holy Scriptures." I would like to offer three suggestions for possible changes to this chapter.

First, beginning in paragraph 1, I would suggest an assertion making explicit the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture. The suggested language appears in bold type:

1. The Holy Scripture, fully and verbally inspired and inerrant in the original manuscripts, is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable, yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and His will, which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times, and in many ways, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church; and afterward for the better preserving, and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment, and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan, and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which makes the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary, those former ways of Gods revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.

I realize that many may see no need for such an addition, especially since the modified sentence already contains a reference to the Bible's infallibility. As a matter of fact, some point out that the term infallibility is an even stronger term than inerrancy. John Frame, for example, has made this point in an article entitled Is the Bible Inerrant? He observes that:

If we are permitted, again, to use the dictionary — and why shouldn't theologians use the dictionary!? — "infallible" is a stronger term than "inerrant." "Inerrant" means there are no errors; "infallible" means there can be no errors.

While I agree with Frame's point, I am nevertheless disturbed by the lack of clarity the term infallible possesses for many today. For example, A Student's Dictionary for Biblical and Theological Studies, by F.B. Huey and Bruce Corley, offers this definition for the terms inerrancy/inerrant:

The term infallibility properly means the Bible is incapable of error, not liable to deceive or mislead. Although the adjectives inerrant and infallible are often used synonymously, some scholars apply the word infallible only to what the Bible teaches, in order to avoid the connotation of historical and scientific accuracy in all matters implied in the word inerrant.

Herein lies the problem. The terms are often used interchangeably or with less precision than they should be, and this means that more precision and clarification of the language in the Confession would be helpful. The Theopedia article on The Inerrancy of the Bible also demonstrates the difficulty here:

Some scholars see infallibility as a less restrictive term than "inerrancy" in discussing the reliability of the Bible. For example, Davis suggests "The Bible is inerrant if and only if it makes no false or misleading statements on any topic whatsoever. The Bible is infallible if and only if it makes no false or misleading statements on any matter of faith and practice." Thus Davis argues that infallibility does not necessitate a doctrine of inerrancy. In this sense, infallibility is seen as a nuanced and less-restrictive view of the Bible's reliability. [I assume the author has in mind here Stephen T. Davis' The Debate about the Bible: Inerrancy vs. Infallibility]

However, others see it the other way around, i.e. infallibility is the stronger term and specifically implies inerrancy. In article XI, the Chicago Statement says, "We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated." This then is contrary to Davis' view above.

Further, in article XII, the Chicago statement says, "We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science."

Adding to the potential confusion is the layman's tendency to use the terms interchangeably.

Given the difficulties that have arisen surrounding the meaning of these terms, I think it best to include a statement along the lines of the one I have proposed above.

Second, I suggest making a change to paragraph 6, bringing the language back to what it was in the Westminster Confession of Faith. The suggested change is again in bold type:

6. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture, unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit or traditions of men. Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word, and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God and government of the Church common to human actions and societies which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

The current wording, "or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture," seems less precise to me and thus open to being more easily misunderstood. I am not sure why the change was made from the previous language in the first place, although Sam Waldron sees it as clarifying the wording of the Westminster Confession of Faith:

The phrase 'or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture' is equivalent to the phrase in the Westminster Confession it is intended to clarify: 'or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture'. What may be by sound logic deduced from Scripture, that is to say, what is necessarily contained in it, has the authority of Scripture itself. (A Modern exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, pp. 42-43)

Am I the only one that thinks the older language was clearer? If the language was really intended to indicate that we must accept as authoritative "what may by sound logic be deduced from Scripture," as Sam suggests, then doesn't the original language say this better? Or perhaps we should just adopt Sam's own wording and amend the Confession to read, "the whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or may by sound logic be deduced from Scripture."

Third, I would like to suggest a change to paragraph 10, clarifying the meaning of the obscure old term private spirits.

10. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private interpretations or revelations, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered our faith is finally resolved.

It has become clear in recent scholarly discussion of the meaning of the term private spirits that the idea of personal revelations is meant, even if there has been debate over whether or not the Westminster Confession of faith or the Baptist Confession of 1689 allows support for some forms of private revelation or prophecy. James Renihan sums up the issue well in a blog article entitled Frequently Asked Symbolics Questions: Private Spirits:

Over the years, I have taught Symbolics in many places. Without fail, my students are bright and interested and ask me very useful and thought provoking questions. For the next few days, I want to explore some of those questions here. Let’s begin with Chapter 1. What is intended by the phrase ‘private spirits’ in paragraph 1?

This question arise out of the claims of some (influenced by Wayne Grudem) that the phrase implies support for some form(s) of personal revelation. It has been debated in the scholarly literature in articles such as Byron Curtis, “‘Private Spirits’ in The Westminster Confession of Faith 1.10 and in Catholic-Protestant Debate (1588-1652),” Westminster Theological Journal 58 (1996): 257-266, and “’Private Spirits’ in the Westminster Confession of Faith and in Protestant–Catholic Debates: A Response to Byron Curtis” by Garnet H. Milne in the Spring 1999 fascicle of WTJ. More recently, Milne has published the exhaustive study The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Cessation of Special Revelation (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2007). He shows that the term frequently had reference to personal claims to a ‘testimony of the Spirit’ experienced by some believers. But is this akin to revelation? The simple answer is ‘no.’ You will do well to consult Milne on this question! I want to add one or two thoughts:

The language of 2LCF (and WCF and Savoy) does this: it may acknowledge that there were some claims to private revelation, but in no way authorizes or legitimizes them. Rather it is seeking to state comprehensively that there is nothing men may claim that is above or beyond Scripture. Notice how “private spirits” is preceded by “doctrines of men.” There is no way that the WCF legitimizes “doctrines of men.” Notice for example 21:2 and its clear statement as well as Chapter 16 scripture
reference b; ch. 21 “n”; ch. 30 “f”.

Similarly, one must factor in the challenge that was presented, from the late 1640s, by the Quakers. They regularly and frequently accused the Puritans of holding to a ‘dead letter’ by the Puritan focus on the centrality of the written word. For the Quakers, the living internal testimony of the Spirit was of exceedingly greater importance than dry and dead words printed on a page. In the case of the Confession, even claims to ‘private spirits’ (without giving any credence to them) had to be subordinated to the Scripture, given by the Spirit, as a fixed rule of faith.

So does the Confession in any way authorize or permit private revelation by the use of this phrase? No way.

Again, whether or not one believes there is room for a concept of prophecy or revelation such as Wayne Grudem supposes, it is pretty clear that the term private spirits does refer to such a phenomenon, at least as others claim to experience it, and I think a clarification of the meaning of the term would help us to see how the Confession does, in fact, speak to such matters today. One thing is certain: Very few people today have any idea of what the original term means!

Modern Version of the Baptist Confession of 1689 Complete

This blog's regular readers may remember that I informed you back in January of the ongoing effort of Stan Reeves, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at Auburn University and an elder at Grace Heritage Church in Auburn, Alabama, to modernize the Baptist Confession of 1689. Well, earlier this month he posted the final chapter of the confession here. I assume he may still want to do some editing, especially as he receives feedback from those who visit his blog. So, if you can, visit the site and weigh in with questions or suggestions. He has been posting it in a blog format for this very reason.

Thanks again, Steve, for taking on this important and helpful task for the churches!

Suggested Changes to the Baptist Confession of 1689

Back in September I posted a blog entry about a couple of articles written by Robert Gonzales, Dean and Professor at Reformed Baptist Seminary, on "The Danger of Reformed Traditionalism." As I observed in that post, in the second of his two articles, Gonzales not only cautions us more specifically about not allowing the Baptist Confession of 1689 to overwhelm our commitment to Sola Scriptura, he also suggests some changes to the confession in the process:

So here’s where “the rubber meets the road.” It’s one thing to affirm one’s commitment to sola Scriptura and offer a general warning against an imbalanced commitment to one’s Confession of Faith. Most won’t object too strongly. It’s quite another thing, however, to venture suggestions as to how one’s Confession of Faith might have some deficiencies that need improvement. I don’t expect that all my readers will fully agree with all of my suggestions—at least immediately. But I do hope that you’ll give the matter careful prayer and reflection. In general, I think there are at least three ways in which the 1689 London Baptist Confession can be improved.

The three areas of improvement Gonzales goes on to suggest are: 1) "updating the language of the confession," 2) "adding theological affirmations to the confession" (such as a clear statement on the Biblical roles of men and women), and 3) "making modest refinements to some doctrinal formulae" (such as "fine-tuning" some of the confession's statements about covenant theology). So far, to my knowledge, he hasn't written anything more specific to date, although I certainly hope he does so soon, because I think he would do a very good job.

As for Gonzales' suggestion that we update the language of the confession, some attempts at this have been and are being made, as I indicated in my January 3 post about Modern Versions of the Baptist Confession of 1689. But today I would like to begin a series of articles offering some suggestions about the other two areas mentioned by Gonzales, namely "adding theological affirmations to the confession" and "making modest refinements to some doctrinal formulae." My goal in writing these articles is not stir up controversy or debate – although I am not so naive as to think this unavoidable – but rather to encourage what I believe is a necessary and potentially fruitful discussion. At least I hope it will be a fruitful discussion.

Most of the suggestions made will be my own. In fact, most of the suggestions I will offer have already been adopted by the elders and congregation of Immanuel Baptist Church, where I am privileged to serve as the primary teaching elder. But I will also include good suggestions made by others when I discover them. For example, I would like to kick off this series of posts with A Suggested Addition to the Second London Confession, by Tom Nettles, Professor of Historical Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. He suggests making additions to Chapter 20, "Of the Gospel, and of the extent of the Grace thereof." Here is the section of his article in which the specific wording is offered:

I transcribe the text of the chapter with additions. My suggested additions are in italics along with the suggested Scripture proofs. Locations within the larger confession that support the suggested additions are discussed beneath each respective paragraph.

1. The covenant of works being broken by sin, and made unprofitable unto life, God was pleased to give forth the promise of Christ, the seed of the woman, as the means of calling the elect, and begetting in them faith and repentance; in this promise the gospel, as to the substance of it, was revealed, and [is] therein effectual for the conversion and salvation of sinners. [Genesis 3:15; Revelation 13:8] This promised grace assumes the creation truth that mankind bears of the divine image and is thus made for the love and praise of God. God’s purpose, therefore, of restoring an elect people to His favor through Christ and reinstating Himself as the sole source and object of their praise and worship does not exclude any of fallen humanity from the duty to pursue the ends of the Gospel [Ephesians 1:9-12; Philippians 1:9-11; 1 Timothy 1:8-11, 15-17.]

[Compare Chapter 4, paragraph 2 entire but particularly “rendering them fit unto that life to God for which they were created.” Also, Compare chapter 7, paragraph 2 which states “Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace, wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.”]

2. This promise of Christ, and salvation by Him, is revealed only by the Word of God; neither do the works of creation or providence, with the light of nature, make discovery of Christ, or of grace by him, so much as in a general or obscure way; much less that men destitute of the revelation of Him by the promise or gospel, should be enabled thereby to attain saving faith or repentance. [Romans 1:16; 10:14-17; Proverbs 29:18; Isaiah 25:7; 60:2, 3] God provides, therefore, by command and providence, that proclamation of the full counsel of God be made to all men as sinners. The law initially written on the heart, as well as the moral law revealed to Israel, fully complies with the grace of the Gospel. This reality most forcefully implies that Christ’s Gospel be proclaimed to all fallen humanity. The decree of salvation for the elect of every tongue, tribe, nation, involves of necessity the proclamation of both the Gospel and the accompanying duties of repentance from sin and faith in the Lord Jesus to all men everywhere. [Revelation 5:12-14; 7; Acts 17:24-31; 1 Timothy 1:12-16]

[Compare chapter 2, paragraph 2 “to him is due from angels and men, whatsoever worship, or obedience, as creatures they owe unto the Creator, and whatever he is further pleased to require of them.” Also compare chapter 5, paragraph 6, “whereby it comes to pass that they harden themselves, under those means which God useth for the softening of others.” Also compare chapter 19, paragraph 2, “The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the fall, and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, etc.” paragraph 5, “The moral law doth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others … neither doth Christ in the Gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.” And paragraph 7 “Neither are the aforementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it, the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely and cheerfully which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done.”]

3. The revelation of the Gospel unto sinners, made in divers times and by sundry parts, with the addition of promises and precepts for the obedience required therein, as to the nations and persons to whom it is granted, is merely of the sovereign will and good pleasure of God; not being annexed by virtue of any promise to the due improvement of men’s natural abilities, by virtue of common light received without it, which none ever did make, or can do so; and therefore in all ages, the preaching of the gospel has been granted unto persons and nations, as to the extension [extent] or limiting [streightning] of it, in great variety, according to the counsel of the will of God. His secret will and good pleasure in this wise providence, however, is not the rule of our action; but rather his church must be governed by his commission of the gospel to all nations as the means of their calling. The apostolic work of careful dissemination, defense, and confirmation of the Gospel among all nations bore
fruit only by virtue of the sovereign, inscrutable, and insuperable work of the Spirit embedding the preached word with vital power, and at the same time manifested the apostolic understanding of his command to make disciples. [Acts 13:48; Philippians 1:6; Colossians 1:3-6; 1 Thessalonians 1:4-7; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-15; 2 Timothy 2:8-10; James 1:17, 18; 1 Peter 1:22-25]

[Elements of this original article give direct refutation to the Arminian contention that fallen humanity by virtue of universal prevenient grace may respond positively to natural revelation and thus gain God’s favor for a further hearing of the gospel or even perhaps having their natural religion account to them as virtual faith in Christ, though they never have heard the gospel. {See chapter 10, paragraph 4 on this account also.} Thomas Grantham, a general Baptist, specifically taught this and taught that apart from such prevenient grace, sinners could not be held responsible for their refusal to comply with the implications of natural revelation or of the preached gospel. Compare chapter 3, paragraph 1 – “nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away.” Paragraph 6. ‘foreordained all the means thereunto.” Chapter 5, paragraph 2 “yet by the same providence he ordereth them to fall out according to the nature of second causes, either, necessarily, freely, or contingently.” Chapter 10, paragraph 1 – “by his word and Spirit … enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God;” paragraph 4 “Much less can men that receive not the Christian religion be saved.” Also chapter 14, paragraph 1, “The grace of faith . . . is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word.”]

4. We, therefore, affirm and have joyful confidence in these indivisible truths: the gospel is the only outward means of revealing Christ and saving grace, and is, as such abundantly sufficient thereunto; yet that men who are dead in trespasses may be born again, quickened or regenerated, [omit semi-colon and insert comma] there is moreover necessary, beyond the mere persuasive power of bare truth, an effectual insuperable work of the Holy Spirit upon the whole soul, for the producing in them a new spiritual life; without which no other means will effect their conversion unto God. [Psalm 110:3; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Ephesians 1:19, 20; John 6:44; 2 Corinthians 4, 4, 6] The substance of all missionary and evangelistic labors, therefore, must be the proclamation of the Gospel. Apart from this message we may not expect God’s Spirit to honor our efforts with the reclaiming of the lost. In the context of such labors one may always hope that the Spirit will lead the lost to Christ.

[Compare also chapter X on effectual calling paragraph 1: “inlightening [sic] their minds, spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God;” also paragraph 4; “although they may be called by the Ministry of the word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ.” Also see chapter XIV.1, “Of Saving Faith;” “The Grace of Faith, whereby the Elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts; and is ordinarily wrought by the Ministry of the Word.” And XIV.2 “By this faith a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God himself; and also apprehendeth an excellency therein, above all other writings; and all things in the world … and so is enabled to cast his Soul upon the truth thus believed.”]

An addition such as this would be consistent with the full light of Scripture truth, the historical flow of Baptist history, and the internal implications of the Confession itself. For at least a two-fold purpose such an addition holds promise for edification and conscientious discipleship: One, we should articulate a clear theological motivation for personal and world-wide evangelization, avoiding the error of the hyper-Calvinist; Two, we must help correct the tendency to abort evangelism from its theological womb but must insist that it be nurtured and matured and kept alive by its fructifying connection with the whole of doctrinal truth.

I encourage the reading of Nettles' entire article and welcome your responses as always. An example of one helpful – albeit brief – response comes from Robert Gonzales, in the above mentioned article, in a footnote (#7), in which he observes:

Nettles’ suggested addition does underscore the church’s responsibility in general but does not seem to highlight the responsibility of every individual disciple of Christ to propagate the gospel. He does, however, cite Article XI of The Baptist Faith and Message (2000), which does: “It is the duty and privilege of every follower of Christ and of every church of the Lord Jesus Christ to endeavor to make disciples of all nations. The new birth of man’s spirit by God’s Holy Spirit means that birth of love for others. Missionary effort on the part of all rests thus upon a spiritual necessity of the regenerate life, and is expressly commanded in the teachings of Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ has commanded the preaching of the gospel to all nations. It is the duty of every child of God to seek constantly to win the lost to Christ by verbal witness undergirded by a Christian lifestyle, and by other methods in harmony with the gospel of Christ [emphasis added].”

The added emphasis suggested by Gonzales could easily be inserted into what Nettles has himself offered, and in my view would make a good proposal that much better. What say you?

Modern Versions of the Baptist Confession of 1689

There are a couple of modern English versions of The Baptist Confession of 1689 that it is good to be aware of:

1) The Founders Ministries website has made freely available online A Faith to Confess: The Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 Rewritten in Modern English ©1975, Carey Publications, Ltd.

2) Stan Reeves, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at Auburn University and an elder at Grace Heritage Church in Auburn, Alabama, has been working on a modern version of the 1689 Confession since August of this past year. He is publishing his work a chapter at a time using Blogger, which makes it easy for others to comment on his progress in order to ask questions or offer suggestions. He is also posting it alongside the original for easy comparison while reading. He just published chapter 15, "Repentance to Life and Salvation," this week. So far it looks like a very promising work. Here is the purpose statement from his first post:

I have long wanted to update the language of the 1689 Confession to make it more accessible to modern readers. I'm aware of other modern versions, but I object to the cost and copyright restrictions on the Carey edition (the most widely available version), and I've found that none of them seem to be very consistent in the way they approach the update. For example, the Carey edition seems to be nothing more than a paraphrase in some places and yet quite stilted in others.

I approach this whole thing with fear and trembling, and that's why I'm putting this on the web. I fear inadvertently changing the doctrine or confusing something that was clearer in the original. So I'm posting my attempts at an update so that folks can comment and make suggestions and corrections.

My goal is to maintain the structure and language to the extent that these lend themselves to clarity to the modern reader. When they don't, I will consider modern equivalent terms or rephrasing. In more difficult cases, I may rework the structure of a paragraph if it can be stated in a significantly more natural way in modern English without compromising the meaning. I don't pretend that the result will be readable on a 6th-grade level. The concepts in the confession simply don't lend themselves to such simplistic expression. Furthermore, I don't want to change well-established theological terms unless I judge that they are fairly obscure and can be greatly clarified by a modern expression.

As I wrestle through the rewording, I will be referencing and learning from the Carey edition, the Kerkham edition, the Masters edition, as well as the original, including the facsimile copy published by B&R Press. I expect my version to be sufficiently different from all the other modernized versions that there will be no violation of copyright. I've included links to electronic versions of the ones I'm consulting, except for the Masters edition, which I haven't found online.

I relish all constructive comments. I may not be able to respond to all comments or explain my reaction to them, but I will do my best to read and consider them.

Until I've finished all the edits and released a final form, I claim a copyright on the work in progress and do not grant permission to make copies. I will eventually provide permission to copy under certain conditions once I've finished it.

Thanks Stan!

Tabular Comparison of Creeds Important to Reformed Baptists

Many - if not most - of this blog's readers may already be aware of True Confessions: Baptist Documents in the Reformed Family, by James Renihan. If not, I recommend it to you now. Here is a brief description from the Reformed Baptist Academic Press website:

From the Preface:

While several harmonies of Reformed Confessions have been published over the years, and also various compilations of Baptist Confessions, I am unaware of any attempts to do what has been done here--to place the most important 17th century Baptist Confessions and Catechisms side by side with their Reformed source documents.

From RBAP, LLC:

Dr. Renihan has rendered an invaluable service to Christ's Church through his labors. Both the contents of this work and the beautiful sturdy soft-cover, spiral bound design for teaching utility make this book an ideal resource for pastors & professors alike. This work is a "must have" for every serious study of 17th century Baptist symbolics.It was with a deep sense of "finally" that I looked at this new work by Dr. Renihan. We have long needed this detailed and tabular comparison of the foundational documents of our Calvinistic Baptist heritage and their sources. This work reminds lovers of that heritage that those who drew up these documents saw themselves as part of a Calvinist International, "a broader Reformed community" as Renihan puts it... Michael Haykin, Th.D.

Having had an opportunity to make some use of this work, I can heartily agree that it is well worth the price.

However, there is a similar free resource available for basic tabular comparison of some the the most important creeds for Reformed Baptists. These have been made available for some time by James Anderson.

The first is A Tabular Comparison of the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith,the 1658 Savoy Declaration of Faith, the 1677/1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith and the 1742 Philadelphia Confession of Faith.

The second is A Tabular Comparison of the 1646 WCF and the 1689 LBCF.

Of course, these two documents won't replace Renihan's work, and I recommend it if one can afford it. But they do provide a helpful resource.

May God continue to bless the growing Reformed Baptist movement. And may we truly appreciate our godly heritage.

Renihan/Gonzales Exchange On Using the Language of "Passion" With Reference to God and Believers

Earlier today, James M. Renihan, the Dean of The Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies, published an article entitled Are you passionate? on the Reformed Baptist Fellowship blog. Here is the post in its entirety:

It seems that evangelical preachers and writers have become passionate about being passionate. This might be one of the most common buzzwords of the day. We are urged to have a passion for God, to be passionate about winning souls, to be passionate in worship etc. ad nauseum. If you aren’t passionate, you probably are not really living as a Christian should-or so it would seem to be implied. But it seems to me that there is a problem with the use of this language, and it ought to cause us to reconsider our terms.

Today, ‘passion’ is generally thought to be good. It is used to describe powerful emotions, or deep and profound commitment. These things may be very good in themselves. The problem is, however, that we Christians inherit an older sense of the term that is utterly contradictory to anything good.

If you look at most conservative translations of the Bible-for example the New American Standard Version or the New King James Version-you will find that when ‘passion(s)’ is used in the New Testament, it always has a sinful connotation: Romans 1:26 “God gave them up to vile passions;” 1 Cor. 7:9 “It is better to marry than to burn with passion;” Gal. 5:24 “Those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires;” we are even told in Col. 3:5 “Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and
covetousness, which is idolatry.”

Isn’t it confusing to preach to people, telling them to be passionate about something good, when all that they read about passion(s) in the Bible is evil? What do they think when they read the scriptures?

And making matters even more confusing for serious minded believers, our Confession tells us that God is “without body, parts, or passions.” This is an important theological point, often misunderstood. While we speak somewhat simplistically of emotions, our tradition spoke more specifically, not about emotions, but about affections and passions. Affections are righteous attributes which have their source within God; passions are unrighteous attributes which have their source outside of God. Our Triune Lord has true affections, but he has no passions. Preachers who understand and subscribe to our Confession should comprehend this point and think through its implications for their communication with their people. Isn’t it confusing to urge people to strive to be passionate about imitating God when we rightly confess that God has no passions?

Language changes over time, this is certain. And it may be that we are witnessing a change in the use of ‘passion’ and its derivatives. But it seems to me that Confessional Christians who are serious about the Scriptures ought to be careful in their use of language. We need to avoid confusion or confusing terms. It might be better for us to refrain from using this term in a positive sense, finding another to replace it. This would avoid the difficulty of telling our people to be passionate even when the Scriptures tell us to mortify our passion.

Are you passionate? Maybe you need to repent!

Then, later in the day, Bob Gonzales, Dean and Professor at Reformed Baptist Seminary, responded to Dr. Renihan's post in the following comments. Here is his post in its entirety:

Dear Jim,

Since you and I have recently interacted over this theme on the RBF group discussion list, I felt compelled to offer the readers a balancing perspective. Before I do, let me begin by affirming some areas where I agree with certain points of your post. First, I agree that many preachers today, myself included, use the term “passion” or “passionate” in a positive sense, usually to underscore the need to be fervent, devoted, and enthusiastic about Christ, the gospel, missions, etc. Second, I agree with you that “today, ‘passion’ is generally thought to be good.” A look at any modern dictionary reveals that the term “passion” does not usually carry the freight of negative connotations unless there are some accompanying negative modifiers. For example, the 2006Unabridged Random House Dictionary offers the following 12 definitions:

1. any powerful or compelling emotion or feeling, as love or hate.

2. strong amorous feeling or desire; love; ardor.3. strong sexual desire; lust.

4. an instance or experience of strong love or sexual desire.

5. a person toward whom one feels strong love or sexual desire.

6. a strong or extravagant fondness, enthusiasm, or desire for anything: a passion for music.

7. the object of such a fondness or desire: Accuracy became a passion with him.8. an outburst of strong emotion or feeling: He suddenly broke into a passion of bitter words.

9. violent anger.

10. the state of being acted upon or affected by something external, esp. something alien to one’s nature or one’s customary behavior (contrasted with action).

11. (often initial capital letter) Theology.

a. the sufferings of Christ on the cross or His sufferings subsequent to the Last
Supper.

b. the narrative of Christ’s sufferings as recorded in the Gospels.

12. Archaic. the sufferings of a martyr.

Of these definitions, #3, #8, and #9 seem to carry negative connotations though I don’t believe all “sudden outbursts of strong emotion or feeling” are necessarily sinful. But when preachers or theologians today speak of having a “passion for God” or being “passionate about winning souls” or “worshiping God passionately,” they obviously are using the terminology in keeping with uses #1, 2, 6, and/or 7. And thanks to Mel Gibson’s movie “The Passion” and Piper’s book The Passion of Christ, sense #11 has been somewhat revived and used for the sufferings of Christ. Third, I agree that the term “passions” when predicated of God in our Confession carries a negative connotation. If, as you claim, the Puritan framers of our Confession understood “passions” as “unrighteous attributes which have their source outside of God,” then, by definition, it is inappropriate for us to apply the term in this sense to God. Finally, I agree with you that language changes over time, which leads me to express some caveats regarding the general thrust of your post.

To begin with, the undeniable fact that the primary meaning of “passion” has evolves and is more commonly used within Christian circles in positive ways today invalidates the force of your argument. The English term “nice” used to mean "ignorant” or “stupid,” but I would never censure a 21st century person for
using that term to describe someone or something that was “pleasing, agreeable, or delightful.” Context, not etymology or historical usage, is the decisive factor. Take, for instance, the Greek term epithumia, which is normally translated “lust” and used negatively in Bible. The basic meaning of the term is “strong desire,” but it is predominantly used to describe sinful human desires. Nevertheless, this fact did not prevent Jesus or the apostles from using the term positively. Accordingly, Jesus says to his disciples, “I have earnestly desired [epithumia epethumesa; literally, ‘with lust I have lusted’] to eat this Passover with you before I suffer” (Luke 22:15 NAS). In Philippians 1:23, Paul writes, “I am hard-pressed from both directions, having the desire [epithumion] to depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better.” At the risk of an ad nauseam repetition, I’ll add one more example: “but we, brethren, having been bereft of you for a short while–in person, not in spirit– were all the more eager with great desire [polle epithumia] to see your face” (1 Thessalonians 2:17, NAS). Obviously, these examples endorse the use of a word in a positive sense that might otherwise have a predominantly negative idea. Once again, context decides. Conversely, as many preachers often overlook, the common Greek terminology for “love” (agape/agapao) can be used to predicate sinful lust (2 Sam. 13:1, 4, 15). So context, context, context is Lord, not Shakespeare, the KJV, or the 1689.

Of course, you did not merely argue from historical usage. You appealed to the way the New American Standard Bible uses the term. First, you cite Romans 1:26 where Paul tells us that “God gave [sinful and idolatrous people] up to vile passions.” The Greek term translated “passions” is pathos, and, like epithumia, its basic meaning is “strong desire.” The reader should not miss the fact that Paul places the noun translated “passions” in genitive construct with another noun meaning “dishonorable or vile,” indicating the kind of strong desire he has in view: pathe atimias; “passions of dishonor.” So it is not passions per se but dishonorable passions that Paul censures. Next you cite 1 Corinthians 7:9, which reads in full, “But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”
Interestingly, the final phrase “with passion” does not occur in the KJV or the original NAS. It is added in the Updated NAS and placed in italics since there is no corresponding Greek terminology behind it. But here the dynamic equivalent is warranted since the context makes clear that Paul has in view inappropriate sexual passions (see NLT, NET). In Galatians 5:24, Paul informs believers, “Those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires” (NAS). Here, Paul uses the term pathos (“passions”) in parallel with epithumia (“lusts”) and, most importantly, describes them as expressions of “the flesh” or sarx, which in Pauline usage definitely carries negative ethical connotations. So once again, it is not the mere words pathos or epithumia that constrain a negative meaning but their attachment to sarx or “the flesh” that circumscribes their semantic domain. By the way, I can understand why you chose to cite the rendering of the NAS rather than that of the KJV for this verse. The latter reads, “And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.” So apparently even the term “affection” could carry negative connotations in the 17th century. That doesn’t seem to sit well with the hard fast theological dichotomy you’ve drawn above! Finally, you quote Colossians 3:5: “Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.” Here it appears that you’re citing the New King James Version. Once again, this serves your purpose well since the original KJV uses the term “affection.” Of course, the 17th century Christian knew that Paul had a negative kind of affection in view. So the translators of the KJV wisely add the qualifier “inordinate” even though the Greek simply reads pathos. In doing so, these 17th century translators teach us an important lesson: an individual lexeme may have a semantic range that includes both positive or negative elements and context must decide the particular sense in view. And since the list of other terms accompanying pathos in this context are referring to sinful actions or impulses, then I agree with the decision of the KJV translators to add “inordinate” as well as the that of the NET translators, who translate pathos here as “shameful passion.”

I can appreciate your expertise in historical theology. It may be true that 17th century preachers and theologians preferred to use the term “affection” over “passion” when referring to God’s emotivity. That’s fine and well. But we no longer live in the 17th century. Therefore, I don’t think it right to bind the conscience of preachers or Christians to use theological terms whose meaning was not only capable of various senses in the 17th century but has changed over time. True, we should be aware of what the Puritans meant when they described God as “without passions.” But that doesn’t require us to parrot their terminology especially when it makes little sense to 21st century believers or non-believers. Indeed, your post has only served to strengthen my conviction that the language of our Confession needs to be updated to modern English in order to insure the clarity and intelligibility of the faith we confess (LBC 1.8). So I respectfully demur when you write,

“It might be better for us to refrain from using this term in a positive sense, finding another to replace it. This would avoid the difficulty of telling our people to be passionate even when the Scriptures tell us to mortify our passion.”

As you point out, “We need to avoid confusion or confusing terms.” But it better serves our people to teach them sound rather than artificial linguistic principles. Most people are smart enough to detect the difference in significance between the statements, “I love God” and “I love ice-cream.” Can’t we accord them enough intelligence to differentiate between being “passionate” for God and being “passionate” for illicit sex? Moreover, I fear that a post like yours will unfortunately bias the linguistically naïve to distrust otherwise sound preaching and teaching that speaks of things like, say, God’s Passion for His Own Glory. In my opinion, there has been too much oversimplified, backhanded Reformed Baptist polemics of this kind and it needs to stop. It is those who are not “passionate for God” who need to repent, not necessarily those who don’t form their language to the sometimes archaic usages of the 17th century.

In closing, Jim, I want to affirm my love and respect for you and your scholarship (which probably excels mine in many respects). Moreover, I would probably agree that the kind of “passion for God” or “passion in worship” some have in view today is simply shallow emotionalism. If that’s the beast you’re trying to shoot, then I’m with you. But I hate to see a good cause (i.e., preaching against spurious emotionalism, weak theology, or anti-confessionalism) injured by a poor argument. So I felt compelled to file a caveat.

Respectfully yours,

Bob Gonzales, Dean Reformed Baptist Seminary

I not only found this exhange very interesting, but I think it exhibits some of the real issues we have to grapple with as we seek to be confessional people in our current cultural milieu. This is why I reproduced the discussion here for this blog's readers.

Also, for what its worth, I definitely agree with Bob Gonzales. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts.

Robert Gonzales on the Danger of Reformed Traditionalism

Robert Gonzales, Dean and Professor at Reformed Baptist Seminary, has written a couple of excellent articles on "The Danger of Reformed Traditionalism." In part one he identifies the basic problem of subtly allowing faithfulness to a particular Reformed confession to undermine our commitment to the authority of Scripture. This is a problem I have encountered myself, particularly when dealing with people who have recently come to embrace Reformed theology. They allow their understandable excitement for all things Reformed to overwhelm the Bible in their thinking, and they usually don't see that they are doing it. As a matter of fact, they very often don't really even have a sound understanding of Reformed theology anyway, so that they are actually sifting Scripture through a distortion of Reformed theology. So in reality they are faithful neither to Scripture nor to Reformed theology!

But Gonzales is dealing with those who do accurately understand Reformed theology, but who nevertheless may succumb to the danger he is warning against. Here are a couple of excerpts from the first article:

I’m not implying that Reformed churches today are unconcerned with the Bible. On
the contrary, one of the reasons churches like ours appreciate the Reformed tradition is because of its emphasis upon the Scripture. Along with the Reformers, we continue to affirm the principle of sola Scriptura. But here is where the danger lies: whereas the Reformers evaluated the faith and practice of the church in the light of Scripture; some Reformed leaders today seem to evaluate the faith and practice of the church in the light of the Reformed tradition, especially in light of their Reformed Confession of Faith.
Actually, the danger is really more subtle. Few Reformed pastors today would begin their sermon by asking the congregation to turn to page 250 of Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion or to chapter 14 of the Westminster Confession of Faith. Like the 16th century Reformers, modern Reformed pastors endeavor to take God’s people back to the Scripture. With a growing interest in and appreciation for the Reformed tradition, however, there can be a tendency to look at the Bible only through the lens of Reformed tradition. In other words, there is a real danger of imposing the Reformed tradition as a grid over the Bible and then insisting that every interpretation and application must agree with that tradition.

In principle no Reformed pastor or theologian would elevate his tradition to the same level as Scripture. But in practice I believe there can be a very subtle tendency in that direction.

By the end of the article, Gonzales begins to direct his attention specifically toward the Reformed Baptist tradition:

I am, nevertheless, sensitive to the danger of creating the impression that our Baptist Confession is incapable of improvement or that the Confession has said everything that needs to be said or that teachings of the Bible must conform in proportion and emphasis to the teaching of our Confession. In order to prevent our esteem for the London Baptist Confession in particular or our Reformed heritage in general from subtly weakening our commitment to sola Scriptura, I suggest that (1) we beware of the danger of traditionalism and (2) we be aware of the limitations of our own Baptist Confession. In this post, I’ve tried to alert us to the danger of Reformed traditionalism. In the next post, I hope to provide an example of a limitation (or weakness) in our own 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith.

In part two, Gonzales not only cautions us more specifically about not allowing the Baptist Confession of 1689 to overwhelm our commitment to Sola Scriptura, he also suggests some changes to the confession in the process, even though he knows he may be sticking his neck out a bit.

So here’s where “the rubber meets the road.” It’s one thing to affirm one’s commitment to sola Scriptura and offer a general warning against an imbalanced commitment to one’s Confession of Faith. Most won’t object too strongly. It’s quite another thing, however, to venture suggestions as to how one’s Confession of Faith might have some deficiencies that need improvement. I don’t expect that all my readers will fully agree with all of my suggestions—at least immediately. But I do hope that you’ll give the matter careful prayer and reflection. In general, I think there are at least three ways in which the 1689 London Baptist Confession can be improved.

The three improvements Gonzales goes on to suggest are: 1) "updating the language of the confession," 2) "adding theological affirmations to the confession" (such as a clear statement on the Biblical roles of men and women), and 3) "making modest refinements to some doctrinal formulae" (such as "fine-tuning" some of the confession's statements about covenant theology).

I highly recommend reading both of these articles, and I am grateful to Robert Gonzales for having written them. Let me know what you think.

The Apostles' Creed: A Teaching Outline

I offer the following teaching outline for those who wish to familiarize others with the Apostles' creed. The outline assumes understanding of and agreement with the core doctrines of the faith expressed in the creed. Therefore, it only focuses attention on the later addition of questionable doctrines.

I. The Development of the Apostles' Creed

The late Church historian Philip Schaff gives an excellent brief summary of the development of the Apostles' Creed in the early Church:

As to the origin of the Apostles' Creed, it no doubt gradually grew out of the confession of Peter, Matt. Xvi. 16, which furnished its nucleus (the article on Jesus Christ), and out of the baptismal formula, which determined the trinitarian order and arrangement. It can not be traced to an individual author. It is the product of the Western Catholic Church (as the Nicene Creed is that of the Eastern Church) within the first four centuries. It is not of primary, apostolic, but of secondary, ecclesiastical inspiration. It is not a word of God to men, but a word of men to God, in response to his revelation. It was originally and essentially a baptismal confession, growing out of the inner life and practical needs of early Christianity. It was explained to the catechumens at the last stage of their preparation, professed by them at baptism, often repeated, with the Lord's Prayer, for private devotion, and afterwards introduced into public service. (Creeds of Christendom, Vol.1 “The History of the Creeds,” CCEL)

II. An Early Form of the Creed

Although not written by the Apostles themselves, the Creed does reflect Apostolic doctrine and a form of confession that is very ancient. It most likely originated in the form given here in the 3rd-4th centuries.

I believe in God the Father Almighty; Maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ His only Son, our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; the third day He rose from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit; the holy catholic Church; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen.

III. A Contemporary Form of the Creed

The more common form of the Creed, which is often cited as a part of corporate worship in Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant churches, is also a fuller form of the Creed. An example of this is # 716 in The Hymnal for Worship and Celebration (Word Music, 1986), which is used by many Evangelical Christians. I have included it here with brackets indicating additional phrases.

I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth:

And in Jesus Christ His only Son, our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; [He descended into hades]; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God, the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Christian church, [the communion of saints], the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

Notice that this version also alters the phrase “holy catholic Church” to read “holy Christian church.” This change is probably due to a desire to avoid confusion because many wrongly equate the term catholic with the Roman Catholic Church. However, the word as originally included in the Creed was simply intended to refer to the universal Church.

Neither the phrase “He descended into hades” (wrongly translated in some English versions as hell rather than hades) nor the phrase “the communion of saints” was included in early forms of the Creed, and I think it best that we not include them either.

IV. An Argument for Retaining the Earlier Form of the Creed

A. An Argument for Excluding the Phrase “He descended into Hades”:

First, as was noted above, this phrase was not a part of the earliest versions of the Creed, as Wayne Grudem correctly points out:

It is surprising to find that the phrase 'he descended into hell' was not found in any of the early versions of the Creed (in the versions used in Rome, in the rest of Italy, and in Africa) until it appeared in one of two versions from Rufinus in A.D. 390. Then it was not included in any version of the Creed until A.D. 650. Moreover, Rufinus, the only person who included it before A.D. 650, did not think that it meant that Christ descended into hell, but understood the phrase simply to mean that Christ was 'buried.' In other words, he took it to mean that Christ 'descended into the grave.' (The Greek form was hades, which can mean just 'grave,' not gehenna, 'hell, place of punishment.')" (Systematic Theology, p. 586)

Second, it does not seem wise to me to include such a questionable doctrine in a creed designed to set forth only some of the most basic and essential doctrines of the faith. For example, I and many other Christians do not think that the view that Christ descended into hades can be established with certainty from Scripture. This can be demonstrated by a closer examination of the primary texts often cited as a basis for the doctrine.

a) 1 Peter 3:18-20:

NKJ 1 Peter 3:18-20 “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, 19 by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.”

In my view, Peter is referring to Christ's having preached through Noah to those who had been alive while Noah was building the ark, but who are now "spirits in prison."

Observe that Peter tells us that Jesus was made alive by the Spirit and that it is also by the Spirit that He "went and preached" (past tense) to the spirits "in prison," which indicates their present status, but does not have to mean that they were "spirits in prison" at the time the preaching was done. Peter has previously spoken of the way in which the "Spirit of Christ" had been testifying through the Old Testament prophets and foretelling the coming sufferings of Jesus:

NKJ 1 Peter 1:10-11 “Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, 11 searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow.”

So, it would not be strange if Peter were to speak of Jesus' having spoken also through Noah, as he prepared the ark, to those who are now "spirits in prison." As a matter of fact, Peter elsewhere speaks of Noah's having been a "preacher of righteousness":

NKJ 2 Peter 2:4-5 “For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly....”

The Greek word Peter uses to refer to Noah as a "preacher" is kerux, which is the noun form of the same word used to refer to Jesus' having "preached" (kerusso) to the spirits now in prison.

In my opinion, all of this supports my interpretation of the text, an interpretation that has been around for quite some time, having been proposed, for example, by Augustine.

b) Acts 2:27:

NKJ Acts 2:27 “For You will not leave my soul in Hades, nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.”

Here Peter is quoting Psalm 16:10 with reference to Jesus, which in the Hebrew refers to God's not allowing Him to remain in sheol, and which in this verse refers to the grave (not to Hades as a reference to the place of the intermediate state). That this interpretation is best is demonstrated by the reference in the latter part of the verse to "corruption." Unfortunately, the NKJV that I have quoted simply transliterates the Greek word hades (which is itself the Greek translation of the Hebrew sheol) and the KJV has "hell" (which is not a good translation of either the Hebrew sheol or the Greek hades).

c) Ephesians 4:8-10:

NKJ Ephesians 4:8-10 “Therefore He says: 'When He ascended on high, He led captivity captive, and gave gifts to men.' 9 (Now this, 'He ascended'-- what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.)”

The phrase "descended into the lower parts of the earth" is sometimes taken to refer to a descent into Hades, but the text certainly doesn't say this, nor does it need to be understood this way. The NIV, for example, brings out what is most likely the intent by translating the phrase, "he also descended to the lower, earthly regions." That is, Paul is referring to Christ's incarnation.

B. An Argument for Excluding the Phrase “the communion of the saints”:

As noted above, this phrase was not a part of the earliest versions of the Creed. It also suggests a later, improper understanding of our relationship to the saints in Heaven. Philip Schaff has observed:

The article 'Commumionem sanctorum,' unknown to Augustine (Enchir. c. 64, and Serm. 213), appears first in the 115th and 118th Sermons De Tempore, falsely attributed to him. It is not found in any of the Greek or earlier Latin creeds. See the note of Pearson On the Creed, Art. IX. sub 'The Communion of Saints' (p. 525, ed. Dobson). Heurtley, p. 146, brings it down to the close of the eighth century, since it is wanting in the Creed of Etherius, 785. The oldest commentators understood it of the communion with the saints in heaven, but afterwards it assumed a wider meaning: the fellowship of all true believers, living and departed. (Creeds of Christendom, Vol.1 “The History of the Creeds,” CCEL)

The discerning Evangelical Christian will quickly recognize the problem with this phrase, which is the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox overtones of praying to the saints, a practice rightly rejected by the Reformers and all who follow in their footsteps as incongruent with Scripture.

V. The Value of the Apostles' Creed for Contemporary Christians

I would suggest a number of benefits of using the Apostles' Creed in contemporary worship.

First, use of the Creed reminds us of our heritage as Christians and of God's past work in preserving the Church from error. It thus leads us to praise Him for His faithfulness to past generations and to be encouraged that He will be faithful to us also.

Second, through its simplicity the Creed reminds us of the child-like faith with which we must all come before God.

Third, through its Trinitarian structure, the Creed reminds us of the centrality of the doctrine of the Trinity to the Christian faith.

Fourth, it reminds us of the importance of maintaining our faith in our sovereign God as Creator. This is especially true in light of the modern error of evolution.

Fifth, through its emphasis upon the historical fact of Christ's birth and crucifixion (note, e.g., the references to Mary and Pontius Pilate), it reminds us of the great importance of the historicity of the incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. This is especially important in the light of so much modern criticism of the Bible in which the account of Jesus is viewed merely as myth.

VI. The Inadequacy of the Apostles' Creed as a Primary Statement of Faith for Contemporary Christians

Although beneficial to Christians as a reminder of some crucial doctrines of the faith and beautiful in its simplicity, the Creed is nevertheless insufficient to provide a complete summary of essential doctrines. Philip Schaff wisely observes:

[The Apostles' Creed] is by far the best popular summary of the Christian faith ever made within so brief a space. It still surpasses all later symbols for catechetical and liturgical purposes, especially as a profession of candidates for baptism and church membership. It is not a logical statement of abstract doctrines, but a profession of living facts and saving truths. It is a liturgical poem and an act of worship. Like the Lord's Prayer, it loses none of its charm and effect by frequent use, although, by vain and thoughtless repetition, it may be made a martyr and an empty form of words. It is intelligible and edifying to a child, and fresh and rich to the profoundest Christian scholar, who, as he advances in age, delights to go back to primitive foundations and first principles. It has the fragrance of antiquity and the inestimable weight of universal consent. It is a bond of union between all ages and sections of Christendom. It can never be superseded for popular use in church and school.

At the same time, it must be admitted that the very simplicity and brevity of this Creed, which so admirably adapt it for all classes of Christians and for public worship, make it insufficient as a regulator of public doctrine for a more advanced stage of theological knowledge. As it is confined to the fundamental articles, and expresses them in plain Scripture terms, it admits of an indefinite expansion by the scientific mind of the Church. Thus the Nicene Creed gives clearer and stronger expression to the doctrine of Christ's divinity against the Arians, the Athanasian Creed to the whole doctrine of the Trinity and of Christ's person against the various heresies of the post-Nicene age. The Reformation Creeds are more explicit on the authority and inspiration of the Scriptures and the doctrines of sin and grace, which are either passed by or merely implied in the Apostles' Creed. (Creeds of Christendom, Vol.1 “The History of the Creeds,” CCEL)

VII. Summary Concerning the Apostles' Creed

The Apostles' Creed as originally developed and used by the Church should be cherished by contemporary Christians as a valuable and helpful part of our Christian heritage. It should not be dismissed so easily and glibly as is often done by modern Baptists in particular. However, we should use it with a proper awareness of the later additions to the Creed, not assuming that these later additions truly reflect the ancient consensus of the Church. And we should be careful not to use it as though it provides a complete statement of faith for the contemporary Church, for we have been obliged to make more explicit many crucial doctrines as they have later come under attack.