Updating and Refining the 1689 Baptist Confession: Answers to Common Objections

It’s challenging to persuade people to modify their favored theological traditions even when the modifications suggested are intended to enhance the intelligibility and usefulness of the timeless truths embodied in those traditions. So I’d like to close this series on updating and refining the 1689 Baptist Confession by looking at some common objections that have been offered by some of my pastor friends and fellow believers. While I believe each of these objections is motivated by a concern to preserve biblical truth and the unity of the church, I haven’t found any of them sufficiently decisive or conclusive to preclude the framing of a new 21st century Reformed Baptist confession of faith upon the foundations of the old 1689. For those who haven’t read the earlier installments of this series, let me encourage you to scroll to the final footnote where you’ll find links for each part of the series. I’d prefer my readers be familiar with the entire argument of this series before they make a final decision on whether that argument is adequately cogent to withstand the objections below.

The Confession Is “Time-tested”

In religious circles, the quality of “time-tested” is applied to such things as Bible translations, hymns of the faith, and Christian doctrinal statements (creeds, confessions, catechisms) that have proven to be valid, excellent, and useful over a long span of time. I certainly would join those who place the 1689 Baptist Confession in this category. After all, the 1689 a relatively modest revision of what may be one of the greatest confessions ever written, the Westminster Confession of Faith. The WCF was the work of many pastors and theologians. It’s remarkable for its doctrinal depth, comprehensiveness, and accuracy. Reformed Baptists see the 1689 as an improvement of the WCF in certain respects. And the fact that it’s been used by churches for over three centuries lends it credibility and respect.

For this very reason, some Reformed Baptist leaders are opposed to making any updates or refinements to the 1689. Steve Marquedant, for instance, employs the “time-tested” attribute as an argument against change:

Appropriate changes have already been made by those who went on before us. Our present confession gives us the privilege to sit on the broad shoulders of the Westminster divines. Our system of doctrine has been time-tested, and more than 300 years later, still speaks with the powerful relevance that the Puritans knew. I believe this same firm doctrinal stance can continue another 300 years into the future if God so wills…. Is our confession in urgent need of change? I would strongly argue there is no need at this time for change.”1

Actually, I agree with much of Pastor Marquedant’s remarks. Being the “granddaughter” of the WCF, our Confession has a rich theological heritage. And in my opinion, the relatively modest revisions to the Westminster Confession (and Savoy Declaration) by our Particular Baptist forefathers simply made a good thing better. What’s more, I whole-heartedly concur that the “system of doctrine” contained in the 1689 “has been time-tested,” and in many ways it “still speaks with the powerful relevance that the Puritans knew.”

However, affirming these virtues of our Confession doesn’t preclude the kind of modest changes I’m calling for. For example, I’m not arguing that we should jettison “the system of doctrine” contained in the 1689. But I am arguing that we should update the language so that pastors, laypeople, and even unconverted people can better understand that “time-tested” system. By way of analogy, I think we’d all agree that the King James Version of the Bible qualifies as a “time-tested” Bible translation. But that fact shouldn’t be used to discount the need for Modern English Bible translations. Unfortunately, a minority of Christians tenanciously insist on continuing to use the KJV despite the fact that its English is less intelligible to 21st century Americans. Why? It’s “time-tested.”

Moreover, I agree that nearly all the doctrines of the Confession are still relevant for our generation. That’s because the 1689 Confession reflects the timeless truth of Scripture. But particular applications of that timeless truth made 300 years ago are not always as timely today. Moreover, there are particular applications needful for today that aren’t found in the 1689. My proposal has been to retain most of what the 1689 teaches, augment it with a few doctrines not clearly and sufficiently articulated in the 17th century, clarify some statements that may be ambiguous and misleading, and remove a few doctrinal affirmations that nearly all Reformed Baptist pastors today take exception to when subscribing to the Confession. So I’m not advocating decreasing the 1689′s doctrinal relevance. On the contrary, I’m arguing that we should increase its relevance.

As a result, I find Pastor Marquedant’s conclusion, i.e., “no need for change at this time,” unconvincing. It really doesn’t address the kind of changes I’m advocating. In the same article Marquedant refers to the United States Constitution by way of analogy. He alleges that over 10,000 changes have been suggested to the U.S. Constitution but only 15 amendments have been added. (Actually, if we count the Bill of Rights, which constitute the first 10 amendments, I think there have been a total of 27 amendments added.) But such an analogy actually supports the idea of modest change rather than no change. The U.S. Constitution has been tested by time, and it turns out that not every jot and tittle in the Constitution has stood the test of time. Similarly, while a few people may still believe the Scriptures unequivocally teach that the Pope of Rome (or papacy) is that eschatological antichrist, most now question that doctrine. So it turns out that there are a few teachings in the 1689 that have not stood the the test of time. Many Presbyterian and Reformed denominations have, as a result, removed that article from their Confession. Why don’t Reformed Baptists follow their lead?

Finally, I’ll simply point out that age itself is not an argument against the need for updating or revision. Because something is old doesn’t of necessity make it immune to refinement or revision. The Reformers knew this principle and articulated it in their Confessions. Note carefully the wording of the Belgic Confession, Article 7, which I’ll quote in part:

We believe that those Holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God … is sufficiently taught therein…. For, since it is forbidden, to add unto or take away anything from the word of God, it doth thereby evidently appear, that the doctrine thereof is most perfect and complete in all respects. Neither do we consider of equal value any writing of men, however holy these men may have been, with those divine Scriptures, nor ought we to consider custom, or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times and persons, or councils, decrees or statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God, for the truth is above all; for all men are of themselves liars, and more vain than vanity itself (emphasis added).

So the Reformers did not discount the value of “time-tested” theological tradition. But they were very adamant that the church not place such tradition (including their own) on the level of Scripture. And when preserving a tradition (i.e., retaining the Elizabethan English) invalidates a biblical principle (i.e., communicating God’s truth in ways that are intelligible), we’re actually slipping away from the pillars of the Reformation like sola Scriptura and semper reformanda. To the extent that we do so, we’re ironically less Reformed than our Reformed and Puritan forefathers.

But the Truth Never Changes!

Recently, someone posted a link to one of my articles on updating the 1689 to the Puritan Board, an online forum. One of the moderators decided to weigh in on the discussion and wrote,

Those who argue for changing confessional standards generally argue from the standpoint of changing times. “The times, they are a changing.” … Well, friends, the wisest man who ever lived, who obtained said wisdom from the Holy Spirit Himself, disagrees with these assumptions…. “So there is nothing new under the sun” (Eccl 1:9; emphasis his). Being confessional means that we subscribe to the same set of truth statements. Truth, my friends, does not change because the Author of Truth is immutable. What we need to do is figure out how the Biblical Truth espoused in the confessions is to be applied to the current era in which we live. What we do not need to do is figure out the “new truth” that’s for the world we live in today. There is no “new truth.”2

At first, the author seems to suggest that neither the truth nor the times change. True enough, human endeavors, events, and states of affairs have a habit of repeating themselves throughout history. So when modern Christians read a Bible that depicts a world and culture far distant from their own, they can still find points of correspondence throughout on account of an underlying continuity. God reigns in heaven then, and he reigns how. Human life in a sin-cursed world was an enigma in Solomon’s day, and it remains so today. People sinned back then, and they sin much in the same way now. And the old gospel is as relevant today as it was back then. All of this is true.

But then the author seems to concede that there’s a sense in which the times do change. In his words, “What we need to do is figure out how the Biblical Truth espoused in the confession is to be applied to the current era in which we live.” That’s precisely what I’ve been arguing! The languages in which biblical revelation was originally given (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek) are no longer understood by most Christians. So we translate them into our own language. Even the versions of the Nicene Creed and the Canons of Dordrecht, which many of our churches affirm, have been translated into Modern English. Similarly, I’ve argued that we should update the language of the 1689 to the modern English vernacular.

Moreover, historical and cultural settings may change in ways that call for fresh and modified applications of unchanging biblical truth. The society in which the Puritans lived apparently did not require a more clear and more comprehensive affirmation of biblical complementarianism (i.e., the distinct roles of men and women) and the church’s evangelistic and missionary obligation to the world. Since we live in a time and society that more closely reflects the Roman Empire of Paul’s day than the Christendom of the Puritans, I believe we need to speak more clearly and fully about the biblical roles of men and women and the church’s mission to the world. This in no way implies that the truth of Scripture has changed. It simply suggests that different historical and cultural factors may call for a more specific and pointed emphasis of the Bible’s timeless truth.

Finally, it’s important to point out that though the truth doesn’t change, the church’s understanding of the truth may change. In the 16th and 17th centuries, the general consensus was that the Pope of Rome was the antichrist. That reading of the biblical data is no longer the consensus even among the Reformed community. What’s more, the original framers of the WCF believed the state was authorized by God to ensure that the entire nation confessed the true religion and to punish those who deviated. In time that perspective changed, and in 1789 American Presbyterians revised their doctrine of the role of the state in religious matters.3 Furthermore, since the 17th century God has raised up pastors and teachers within and without the Reformed community who have made additional and positive contributions to our knowledge of the Scripture. Jonathan Edwards, Charles Hodge, Benjamin B. Warfield, John Murray, and Cornelius Van Til didn’t just parrot whatever the Reformers or Puritans said. They each made modest refinements to our understanding of biblical truth.

This is not to say that every new interpretation of Scripture is better than the old. The reality of remaining sin should caution us against that false assumption. But our belief that the Holy Spirit has continued to illuminate the church’s understanding of the Scriptures since the 16th and 17th centuries should caution us against using an argument like the one above in order to circumvent any change to a 300-year-old confession. As I said in an earlier post, I’m open to debate what should be changed, how it should be changed, and precisely when it should be changed. But I find the inference that confessions should never change since truth doesn’t change unhelpful and unwarranted. Indeed, it sounds awfully similar to the kind of protest the Church of Rome made against the Protestant Reformers. Thankfully, the Reformers didn’t find that argument cogent, and they wrote new creeds. In doing so, they promoted the principle of semper reformanda (always being reformed) while Rome boasted of semper eadem (always the same).

It’s a Slippery Slope!

Another contributor to the Puritan Board opposes changes to the Confession because changes make him “nervous.”4 Such anxiety is often predicated on historical examples where small revisions (that may have been legitimate) opened the door to bigger revisions (that were illegitimate). Hence, it’s argued that to step on the path of confessional revision is to step on a “slippery slope.” Commenting on the changes I’m proposing to the Confession, one brother writes, “The changes being proposed are really a very slight watering down to allow further unity. But this will continue until there is much unity and a much watered down confession.”5

The “slippery slope” argument is a type of informal fallacy (non sequitur) that says adopting a particular policy or taking a particular action, however small or modest, will inevitably result in a chain of related policies or actions that culminate in some undesirable effect without proving the logical necessity of the negative effect. This argument is often used in connection with the fallacy of “sweeping generalization” (dicto simpliciter) where one makes a sweeping statement and expects it to be true in every case. For instance, some argue against updating and refining the 1689 because the modern age is presumably anti-confessional whereas the Reformed and Puritan eras were presumably pro-confessional. The same brother who said he was “nervous” about changing the Confession offered the following argument: “Ours is not a confessional age.” Some argue further that if the church allows small changes to the Confession today, what’s to stop her from allowing bigger and undesirable changes tomorrow. Such people often point to negative examples of confessional revision in history.

Of course, no one can deny that some attempts to add, reformulate, or subtract certain doctrines to confessional statements resulted in unhealthy changes and opened the door to theological errors. Dr. J. Gresham Machen, former president of Westminster Theological Seminary, was well aware of this and made the following observation in the early part of the 20th century:

The historic creeds were exclusive of error; they were intended to set forth the biblical teaching in sharp contrast with what was opposed to the biblical teaching, in order that the purity of the church might be preserved. These modern statements, on the contrary, are inclusive of error. They are designed to make room in the church for just as many people and for just as many types of thought as possible.6

Machen’s observation should serve as caution us against the wrong kind of confessional revision. But we shouldn’t use an observation like his as an argument against all instances of confessional revision because it’s only part of the truth.

Not all confessional revision has been bad. If that were the case, we’d have to conclude that the 1689 is bad because it’s a revision of the WCF and Savoy! Moreover, as I’ve attempted to show in this series, some modern doctrinal statements have resulted in clearer and fuller expositions of certain biblical truths than what is presently found in the 17th century confessions. Furthermore, one must demonstrate how making minor changes like updating the language, adding clearer and fuller doctrinal formulations, clarifying ambiguities, and removing a few unwarranted statements necessarily leads to further negative changes down the road for the “slippery slope” argument to be valid.7 Once again, negative examples may serve as cautions to the kind of revisions we allow. But unless there’s a clear cause and effect relationship demonstrated between the modest revisions proposed and the subsequent radical revisions conjectured, the slippery slope argument isn’t adequate to overturn my proposal.

In the end, bad examples of confessional revision should prompt us to “watch our step.” But they’re not an airtight argument against all kinds of confessional revision. In fact, I would argue that the Confession’s ability to help prevent downgrade in a church or denomination is tied to its accessibility to God’s people and its real susceptibility to correction and modification to bring it closer in line with Scripture. The real antidote to doctrinal and spiritual decay includes a deepening knowledge of and love for the Scripture, constant prayer for the ongoing illumination of the Holy Spirit, and a proper but not inordinate use of the Confession and historical theology.

Can’t Change a Part without Affecting the Whole

On October 2010, the Midwest Center for Theological Studies posted a series of interviews in which Dr. Richard Barcellos asked Drs. James Renihan and Sam Waldron to comment on the idea of adding to or subtracting from the 1689 Confession. Renihan responded first and said revising the Confession would be a “bad thing to do” for at least two reasons. The first reason can be summarized as the idea that one cannot change a part of the confession without changing the whole. In his words,

It’s really a woven document. It’s not 32 discrete chapters. It’s a document that’s been put together to represent a symbol of theology. And there’s a great deal of interplay between the chapters. Sometimes more obviously; sometimes less obviously…. But there’s that close interrelationship. To change the confession either by adding or by subtracting probably in some way or another will affect the way the document is woven together.8

In general, I agree with Renihan’s point. The doctrines of the Confession are interrelated to varying degrees. To add or subtract one doctrine may affect to varying degrees other doctrines in the Confession. But I don’t see this as a cogent argument against any and all kinds of confessional revision.

First, there are some doctrines in the Confession that could be subtracted without negatively affecting the document as a whole. Confessing that the Pope of Rome is “that antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition … whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming” is a historically Reformed and Puritan thing to do. But it’s not patently clear that subtracting that doctrine from the Confession will make the 1689 less Reformed and Puritan. Similarly, adding a clearer and fuller affirmation of the church’s task of evangelistic and missionary outreach would not, in my opinion, negatively affect the system of Reformed and Baptist theology contained in the Confession.

Second, even if certain additions or subtractions were to affect to some degree the overall system, it doesn’t necessarily follow that those changes would be negative. For example, when the Particular Baptists subtracted elements of the Presbyterian concept of the church and view of the proper recipients for baptism and added their Baptist theology, it can be argued that they affected some change in the Confession’s doctrine of the “covenant of grace.” But what Reformed Baptist would argue that the Particular Baptist revisions to parts of the WCF spoiled the whole?

In sum, I fail to see how Renihan’s argument precludes updating and refining the Confession. In my opinion, the changes I’ve advocated are not tectonic. They’re not aimed at changing the system of doctrine taught by the Confession but are primarily intended to clarify and augment the Confession’s teaching.

We Don’t Have the Theologians

The second argument Dr. Renihan offers against revising the 1689 Confession has to do with the modern church’s lack of gifted theologians relative to the calibre of theologians who drafted the Westminster Confession of Faith. “I’m not sure,” says Renihan,

that today we have the kind of ability that those distinguished theologians had to understand and express theology in the way that they did. I feel like that I’m by far a weaker brother in terms of my understanding of theology, and I wouldn’t even want to think of myself as one who could be nominated to serve at the Westminster Assembly and to be part of of a convention, an assembly, whatever you want to call it, that would work on altering that document. So I’m not sure that we have the resources to do it in the way it should be done.9

One can’t help but genuinely appreciate Dr. Renihan’s humility. At some level, we all look at the ministry God has entrusted to us and cry out with the apostle Paul, “Who is sufficient for these things?”

But on this point, I’m inclined to agree, rather, with Dr. Renihan’s colleague R. Scott Clark. In his book Recovering the Reformed Confession, Clark argues that it’s a good time for the Reformed church to write a new confession of faith.10 And Clark has a word for those who doubt whether the modern church has sufficient resources for the task. “Those who argue that the Reformed churches are not presently capable of writing a Reformed confession today,” avers Clark, “both overestimate those who wrote our confession and underestimate the potential latent in the contemporary Reformed churches.” He points out the primary authors of the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism were relatively young men who lacked the kind of extensive formal theological training that would match modern standards.11

As Renihan concedes, the 1689 Confession was not composed from scratch but was revision of the WCF and Savoy. Moreover, it was not the work of a large body. Renihan states in his dissertation, “Though it cannot be stated with certainty, much circumstantial evidence points to [Nehemiah] Coxe and [William] Collins as the originators of the Confession.”12. Apparently, the 1689 was the work of two pastors!  True, these men were well educated by the standard of their day. No doubt they were gifted theologians. But is it likely that there are no theologians alive today that equal their calibre? And since the updating and refining I’m advocating entails building on the foundation of the 1689 rather than drawing up a confession from scratch, must we wait for an august body of theologians like those who made up the Westminster Assembly?

Dr. Renihan may not intend his remarks to convey this impression, but I fear that such reasoning often betrays a kind of unhealthy romanticism with the Reformed and Puritan eras. R. Scott Clark agrees and writes,

Such romanticism has helped to create a mythology around the formation of our ecclesiastical confessions which has contributed to our reluctance to continue actively restating the Reformed faith in every generation and place. The chief difference between the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century confessional Reformed churches and the contemporary confessional Reformed churches is not ability but will…. We seem to have forgotten that Reformed orthodoxy is not magic. It is an act of the intellect, affections, and will, and it is the last faculty that seems absent in this regard.13

I tend to agree with Clark. I don’t believe the reticence to update and refine our Confession is primarily an issue of “can’t.” It seems to be, at least in part, a matter of “won’t.”

Put It in the Local Church’s Constitution

Some seem to suggest that we ought to use the local church’s constitution rather than the Confession to address important issues in our day. According to Steve Marquedant,

For the confession to remain relevant it must be timeless, and not get bogged down with the transient controversies of the day. In fact when changes are made it would likely be to those few peculiarly seventeenth century issues…. Some issues may arise which are important to a particular congregation that are not specifically dealt with in the confession. These types of issues can be dealt with by individual congregations according to their wisdom and they should not become a bar to fellowship between congregations. Our individual churches may have a different look or feel to them, and still be Reformed Baptist.14

I don’t totally disagree with Marquedant’s remarks. In an earlier segment of Dr. Barcellos’ interview with Renihan and Waldron, Barcellos suggests that some people want to make the Confession more like a local church constitution and add things to it that are unnecessary, making the Confession historically and culturally limited. Waldron responds by distinguishing between the more temporally and situationally limited focus of a local church constitution as opposed to the more universally transcendent focus of a Confession. The Confession’s purpose is to promote inter-church unity, whereas the local church’s constitution is designed to promote intra-church unity. Renihan agrees and adds that a Confession is largely theological while a church constitution is largely practical.15 I’m in agreement with the distinctions Waldron and Renihan make.

However, Marquedant’s remarks are made in the context of his insisting we should not make any changes to the Confession at this time. Yet the kind of changes I’m advocating are not simply issues of local church polity. Nor are they merely transient or purely culturally bound matters of faith and practice. Communicating the truth in the common language of the target audience is relevant at all times and in all places (see LBC 1.8). A clearer and fuller affirmation of the doctrines of inerrancy, the roles of men and women, the church’s mission to the world, and common grace and the free offer of the gospel are certainly not “transient controversies of our day.” To be fair, Pastor Marquedant may not have been aware of all the specific changes to the Confession I’ve been advocating when he wrote his article. But others have suggested that the kind of changes I’m advocating should be relegated to the local church’s constitution than in the Confession.

A similar line of reasoning thinks it would be better to address the kind of concerns I’ve raised in denominational “position papers.” “How about leaving the confession alone,” one brother suggests, “and attaching a position paper that addresses some hot topics that face us today?”16 I think position papers may be a good start. When questions about what the Confession actually teaches on a given subject or how that teaching applies to a modern issue arise, it may be best initially to address the questions with position papers. These papers would offer a clearer and fuller affirmation on what one may ascertain or infer from the Confession’s teaching.

However, I don’t believe the writing of “position papers” should preclude an update and revision of the Confession. Moreover, the disadvantage of position papers is their generally low profile. They’re usually intended for people within the church or denomination rather than for people without. But as I indicated in my series on the Validity and Value of Confessions, one purpose of a confession is to declare one’s beliefs to the world abroad. Elevating clearer and fuller articulations of inerrancy, the roles of men and women, the church’s mission to the world, and God’s sincere offer of the gospel to confessional status would, in my opinion, enhance the testimony of Reformed Baptist churches rather than harm it.

But It Won’t Be the “1689″ Anymore

As one pastor pointed out to me, updating and refining the Confession would result in something different from the 1689 Baptist Confession. Admittedly, he makes a good point.

But I don’t think this is a cogent reason for rejecting the idea of updating or refining the Confession. The King James Version that most folks use today is technically not the 1611. More likely, its the standard 1769 Oxford text, which updated and standardized the spelling. In 1982 the KJV underwent further revision. Its Elizabethan language was modernized and some revisions to the translation itself were made. It came to be known as the “New King James Version.” Yet in this case, the “new” still preserves the essence of the “old.” Even many of the technically new translations, like the ASV, RSV, and, more recently, ESV self-conscienciously and to varying degrees build on the foundation of the original 1611. For example, the preface to the 2007 ESV text reads,

The English Standard Version (ESV) stands in the classic mainstream of English Bible translations over the past half-millennium. The fountainhead of that stream was William Tyndale’s New Testament of 1526; marking its course were the King James Version of 1611 (KJV), the English Revised Version of 1885 (RV), the American Standard Version of 1901 (ASV), and the Revised Standard Version of 1952 and 1971 (RSV). In that stream, faithfulness to the text and vigorous pursuit of accuracy were combined with simplicity, beauty, and dignity of expression. Our goal has been to carry forward this legacy for a new century.

My point is that one may update and even change the nomenclature of a foundational document while maintaining essential continuity with that document. R. Scott Clark agrees in principle and argues,

There is nothing about the confession-drafting and -adopting processes that necessitates that those churches that still believe the same faith confessed in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and that will confess that same faith about the issues we have faced in modernity (and late modernity), change fundamentally their theology, piety, and practice.17

So if we updated the language and made some modest refinements to the teaching of the 1689, the result would be a “new” confession. For that reason, it may be preferable to give it a new name. Perhaps we could call it, “A Reformed Baptist Confession for the 21st Century” or something like that. So at one level we’d have a new confession. But at another level, we’d still be confessing essentially the same faith our Particular Baptist forefathers confessed. Only a kind of “1689-onlyism” analogous to “KJV-onlyism” would in principle object to that.18

We’ll Rock the Boat and Create Disunity

This may be the most common objection I’ve heard and in some ways the most difficult to answer. Sam Waldron, who’s authored an exposition on the 1689, cautions that we mustn’t be closed to the idea of updating and revising the Confession since confessions are manmade documents and, as such, are not infallible. On the other hand, he sees the 1689 as it presently stands as a great unifying document. It’s held in common by ARBCA, non-ARBCA, and SBC Founders churches. It holds the promise for bringing groups together. “My fear,” says Waldron, “is that when you start editing it, you’re going to not create more unity but create less.”19

Of course, I affirm the importance of pursuing and promoting unity among true churches of Christ. And I don’t deny that the drafting of a new confession might create less unity than more. But I’m not convinced disunity would be an inevitable.

To begin with, sticking with the old 1689 hasn’t automatically produced unity. Nor has it prevented disunity. Anyone familiar with the history of Reformed Baptist churches in the last half of the 20th century and first part of the 21st century is well-aware of the fragmentation and different “camps” that exist among those who affirm the 1689 Confession.

Second, by holding to an old confession and by refusing to update that confession in appropriate ways, I fear that we have in some ways distanced ourselves from likeminded churches outside our circles. Missionary James Williamson agrees and writes,

The original confession had a particular purpose of declaring solidarity with the wider Reformed community. This is in part why the framers used the Westminster and the Savoy Declaration as models, and transferred whole sections into their document.  It showed they were not only associated with but dependent upon their brethren in other churches. This kind of dependence and cooperation has not been a forte of the Reformed Baptist movement thus far. We have in many ways isolated ourselves from the growing stream of even the Reformed world…. A confession of faith which made use of other recently developed and declared confessions would indicate the kind of solidarity which is sorely needed for the health of our churches.20

In recommending that we update the language of the 1689 and add clearer affirmations of certain truths that, in my opinion, are not adequately articulated in the Confession as it stands, I’ve purposely drawn from the examples of some modern statements of faith, many of which are Calvinistic in their sympathies. Clarifying some of the ambiguous and potentially misleading language regarding worship and the observance of the Sabbath might also disarm some likeminded Calvinist brothers of their fear that some of the language of the 1689 contributes to an overly restrictive view of worship and an overly rigid view of Lord’s Day observance.21 Yet the kind of changes I’ve recommended would not result in any substantial change in our theology. So it’s not immediately evident to me that framing a new Reformed Baptist Confession on the foundations of the old 1689 would of necessity result in less unity than we presently enjoy as churches.

Of course, the manner and method one adopts in revising the old into a new confession can potentially promote or disrupt inter-church unity. Some believe the best scenario is one in which an international body of Reformed Baptist pastors and theologians unite to revise the Confession. While such a scenario may be ideal, I’m not certain it’s realistic at this time. Besides, the requirement for a kind of “denominational unity” preceding the writing of a new creed is understandable in a Presbyterian context. I’m not sure it’s absolutely necessary in a Baptist context.

As noted above, the 1689 was likely the work of two pastors from the same church. William Collins and Nehemiah Cox began their co-pastorate in 1675. They took the best from already existing creeds and made some modifications. The Confession they produced was first published in 1677 with a preface indicating that it reflected the views of “many congregations of Christians … in London and in the Country.” Throughout the 1680s it grew in popularity. In the year 1689, representatives from over 100 churches assembled and endorsed the new Confession.22 So the 1689 was not initially the official product of a large association or denomination that commissioned a large assembly of theologians. It was the largely the product of two pastors of local church who sought to produce a doctrinal statement, which they had reason to believe reflected the views of many of their Particular Baptist brothers.

In a similar way, individual Reformed and Baptist churches today could write new Reformed Baptist confessions for their local congregations while still affirming the 1689.23 Thus, the present unity could be maintained. Over time, one or more of these newer confessions could be shared among churches. The result could be a graduate consensus that some of the elements reflected in the newer confessions and missing in the old Confession are important articles of faith to be confessed by all. It may take a decade or two for this consensus to be reached. But I believe a new “Reformed Baptist Confession” for the 21st century is worth pursuing even if the process of gaining a consensus takes some time.

Concluding Remarks

For some time, I’ve been convinced that our Confession of Faith needs revision. Its language is outdated and needs to be updated. It fails to address some important issues relevant to our day and needs to be augmented. And a few of its doctrinal formulations need refinement, to remove ambiguity and enhance clarity. No major changes. Still Reformed and Baptist. But more intelligible, more relevant, and more precise.24

Some might interpret my criticisms as disrespect for the Confession. But I would urge my readers to think otherwise. I still affirm the 1689 to be an “excellent, though not inspired, expression of the teaching of the Word of God.” I’m zealous for the truths contained in the Confession. I’m simply proposing that we who love the 1689 Confession take a good thing and make it even better.

If you already share my conviction that the Confession needs updating, I hope this series has reinforced your convictions. If you’ve never thought about the matter or you’re undecided, I hope you’ve be persuaded to be open in principle to a revision of the Confession. If you’re dead-set against altering the old Confession, I pray you’ll not take offense. We serve the same Jesus and love the same Bible. We may differ in our opinion of how best to communicate our beliefs.

B.G.

1. Who Speaks for Reformed Baptists, Part 2 (accessed Nov 21, 2011. [↩]
2. James Helbert, comment #7 on thread discussing my article “Obstacles to Updating the Confession: Subtle Traditionalism”; note: I reformatted the moderator’s comments into one paragraph. [↩]
3. For a comparison of the differences on this point between the original 1647 version of the WCF and the 1789 American Revision, see Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 3 vols. (1931, reprint; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1990), 3:653-54; 668-69. [↩]
4. See comment #16 from the Puritan Board thread reference above. [↩]
5. See comment #55 on the Puritan Board thread referenced above. [↩]
6. “Creeds and Doctrinal Advance,” Banner of Truth (November 1970), quoted by Robert Martin in A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, 2nd edition (Durham, U.K.: Evangelical Press, 1995), 21. [↩]
7. A few who are wary of any revision to the 1689 have taken the time to read through my proposed changes and to interact with me. In some cases, their interaction has helped me to refine my language and to modify slightly the kinds of revisions I’m proposing. But I fear that many of those who oppose my recommendations to update and refine the Confession haven’t even taken the time to review the kind of changes I’m advocating and to demonstrate how they’re unbiblical or how they will necessarily lead to some unbiblical position down the road. [↩]
8. See MCTS Renihan/Waldron Interview: Part 2 Adding to and/or Subtracting from The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith (accessed Nov 22, 2011). Renihan’s makes these remarks approximately 45 seconds into the interview. The example Renihan offers, by way of illustration, is the suggestion that we drop chapter 19 “Of the Law of God.” [↩]
9. See MCTS Renihan/Waldron Interview: Part 2 Adding to and/or Subtracting from The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith (accessed Nov 22, 2011). Renihan’s makes these remarks approximately two minutes into the interview. [↩]
10. Recovering the Reformed Confession: Our Theology, Piety, and Practice (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2008), 177-91. [↩]
11. Recovering the Reformed Confession, 185. [↩]
12. “The Practical Ecclesiology of the English Particular Baptists, 1675-1705 (Ph.D. Diss, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1997), 50 [↩]
13. Recovering the Reformed Confession, 186. [↩]
14. Who Speaks for Reformed Baptists? Part 2. [↩]
15. MCTS Renihan/Waldron interview: Part #1 Church Confessions and Constitutions (accessed Nov 22, 2011). [↩]
16. See comment #21 on the Puritan Board discussion referenced above. [↩]
17. Recovering the Reformed Confession, 188. [↩]
18. I don’t mean to imply that those who for principled reasons or matters of conscience chose to retain the old Confession instead of adopted the “new” one would of necessity be “1689-onlyists.” That would only be true of them if they held the position that the 1689 was incapable of improvement. [↩]
19. See MCTS Renihan/Waldron interview: Part #2 Adding to and/or Subtracting from The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. Waldron makes these remarks approximately 4.5 minutes into the interview. [↩]
20. “Is It Time for a New Confession?” (Unpublished paper, 2009), 17. [↩]
21. Of course, I realize that some Reformed Baptists favor a stricter application of the Regulative Principle and observance of the Sabbath. But where there are differences on the application of the RPW and on some of the particulars of Lord’s Day observance, might it not be best to address those particulars in a local church constitution rather than in a Confession that many churches from different places and cultures are expected to affirm? [↩]
22. See Renihan, “The Practical Ecclesiology of the English Particular Baptists,” 51-56. [↩]
23. Some local churches may want to affirm more than one historical symbol. I’m aware of churches that affirm in their constitution the Nicene Creed, the Synod of Dordrecht, the Shorter Catechism (with some modifications), and some newer doctrinal statements, like the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. [↩]
24. Here are the links to the entire series of posts:
    Part 1: Updating and Refining the 1689 Baptist Confession: Introduction
    Part 2: Updating and Refining the 1689 Baptist Confession: Modern English
    Part 3: Updating and Refining the 1689 Baptist Confession: Adding Important Doctrinal Affirmations
    Part 4: Updating and Refining the 1689 Baptist Confession: Affirming Inerrancy
    Part 5: Updating and Refining the 1689 Baptist Confession: Affirming Marriage and the Roles of Men and Women
    Part 6: Updating and Refining the 1689 Baptist Confession: Affirming the Church’s Mission to the World
    Part 7: Updating and Refining the 1689 Baptist Confession: Affirming Common Grace and the Sincere Offer
    Part 8: Updating and Refining the 1689 Baptist Confession: Removing Unwarranted Teaching
    Part 9: Updating and Refining the 1689 Baptist Confession: Refining “God without Passions”
    Part 10: Updating and Refining the 1689 Baptist Confession: Refining the Regulative Principle of Worship
    Part 11: Updating and Refining the 1689 Baptist Confession: Refining Sabbath Observance
    Part 12: Updating and Refining the 1689 Baptist Confession: Applying Sola Scriptura
    Part 13: Updating and Refining the 1689 Baptist Confession: Reformed and Relevant
    Part 14: Updating and Refining the 1689 Baptist Confession: Toward a Humble Orthodoxy
    Part 15: Obstacles to Updating and Refining the 1689 Confession: Strict Subscription
    Part 16: Obstacles to Updating and Refining the 1689 Confession: Subtle Traditionalism
    Part 17: Updating and Refining the 1689 Baptist Confession: Answers to Common Objections [↩]