Updating and Refining the 1689 Baptist Confession: Adding Important Doctrinal Affirmations
Creeds and confessions are usually born out of circumstances that threaten the doctrinal and practical integrity of the church. Historically, they have been the church’s response to erroneous or heretical teachings that arise from within or without the church. In the Early Church, the debates focused largely on Christology. Hence, the great Christological creeds of Nicene and Chalcedon. During the Reformation, the Lutheran and continental Reformed symbols addressed questions related to religious authority, divine sovereignty and human responsibility, the nature and means of justification, and the nature of the sacraments contra Roman Catholic tradition. The English Puritans brought further refinements to the Reformed tradition in addressing issues related to church government and corporate worship in response to what they perceived to be errors in the Anglican Church.
So the historical creeds and confessions addressed the doctrines and issues most under attack or needing clarification in their day. We shouldn’t be surprised, therefore, if these older creeds, including the 1689, fail to address clearly and explicitly some of the controversies or needs that face the twenty-first century church. In the next four posts, I’ll highlight four particular areas that need to be addressed at a confessional level.1
B.G.
Comments are closed.
This kind of writing will get you taken off of someones, “possible conference speakers schedule”… You do know that….right? I am convinced that we are holding our confessional positions as though they were “conceived in a vacuum” rather than in a unique “context”. If the framers of the 1689 had any idea of the near idolatrous use of their work by future generations they would have smashed it before it could be used to divide brethren of like mind and heart for the truth. When will “historical theology” stop being the “tail that wags the dog” in the context of contemporary theological issues?
Thank you for your comments…
Dear Don,
I certainly hope my RB brothers wouldn’t react in that kind of fashion. As I noted in the first post of this series, the very concept of updating, revising, or even recasting a confession of faith is the “Reformed thing to do” (according to R. Scott Clark who’s a pretty confessional guy). We’re not denigrating the 1689 when we speak of updating or revising it where needed. We’re actually talking about making “a good thing better.”
Nevertheless, I have encountered some resistance. And it’s possible, as you suggest, that I won’t get invited to speak at certain conferences as a result of this series of posts. That’s okay (I don’t get invited to speak at too many conferences anyway
). I’ll still love my brothers who don’t agree. But my highest loyalty is to God’s inspired Word, not to the Reformed tradition however venerable that tradition may be. My primary burden is to defend and promote the Bible, not to preserve “untouched” a certain ecclesiastical tradition. Indeed, the latter is very un-Reformed since it undermines the Reformation principles of sola Scriptura and semper reformanda.
I agree with your concern that “historical theology” not be allowed too high a normative place in determining our position on contemporary theological issues. I was always taught to draw a solid line from exegetical/biblical theology to systematic/practical theology and to draw a dotted line from historical theology from systematic/practical. The reason has always seemed pretty obvious to me. We should spend more time exegeting Scripture than exegeting the Confession. The Confession is just a guide, not a fetter.
Thanks for your input, brother!
B.G.
Even though my ministry is in Spanish, and we use a good translation of the 1689, I can understand the desire to update the language and clarify and augment our confession in the light of recent controversies. In my case, I think I would probably always have the original 1689 to refer to. But there are some things that make me think that it would be good if something could be done to update and refine, or at least have some appendices approved by many that would have fairly widespread approval.
For example, several years ago, Greg Nichols presented a proposed revision of the chapter on the covenant of grace which has been a big help to me and which I have used in teaching.
Also for me there are a couple of things in the chapter on Repentance where it is not easy to understand in what was the exact intent of the Baptists. That chapter could be clearer as far as I am concerned.
And without taking the heat off the pope (who up to this day still gets my vote for the man of sin in 2 Thess 2), we might make the language a little less absolute, just a little.
There are other matters. It seems that some have tried to work on this seriously. Has there been any success. Who has the ability, the time, the contacts and good will to produce a more up to date version that can find some general acceptance?
Pastor Vater,
So thankful for your input and encouragement. I’m actually aware of the attempted 1988-89 revision. There was some good stuff there. I’ll be referencing some of it in a few of my future posts in this series.
From what I’ve read, the 1689 was largely the work of two Particular Baptist pastors, utilizing and revising the WCF and Savoy. Initially, their church and a few other churches endorsed their “Baptist” revision in 1677. It wasn’t until over a decade later (1689) that a much larger number of churches adopted and signed off on the Confession.
Maybe that’s how something like this can happen today. A few gifted men like a Greg Nichols, Sam Waldron, Robert Martin, James Renihan, Richard Barcellos, and others could work together on a language update and revision. Initially, the updated version may only be adopted by a handful of churches. Those same churches could continue to indicate in their constitutions their affirmation of the original 1689. But the newer version would become the more official version in those particular churches. Over time, other churches might come to appreciate and use the newer versions. More interaction could take place, further adjustments and rewording. Finally, the result (maybe after a decade or so) could be over 100 churches or more signing off on a “Reformed Baptist Confession of Faith for the 21st Century.”
I don’t think such a scenario is impossible.
Once again, deeply appreciate your input!
Dr.Bob,
This best supplement that I have found as a RB….is this:
http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/a-baptist-catechism-with-commentary/6135589
It is 333 pages loaded with 173 questions,answers and pastoral commentary that is totally Christ Centered.
I personally believe this could be used of God to strengthen our families,and local churches.
It is contemporary and comparable in my estimation to what Dagg wrote in his Manual of theology……yet is is well written,and the explanations,word descriptions, and verses make it family friendly.
The section on assurance of faith on pages 218-221 is worth the price of the book alone.
I have encouraged dozens of saints to purchase this tool.
Any one page can launch a bible study in and of itself.
As a RB….. I can glean from it more than that written by G.I . Williamson.
I would welcome any feed back from you or men at the seminary on it. I bought an addition 28 copies, that I have purposed to put in the hands of several men {such as yourself}….and the brethren in Louisville.
I wish someone would have told me about this tool.
I have been driving up to the northwest alot, so I have not gotten close to Easley/Greenville area to hand you a copy.
If you buy one…and for any reason do not care for something in it, I will buy it from you…no questions asked…..it is that good.
Brother Tony, thank you so much for posting that resource. I haven’t met Pastor Downing personally, but I have a friend who knows and speaks highly of him. I will definitely place this on my “wish list.”
Blessings, my brother!
S.G.B.C.S.V……many good resources on the site, literature and sermons, lectures…..you would enjoy interacting with DR.Downing!