Updating and Refining the 1689 Baptist Confession: Affirming Inerrancy
As Michael Horton observes, “Inerrancy was assumed more than explicitly formulated until it was challenged” in the later nineteenth and twentieth centuries.1. But with the advent of modernism, neo-orthodoxy, and neo-evangelicalism, the exact nature and extent of the Bible’s inspiration and infallibility came under intense debate. Evidence of this is seen in the emergence of many publications addressing the issue.2.
The Nature and Scope of Inerrancy
The debate centered largely on the question of the nature and scope of the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. Modernism tended to question whether Scripture was divine revelation at all, or it relegated Scripture to just one more form of general revelation. Neo-orthodoxy affirmed that Scripture bore witness to divine revelation but that Scripture itself was not intrinsically divine revelation. For the neo-orthodox, the Bible only becomes inspired revelation when and insofar as God uses it to reveal himself to the reader. Neo-evangelicalism tended either to adopt a neo-orthodox view of Scripture or to advocate what eventually became known as “limited inerrancy.” Vincent McCann provides a succinct summary of this latter position:
One of the most common themes that is raised by those who hold to a limited inerrancy is that the Bible is of use in the lives of the believer in the areas of “faith and practice” only. This position allows, however, for the possibility of false statements in the Bible in areas such as science and history. It is said by advocates of this position that it need not be a concern to the Christian that the Bible contains historical, scientific, and factual errors because the purpose of the Bible is to merely instruct the believer in the life they should live.
McCann also notes, “Those who hold to this position prefer to say that the Bible is ‘infallible,’ but hesitate in using the word ‘inerrant.’”3 Wayne Grudem also notes this shift in the usage of infallibility: “Until about 1960 or 1965 the word infallible was used interchangeably with the word inerrant. But in recent years, at least in the United States, the word infallible has been used in a weaker sense to mean that the Bible will not lead us astray in matters of faith and practice.4
Daniel Fuller, professor emeritus of Fuller Seminary, provides a prime example of the limited inerrantist position. Recounting the Fuller Seminary’s shift in its position of Scripture, historian George Marsden notes how Fuller was able to affirm the inerrancy, on the one hand, yet limit inerrancy, on the other hand:
[Fuller] observed that Article II of the creed, that concerning Scripture, combined the statement that the Bible was inerrant with the classic formula that it was “the only infallible rule of faith and practice.” That phrase, Fuller argued, implied that it was as a rule of faith and practice that the Bible was “free from error in the whole and in the part.”5
In point of fact, Fuller was not the first one to suggest this limitation. Towards the end of the 19th century, Reformed scholars like Charles A. Briggs and Henry P. Smith argued that the Westminster Standards’ predication of infallibility to Scripture extended only to matters of religious “faith and life.”6 But it wasn’t until the mid-20th century that the “limited inerrancy” position became more widely promoted in evangelical circles.7 This growing tendency to circumscribe or limit the scope of Scripture’s inerrancy prompted a response from evangelical leaders concerned to protect the verbal and plenary inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture.
Evangelicals and Inerrancy
In 1977 a broad spectrum of evangelicals banded together to form the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy.8 The council commissioned several biblical scholars to compose a confessional statement. As a result, “The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” was published in 1978 with over three hundred signatories.9 The document consists of an introduction, prefatory statement, and nineteen articles. Its primary aim is to counter and refute erroneous views of inspiration advanced by neo-orthodox and neo-evangelical theologians, who attempt to redefine inspiration and limit infallibility. Article XII is especially relevant:
We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.
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. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.
A number of evangelical bodies followed suit and incorporated some affirmation of inerrancy in their doctrinal standards. In 1996, the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (ACE) produced “The Cambridge Declaration,” which identifies the Scripture as “inerrant.”10 More recently, Together for the Gospel (T4G), a cooperative effort of contemporary Calvinist pastors launched in 2006, adopted a statement of “Affirmations and Denials.” Article I affirms that the Bible is “inerrant” and denies that it’s “a mere witness to the divine revelation, or that any portion of Scripture is marked by error or the effects of human sinfulness.”11 Likewise, The Gospel Coalition affirms the Scriptures to be “verbally inspired” and “without error in the original writings.”12 The churches of some of the leaders involved in these organizations have also incorporated affirmations of inerrancy in their official confessions.13
Reformed Baptists and Inerrancy
The 1689 begins its doctrine of Scripture with the assertion, “The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.” Interestingly, this opening affirmation does not appear in the Westminster or Savoy though all three confessions elsewhere affirm the Scripture as “infallible” (1.5, 9) and the sufficient and authoritative rule for “faith and life” (1.2, 6). I think it’s correct to conclude from these confessional statements that our Puritan and Particular Baptist forefathers believed the Scriptures to be truthful and without error. However, as noted above, modern theologians within the Reformed church and others within broader evangelical circles affirm the language of the older creeds but circumscribe or limit the scope of “saving knowledge, faith, and obedience” or “faith and life” to matters of religious knowledge as opposed to areas of knowledge deemed secular in nature and non-essential to the religious doctrine or ethic being affirmed in Scripture.
Have Reformed Baptist churches followed their evangelical brothers in responding to this modern challenge and articulating a more clear and comprehensive doctrine of the inerrancy?
In 1984, Pastor Joseph Gwynn published the Hampton Roads Confession of Faith, which drew from the Westminster Confession, the First and Second London Baptist confessions, and the Philadelphia Confession of Faith. The first article of chapter one on “Holy Scripture” affirms the “Bible is the only infallible, inerrant, and sufficient writing that shall ever exist in the world.” The seventh article acknowledges that the Scriptures are “not intended to be a textbook on science”; nevertheless, “whenever the Bible does comment upon any scientific subject, it is absolutely accurate.” To my knowledge, this confession was only adopted by Gwynn’s local church, Kempsville Chapel.14
A few years later, 1988-89, three Reformed Baptist congregations composed a revision of the Second London Baptist Confession in order to address issues facing the modern church.15 Four paragraphs were added to chapter one “Of the Holy Scriptures,” each of which treats and develops the concept of inerrancy. Paragraph 11 is relevant for our purposes:
The Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek, being thus inspired and preserved by God and therefore authentic (authoritative and trustworthy), are both infallible (incapable of being wrong or mistaken) and inerrant (entirely free from error). Accordingly, whatever they state or pronounce is entirely reliable, completely accurate, and totally true, whether they speak respecting history, science doctrine, ethics, religious practice, or any other topic.16
A Baptist revision of the Shorter Catechism was published in 1991 which affirms inerrancy, employing nearly the same but more concise language:
Q3: Are the Scriptures trustworthy in all that they affirm?
The Scriptures of both the Old and New Testaments, being God-breathed, are infallible and inerrant in all their parts and are, therefore, trustworthy in all that they affirm concerning history, science, doctrine, ethics, religious practice, or any other topic.17
Both of these statements are concise yet remarkably comprehensive. I’m presently aware of only one Reformed Baptist church that adopted the 1988-89 revision as its official doctrinal statement.18 Reformed Baptist Seminary incorporated the language from these articles on inerrancy into its doctrinal beliefs.19 The Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America (ARBCA) affirms the Scriptures to be “inerrant” in its constitution20, as do many local Reformed Baptist congregations.
Reformed Baptists obviously believe the doctrine of inerrancy is vitally important. Because the doctrine of Scripture is foundational to all our other beliefs and because inerrancy is still under attack, I believe a more clear and comprehensive (yet concise) affirmation of inerrancy should be included in a revision of the 1689 and given confessional status. Elevating an affirmation of inerrancy to a confessional level rather than relegating it to a constitutional level testifies to our evangelical brothers and to the world the paramount importance we as Reformed Baptists attach to this doctrine.
B.G.
Update (Nov 1, 2011): Due to the helpful and constructive criticism of two brothers (see the discussion below), I’ve slightly expanded and clarified some remarks in the article above, which was originally posted on Oct 29, 2011.
- The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 184. [↩]
- B. B. Warfield led the way with a series of articles later incorporated into a book entitled The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, ed. Samuel G. Craig (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1948). A number of works followed including Stuart Custer, Does Inspiration Demand Inerrancy? A Study of the Biblical Doctrine of Inspiration in the Light of Inerrancy (Nutley, NJ: The Craig Press, 1968); Harold Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976); James M. Boice, Does Inerrancy Matter? (Oakland, CA: International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, 1979); D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge, ed., Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986). For a more recent treatment, see G. K. Beale, The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to Biblical Authority (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2008). [↩]
- Vincent McCann, “The Bible: Inerrant and Infallible?”: http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk/inner.htm (accessed Nov 1, 2011). [↩]
- emphasis added; Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 93n2. [↩]
- emphasis added; Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 216. Fuller expounds his position in his essay, “Benjamin B. Warfield’s View of Faith and History,” Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society II (1968): 75-83. [↩]
- For a discussion of this controversy over the nature and extent of the Bible’s infallibility and inerrancy in the PC USA, Lefferts A. Loetscher, The Broadening Church (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1957). Henry P. Smith’s full defense of the charges of heresy brought against him are recorded in Inspiration and lnerrancy (1893; repr. Nabu Press, 2010). [↩]
- Proponents of this view include the following: G. C. Berkhouwer, Holy Scriptures (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975); Dewey Beegle, The Inspiration of Scripture (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963); Jack Rogers and Donald McKim, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1979); Steven T. Davis, The Debate about the Bible: Inerrancy versus Infallibility (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977); Richard Coleman, “Reconsidering ‘Limited Inerrancy,’” JETS 17:2 (1974): 207-214. [↩]
- Records of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy can be accessed here: http://library.dts.edu/Pages/TL/Special/ICBI.shtml. [↩]
- The text and expositions of the statement can be found in a number of websites on the Internet. It was also published under “Appendix 1: Historical Confessions of Faith” in Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 1203-1207. [↩]
- For more information about ACE and to access the “Declaration,” see the website: http://www.alliancenet.org/. [↩]
- See http://t4g.org/aboutus/affirmations-and-denials-2/. [↩]
- See http://thegospelcoalition.org/about/foundation-documents/confessional/. [↩]
- The “Elder Affirmation of Faith” of Bethlehem Baptist Church, where John Piper serves, affirms, “The Bible … is the infallible Word of God, verbally inspired by God, and without error in the original manuscripts.” The doctrinal standards of Sovereign Grace Ministries, of which C. J. Mahaney’s church is part, declares the Bible to be “fully and verbally inspired by God” and “free from all error in all it teaches.” Mars Hill Church, where Mark Driscoll serves as a pastor, confesses “the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the verbally inspired word of God, the final authority for faith and life, inerrant in the original writings, infallible, and God-breathed.” These statements can be located on each of the church’s website. [↩]
- The title on the cover of the copy I have reads, The Christian Faith: A Contemporary Confession. But in the foreword, Pastor Gwynn refers to it as the Hampton Roads Confession of Faith (1983-84). He also acknowledges his indebtedness to the feedback and constructive criticism of Dr. William Lumpkin, Baptist historian and author of Baptist Confessions of Faith (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1959). [↩]
- Trinity Baptist Church of Montville, NJ, the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI, and Grace Reformed Baptist Church of Mebane, NC. For a PDF of the “Draft Version,” click here. [↩]
- Greg Nichols, who currently serves as a pastor of Grace Immanuel Baptist Church in Grand Rapids and who was one of the primary contributors to the revision, sent me a copy of the original. [↩]
- The Shorter Catechism: A Baptist Version (Avinger, TX: Simpson Publishing Company, 1991). An online version of the second edition (2003) is available here: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/23692235/The-Shorter-Catechism—A-Baptist-Version. [↩]
- Immanuel Baptist Church of Sacramento, CA. [↩]
- “We believe in the verbal and plenary inspiration of both the Old and New Testaments of Holy Scripture (66 books) in their original autographs. We believe that the Scriptures are infallible and inerrant in all their parts and are, therefore, trustworthy and authoritative in all that they affirm concerning history, science, doctrine, ethics, religious practice, or any other topic.” The seminary’s full statement of doctrinal beliefs can be accessed here: http://www.rbseminary.org/doctrinal-beliefs/. [↩]
- ARBCA’s constitution can be accessed here: http://www.arbca.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=71&Itemid=65. [↩]
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
Comments are closed.
Though I agree that inerrancy was not challenged until well after the Confession was written, this does not mean it does not address the issue. “The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience” (2nd LCF 1:1a). The concept of inerrancy seems to be present in the word “certain.” Also, infallibility (2nd LCF 1:1a) implies inerrancy. Inspiration is mentioned in 1:2b and 1:8. This seems to imply inerrancy as well. Let’s not loose the concept for the word.
“Have Reformed Baptist churches followed their evangelical brothers in affirming the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture?” Per above, I think it is affirmed and I am pretty sure that none have denied it.
If someone wants to change the word “certain” to “inerrant” I suppose that’s ok. I am just not convinced it is necessary. Just wondering, have any WCF communions added a statement on the inerrancy of Scripture and if not, why not? I think not (I could be wrong.). The answer is probably because they view the doctrine as covered by the statements of their Confession.
Also, I have pastored in two RB churches over a 21 year period. I have never had to deal with anyone wanting to join the church who did not believe in inerrancy, nor has anyone ever claimed the Confession is deficient at this point, nor have I ever heard anyone outside of RB circles claim the Confession is deficient at this point. I don’t want to make too much of the confessional statements, but neither do I want to make too little of them and spend time on issues that are not real issues. As the Confession stands, 1) it does not deny inerrancy and 2) I think it affirms it, though not using the word. If that’s the case, and I think it is, I do not think it necessary to change a word (but if folks want to, that’s fine by me) or add a section which, in my judgment, would be redundant.
Rich,
Thanks for sharing your perspective. Let me offer a few reflections on your comments …
(1) I don’t deny that the framers of the WCF, Savoy, and 1689 believed the Bible was free from error. My question is whether or not they stated the doctrine clearly and definitively enough so as to preclude the need for any further confessional articulation.
(2) The very fact that many evangelical churches including confessionally Reformed churches have felt the need to say something more–even if it’s only in their church constitution–suggests to me that they do not see the language of the Confession as it stands sufficiently clear or definitive. Otherwise, why did men like the late James Montgomery Boice, who subscribed to the Westminster Standards, help to frame and promote “The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy”? Why did other Westminster Standards adherents like Jay Adams, Edmund Clowney, William Barker, Cal Beisner, Greg Bahnsen, John Frame, Richard Gaffin, et al, feel the need publicly to endorse as signatories the CSBI if their 17th century Confession sufficiently and clearly articulated the doctrine of inerrancy? Why did three well-known Reformed Baptist churches draft a revision in 1988-89, adding paragraphs on the doctrine of Scripture to express not only that they affirm the Bible to be “inerrant” but also to identify the scope of inerrancy?
(3) The Confession, as it stands, affirms the Scripture to be “the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.” You and I would infer inerrancy from this statement. But as you know, many neo-orthodox and neo-evangelical writers could affirm this statement as far as it goes, interpreting the scope of inerrancy as applying more narrowly to matters pertaining to “saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.” It’s these modern attempts to limit or circumscribe the nature and scope of Scripture’s infallibility that prompted many evangelicals, including Reformed pastors and theologians, to say something more than merely parroting the words of the 17th century confessions. Hence, Greg Nichols and Sam Waldron were wise, in my judgment, to expand the 1689′s teaching with the following: “The Scriptures of both the Old and New Testaments, being God-breathed, are infallible and inerrant in all their parts and are, therefore, trustworthy in all that they affirm concerning history, science, doctrine, ethics, religious practice, or any other topic.” In my estimation, such a statement isn’t “redundant” but is much clearer and more definitive than what’s in the Confession as it presently stands.
(4) In light of the above, I’m not sure I agree with you that this doctrine is “not a real issue.” Last I checked, existential and post-modern hermeneutics are still alive and well. We need a Confession that reflects the best of yesterday’s theology, but we also need a Confession that speaks clearly and adequately to today’s issues and errors.
In sum, I agree with you that the Confession doesn’t deny inerrancy, and I agree that the doctrine might be inferred from what’s said. But I’m simply arguing that this is one way in which the 1689 could be improved. As I stated it in my introductory post, I’m talking about making an already good thing better.
Cordially yours,
Bob G.
(1) (a) I didn’t say you did and (b) I know.
(2) True enough. But did they add to the Westminster Standards? If not, why not?
(3) I know they have tried but it does not work.
(4) (a) Post-modernists can make it mean whatever they want no matter what language we use. (b) I understand your concern and what you are arguing for.
One last thing, then I’m going to bed. An infallible Bible is necessarily an inerrant Bible. If it is incapable of error, it follows, of
necessity, that it does not error. I know you agree with that!
Rich,
You sure are a “tough sell,” my brother.
I’m not sure I can satisfactorily answer your question as to whether any denominations holding to the Westminster Standards have modified its statement on Scripture to address more clearly the doctrine of verbal, plenary inspiration and inerrancy. And if not, why not? These are good questions, but one would have to be privy to all the discussions among presbyteries and general assemblies, I suppose, to have an answer. Sure wish they’d change their Confession on baptism.
Blessings!
B.G.
Just came across Keith Throop’s article at the Reformed Baptist Blog where he too thinks the Confession’s language as it stands is inadequate. He addresses this and suggests modification here.
I just want to add this fact which I got from Dr. Michael Haykin. Dr. Haykin points out that noted Baptist historian Dr.Tom Nettles has argued that the word “certain” in the 2nd LBC 1.1a is another word for the modern day word of inerrancy. (Dr. Haykin quotes the source as the study done by Dr. Nettles and Ross Bush on Baptists and the Bible.)
You can listen it for yourself from Dr. Haykin here (around 33mins into the lecture) : http://www.sermonaudio.com/playpopup.asp?SID=10110715164710
If this fact is true then the 2nd LBC does state inerrancy in its confessionm, not exactly in the terminology of our day, still however precluding the need for any further confessional articulation.
Would love to hear your thoughts Dr.Gonzales..
Keep writing.. love your writing, lectures, preaching and teaching..
God bless you..
Sincerely in Christ
Jay
Jay,
Thanks for stopping by and visiting the blog. Since you asked for my thoughts, I’ll share them …
(1) First, it may be helpful if I restate my thesis for this series of our study. In Part 3 (Adding Important Theological Affirmations), I contend that the 17th century Puritan confessions “fail to address clearly and explicitly some of the controversies or needs that face the twenty-first century church” (emphasis added). So the point is not whether or not the 1689 addresses a theological issue. The point, rather, is whether it addresses that doctrine clearly and sufficiently to speak to the particular issues and/or errors of our day. This is the same point I made to Richard above: “My question is whether or not they stated the doctrine clearly and definitively enough so as to preclude the need for any further confessional articulation.” I hope that my readers will keep this in view when they offer criticisms of my proposal.
(2) I have no doubt that the term “certain” meant something like “true” or “factual” in the 17th century. (One can see this in the KJV usage, e.g.s., Deut 13:14; 1 Kings 2:37; 1 Tim 6:7.) Indeed, that’s still one of the usages of “certain” today (see usage #4 in 2011 Random House here). For some reason, though, modern Bible scholars and theologians do not normally use that term when speaking specifically of the doctrine of inerrancy. In other words, the term “certain” does not normally carry in our day the same theological connotations vis-a-vis the Scriptures as does the more precise technical term “inerrancy.” For that reason, I was disappointed to find that neither S. M. Houghton’s nor Stan Reeves’ modern English version employ “inerrant” for the term “certain.” I think “inerrant” is a term packed with a lot of theological freight and does a better job of communicating the biblical view of Scripture.
(3) I said this above to Richard and I’ll say it again. In the 20th century, many theologians and pastors promoted what is called “limited inerrancy” or “limited infallibility.” That is, the Scriptures always speak truthfully when addressing matters of faith and religion. But the Scriptures, argue these scholars, may sometimes reflect primitive and erroneous views when speaking of topics like history, science, or even general ethics that fall outside the scope of faith and religion. Such theologians and pastors could without much difficulty affirm that “the Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience” (emphasis added; 2nd LCF 1:1a). You and I might retort, “But that’s not what the Puritans meant–they didn’t intend to limit the sufficiency, certainty, and infallibility of Scripture only to matters of “saving knowledge, faith, and [religious] obedience.” We would be correct and could probably collect a lot of historical evidence to support our contention. But the fact remains that the language of the older Puritan confessions isn’t as clear and as sufficiently stated as it could be–especially for our day. That’s one reason why many Reformed men joined with other conservative evangelicals to draft The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. In doing so, they invested in the term “inerrant” a certain theological weight and meaning that the term “certain” fails to carry.
(4) Perhaps you could tell me which of the two following statements more adequately articulates the full verbal and plenary inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture:
(1988-89 proposed revision of the 1689).
Once again, I’m not arguing that the first statement says nothing about inerrancy. The question is whether it says enough. More precisely, the question is whether in light of recent 20th and 21st century attacks against the doctrine of Scripture we should have a confession that articulates this attribute of Scripture a little more clearly and comprehensively. I’m of the opinion it’s time to update and refine our Confession on this point.
(5) I’ve often heard 1689ers criticize the 1833 New Hampshire Confession of faith on the basis that it doesn’t go far enough. The NHC affirms the doctrines of “election,” “the abiding validity of the Law,” and the Lord’s Day as a “Christian Sabbath.” However, argue some 1689 men, the NHC doesn’t articulate those doctrines as clearly and as sufficiently as they need to be stated and as they are stated in the 1689. As a consequence, they aver, the NHC weakens these doctrines and opens the door to Arminianism and Antinomianism. I don’t want to debate the relative merits or deficiencies of the NHC. But I simply want to note what seems an inconsistency to me: why are some 1689ers quick to point out the deficiencies and shortcomings of other creeds while boasting of the comprehensiveness of their own; yet, when someone suggests that there may be a few areas in the 1689 where a further and clearer articulation of a doctrine could be helpful, they seem unwilling to concede? It seems to me–and I may be wrong–that some men have a protective posture toward the 1689 as it stands that boarders on unhealthy. At a theological level, these men wouldn’t dare apply the Scriptural admonition “don’t add or subtract” (Deut 4:2) to the Confession. But at a practical level, they don’t appear far away from treating the Confession as if it were not capable of being amended or improved.
In summary, I concede the 1689 uses the terms “certain” and “infallible” to predicate Scripture. Hence, it addresses the doctrine of inerrancy. I do not believe, however, the 1689 articulates the doctrine of inerrancy as clearly and as adequately as would be useful for our day. For that reason, I believe any update and revision of our Confession should include an statement that more clearly and fully articulates what we believe about the Bible.
I hope that helps to clarify the point of his post. And thanks again for dropping by. You’re always welcome here.
Sincerely,
Bob Gonzales
The first sentence of the 1689 asserts: “The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.” Neither the WCF or Savoy inlcude this. It seems clear that the Baptists are asserting the sufficiency, certainty (i.e., read “inerrancy” per Jay’s post), and infallibility of Scripture. When explaining what this statement means, we all use synonyms. For instance, if I were explaining the doctrine of the infallibility of Scripture to someone, I would say something like, “It means it cannot contain error.” The word “infallible” in this context has technical meaning. The other words do too. The Scriptures themselves contain technical terms that translators leave undefined. It seems to me that the argument you are making for expanding the statement to further clarify the doctrine of inerrancy could be applied to other (even every other) technical term or phrase utilized by the Confession. If we applied it across the board, our Confession could end up twice as long as it currently is. And, IMO, at some point it would cross over from being a confession of faith to being a commentary on the Confession.
Like I said, Rich, you’re a “tough sell.”
Question: Do you think a clarifying response to the “limited inerrancy/infallibility” position, like that offered by Nichols and Waldron, is simply redundant and completely unwarranted?
BTW, as I hope you’ll see when I finish this series, I don’t think it would be necessary to make the Confession twice as long as it is. I simply think we need to provide more clarity on some key areas of doctrine and practice.
B.G.
I’ll take a third way – unnecessary. If someone wants to change the word certain to inerrant or footnote it, that’s ok with me. There is no copyright on the 1677/89.
Thanks, Rich. So you don’t think we need to clarify that the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture extends beyond matters of religious faith and practice but include what the Bible affirms regarding history, science, ethics, or any other topic. Am I understanding you correctly?
I think it would be redundant. The Confession extends those concepts, as well as inspiration, to the Holy Scripture, which it defines as all the books of the Old and New Testament. If those concepts apply to the whole, and the whole is made up of its parts, then its parts reflect its whole, no matter what those parts affirm to be true. The Confession asserts that the Holy Scripture is the rule of faith (what we are to believe) and life (what we are to do). If it asserts something to be true concerning history, science, ethics, or any other topic, these categories are covered by the terms “faith” and “life.”
Rich,
I fixed the misspellings. Thanks for clarifying your position. I respect it even if I don’t entirely agree. Grace to you.
B.G.
thanks for editing. …and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ!
I really do appreciate your input. Particularly, I thought your highlighting of the difference between the 1689 and its predecessors was helpful. If I were to rewrite the post, I’d be careful to note that.
And peace to you too!
I am loving this discussion between two of my dear Reformed Baptist theologians.. I’ve learnt so much from both of you. I have always loved the writing, teaching and preaching ministry of Dr. Richard Barcellos. Your writings on Owen, Decalogue; sermon series on Ephesians at Heritage; MCTS podcasts are all resources which have blessed me in times past. God bless in your new work at Antelope Valley.
Dr. Gonzales’ teaching on the doctrine of scripture (sunday school mp3s from Sermon Audio) is one of my favourite resource in my computer. I’m always grateful to God for your series on Cessationism and how you responded to the thesis of Dr. Grudem. I have no doubt regarding your reverence and commitment to the infallibility, inerrancy, authority and sufficiency of scriptures.
Regarding your reply to my post, my thoughts are as follows. First I will list what I seem to understand from your points. After listing my summary of your points, I will humbly point my observations.
1.) As I understand you Dr. Gonzales, your thesis is not, whether 1689 (the document or its framers) affirms any theological issue like innerancy or not, for it does. However your concern is whether it affirms those truths clearly and definitively enough so as to preclude the need for any further confessional articulation.
2.) You address the issue of whether or not “certain” carries the same connotation in modern day. However you do agree that back in the days when 1689 was drafted, it did mean something like “true” or “factual”.
3.) The next point made by you dear Dr. Gonzales is whether or not the attributes asserted by the confession for scriptures is only limited to matters of faith and obedience or for all of scripture.
4.) You then compare the words of 1689 with those of 1989 proposed revision, on Scripture. You do agree again that 1689 does affirm inerrancy, however you are not sure whether what it says is enough.
5.) Your final point is, confessions of faith are not on par with scripture and hence our posture towards it should be one of willingness to amend it, if the aim is to make it more clear and definite.
6) You summarize by repeating what seems to be your main point : that 1689 does address inerrancy however you are not sure whether it is enough for our day.
In reply to these good points of yours, I have the following observations to bring to your kind attention :
1.) The overall point made by you (in 1, 4,5 and 6) that 1689 does assert inerrancy however is not enough, is sadly not reflected in your article. In the article, you seem to suggest that inerrancy is not at all discussed in the 1689 confession and hence need to be added and given confessional status. In your last paragraph, you say the following : –
“I believe an affirmation of inerrancy should be included in a revision of the 1689 and given confessional status.”
Only in your later comments do you reveal your conviction that 1689 does affirm inerrancy however not clearly and definitely as needed in our day.
This poses a confusion : Do you believe inerrancy has no confessional status and hence a revised version should be made giving it one or do you believe inerrancy has confessional status however it is not clear and definite enough for our day and hence the need for a revision
Which is the case you are drawing your readers to consider for the need of a revision?
2.) If the 1689 does affirm inerrancy as you do concede in your comments ( and not in the article), and the issue is whether the word “certain” means the same thing today as in the days of our fore-bearers, then the issue at hand is but one which is encountered in the case of all documents of the past. Language undergoes many changes in its meanings and nuances over the passage of time. If that be the case, then all that is needed is a footnote (as suggested by Dr. Richard Barcellos), or at the most a text update, not necessarily an amendment of the confession.
3.) As Dr. Barcellos pointed out, all of scripture is covered by the terms “faith” and “life”. Hence even history, science, ethics are all put in scripture to either teach us what to believe or to teach us what to do, as per God’s revealed truth. Therefore the attributes asserted by the confession like sufficient, certain, infallible etc are applicable to all of scripture, not just to what is spiritual, precluding what is seemingly unspiritual.
4.) Could not people interpret the present wordings of the confession to teach limited inerrancy? Yes, however the risk of being interpreted wrongly is something at stake, for any confessional document. Even the Chicago statement of inerrancy has been badly misinterpreted by those who are still not comfortable with inerrancy.
Does that mean we need not strive to make our confession clear and definite? Certainly no. I am by no means arguing for being intellectually slothful in defining and defending God’s truth. However the assertion that the present statement on inerrancy in the confession can be misinterpreted and hence must be revised, assumes that the present statement is not definite. It is here that I believe there is a difference of opinion among us.
On this issue of the language of the confession being definite or not, I ask two questions :
Can it be made more definite?
Certainly. I agree with you on our posture towards confessions of faith and welcome any amendments to make it better.
Should it be made definite?
In this area of inerrancy, I think it makes a definite assertion that all of scripture is inerrant. Yes, right understanding of words in the confession and right interpretation of those words are necessary for one to come to the above stated understanding of inerrancy from the confession. However the aim of any confession is not to entirely eliminate either the understanding of words or right interpretation of words. The labour behind these two – understanding words and their interpretation, can be lessened, even without amending the confession.
As I close my reply, let me point out that I am writing these with much respect and love for you, for I have learnt a lot from your ministry. I hope my points as a fellow Particular Baptist, will only cause serious, healthy and cordial discussion among the brethren, for the glory of God.
May the Lord continue to bless you much..
Prayers,
Jay
Jay,
Thanks again for visiting the blog. I’ll try to make my responses to your concerns brief as I’ve already responded to some of your points above.
(1) You say, “The overall point made by you (in 1, 4, 5 and 6) that 1689 does assert inerrancy however is not enough, is sadly not reflected in your article. In the article, you seem to suggest that inerrancy is not at all discussed in the 1689 confession and hence need to be added and given confessional status.” My response: That’s a good observation. Unfortunately, this post is part of a larger essay I’d already written. And the paragraph in that essay preceding this particular post reads as follows:
That paragraph can be found in the post of the series that immediately precedes this one (click here). So when I identify four examples of what we can affirm–inerrancy (here), the roles of men and women, the church’s mission to the world, common grace and the well-meant offer (coming soon), I have already qualified these affirmations in terms of degrees of clarity and explicitness. Regretfully, though, I should have repeated that qualification in the post itself. Thank you for pointing that out.
(2) A text update from “certain” to “inerrant” might help. I think it would also help, though, if something more were specified about the scope of Scripture’s sufficiency, inerrancy, and infallibility (see below).
(3) I don’t agree with you and Richard that it’s patent to every modern reader that the phrase “all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience” or the phrase “faith and life” apply to every area of human knowledge and ethics. For example, when Stephen T. David affirms, “The Bible is fully trustworthy and never misleads us on matters that are crucially relevant to Christian faith and practice,” one might interpret the phrase “faith and practice” as inclusive of all areas of knowledge and ethics. But David promotes a kind of limited inerrancy. “Faith and practice” means something more narrow for him than it may have meant for the Puritans. He does not believe the Bible is always accurate in non-religious matters. He could not affirm the statement crafted by Sam Waldron and Greg Nichols:
Adding a statement like this to our Confession would not turn it into a commentary or multi-volume book.
(4) The CSBI is usually misinterpreted and maligned by those who don’t like inerrancy. But are you suggesting that people who deny the verbal and plenary inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture could as easily endorse the CSBI as they could the sentence in the 1689? I doubt that highly. Very few neo-orthodox or neo-evangelicals would feel comfortable signing their name to that document as it doesn’t allow a whole lot of wiggle room.
(5) I agree with you that we still have to labor to interpret confessions in their grammatical/historical context. To me, however, that’s another argument for periodically updating official confessions. That way the church is not completely dependent on historical theology experts.
In summary, it seems that you and Richard find my call for making the Confession’s doctrine of inerrancy more clear and explicit unconvincing. The Confession is fine as it is from your perspective. I can respect that. We can agree to disagree.
I wonder, though, if you’ll feel the same about the other areas of deficiency I’m highlighting. If you get the chance, let me invite you to read my arguments pertaining to the other three areas of doctrine that need clearer and more explicit articulation than what the Confession now gives.
Cordially yours,
Bob Gonzales
Dear Dr.Gonzales,
First of all, let me clarify that I am no way against amending the confession. I am with you for making the articulation of any doctrine in the confession clearer and definite. However my contention was over the issue of whether or not the confession affirms inerrancy. As pointed earlier the article suggested that the confession does not affirm inerrancy and hence the need for a revision. However you have clarified that it is not the case you are forwarding.
Secondly, on Puritan language and its interpretation today, I agree with you that language has undergone much change. However we do affirm that our confession belongs to the 17th century, every time we call it the 1689 confession. I think that fact should be kept in mind while understanding its words. However I agree with you that this document is to be useful for churches in our day and age to defend God’s truth. On that note, I agree, difficulties over archaic language and usages should be avoided. The issue I suppose then is, should we give priority to preserving the historic wordings of this confession or to its usefulness in our day and age? Since you have already clarified your posture towards confessions of faith, I know your answer regarding this. From a pastoral perspective, I agree with you that confessions of faith are to be useful more than anything else.
So, yes I am convinced with you that confessions of faith need periodic updating for making them useful in our day and age. However as clarified earlier, not because they do not affirm this present theological issue of inerrancy.
Expanding on Dr.Barcellos suggestion for a footnote, I think a suggestion that would be acceptable for Particular Baptists of these two persuasions – those who want to maintain the historical text of the confession and those who want to have amendments to make it more useful in our day, would be not footnotes, but adding appendices on these issues you are pointing out, at the end of the confession.
[On a side note, regarding the issue of the scope of the scriptures, you quoted Stephen T. David, whose statement even though contains the phrase "faith and practice" it raises the eyebrows of any Evangelical who believes in inerrancy, precisely because of his controlling phrase before it, viz. "crucially relevant to". The 1689 on the contrary does not make any such limitations. It rather assumes all of scripture is relevant to faith and practice.]
Regarding your other posts, I will surely read and post my thoughts on them. Thank you for your invitation.
With love and prayers,
Jay