I suppose it is anecdotal to an extent. I tend to keep my associations from the same circle, so it is true for me.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Confessionalism and the Salters' Hall Synod
- Thread starter Martin Marprelate
- Start date
I agree. That is why I am confessional. Do I need to quote the 1689 1:1 for the third time?
This is the purest gobbledegook. If a teaching is 'necessarily contained' in the Scripture, how can it possibly be 'without basis from "what is written"'?
What is my definition of 'Scripture alone'?
Of course we must. Shall I quote the 1689 1:1 again? But the fact is that you and I and everyone else puts their differing theologies alongside 'what is written' as its equal. If we didn't believe that our differing theologies complied fully with Scripture then presumably we wouldn't hold them.
I don't know anyone who is confessional who believes that Creeds and Confessions are infallible. If you are trying to foist such a view upon me, you are very wide of the mark. Go and find any quote from me that indicates such a view. The two quotes you gave above were from R.C. Sproul and Robert Godfrey. Both those men were confessional, and they would tell you in no uncertain terms to stop being so silly.
I am not talking about Penal Substitution either. Nor am I talking about anyone's right to turn to the Scripture and read it for himself. I am talking, and the OP was talking, about the necessity for the churches to protect themselves from those who 'have crept in unnoticed' (Jude 4) and endeavour to introduce false teaching. If you don't like all the historical references I have instanced, read the history of the 'Downgrade Controversy.' The Baptist Union in Britain had no basis of faith and the false teaching crept in; it's still there today. The same has been going on in the Church of England for years, because the XXXIX Articles were sidelined. Otherwise the heretics could have been warned and then ejected (Titus 3:10).
Last edited:
Again, what part of the confession to which you adhere (the parts with which you find agreement) do you believe to be fallible and subject to revision?
I certainly don't believe that any confession is infallible, and you will not find anywhere that I have said that one is. The 1689 Confession itself makes that clear. I believe that the 1689 Confession is correct, but I have said above that it is in need of some revision. If anyone can show me from the Scripture that it is wrong at any point, then I will change my view of its correctness. But Spurgeon believed that it is 'a most excellent epitome of the things most surely believed among us' and so do I.
So you don't believe the Confession is "necessarily contained". That is good to know. Do you believe the same about other doctrines you may hold that are systematically developed from Scripture (do you recognize the inherent possibility of human error there as well)?
@JonC, I do not mean to inject myself directly into your discussion with @Martin Marprelate, but I want to share my perspective on the fallibility/infallibility of the1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith. I have a unique perspective on this topic because I invested an entire year teaching the Confession to my church before we voted to adopt it as our statement of faith.
You asked the following question to Martin:
"Again, what part of the confession to which you adhere (the parts with which you find agreement) do you believe to be fallible and subject to revision?"
Your question begs the assumption that a subscriber to the Confession recognizes known errors within the same. As a subscriber to the Confession, I view it differently. The Confession is a commentary on biblical doctrine and practice. Ergo, the real question is whether the framers of the Confession were correct in their understanding of scripture. Were they accurate in their summations and conclusions? If not, did they err in the entire document or in certain parts? What are the ramifications of an error if one is found? Does such an error impugn the entire Confession or just a part?
While I do not consider any man-made document to be infallible, I do believe specific documents to be truthful to the limit of human understanding. In other words, to the extent that any man is able to produce a work that accurately represents the truth of scripture, that work may be accurate and truthful while not being infallible. Fallibility comes into play when it can be proven that the work contains errors. For instance, I believe chapter 10 of the Confession "Of Effectual Calling" to be completely accurate and truthful in all its parts. The framers of the Confession rightly divided the word of God on this biblical doctrine. Their explanation did not add to the scripture nor detract from it. Since I believe their summation and conclusion to be correct, should I, therefore, believe it to be infallible? No. While unlikely, they could be wrong in whole or in part. So far the conclusions of chapter 10 have been unassailable for the past 329 years, but who knows? Maybe year 330 will be the year it all crumbles! Forgive me for being a bit cheeky, but hopefully, my point has been made.
There is a specific part of the Confession that I would change. Chapter 26.4 calls the pope of Rome "that anti-Christ". I would tighten that language up a bit. I believe the Roman Catholic Church, and the papacy, to be in the spirit of anti-Christ. I would not put the definite article before either institution. Protestant Christianity in the 17th century was still on the heels of the counter-Reformation. It is understandable why there was such a visceral reaction to Romanism. There is no other part of the Confession that I believe needs to be changed or even updated at this time.
One aspect of the Confession that impresses me is the relentless scrutiny and attacks it has endured for over three centuries. The document still stands intact. That alone does not make it accurate but it does prove that many Baptists have seen its worth. But a proper caution is needed. No Confession or Creed should be elevated to being equal with the Word of God. At the risk of being redundant, no man-made document is infallible. Its truthfulness and accuracy rest upon a proper understanding of scripture. Martin Luther appealed to that thought at Worms when he said:
"However, since I am a man and not God, I cannot provide my writings with any other defense than that which my Lord Jesus Christ provided for His teaching. When He had been interrogated concerning His teaching before Annas and had received a buffet from a servant, He said: "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil." If the Lord Himself, who knew that He could not err, did not refuse to listen to witness against His teaching, even from a worthless slave, how much more ought I, scum that I am, capable of naught but error, to seek and to wait for any who may wish to bear witness against my teaching.
And so, through the mercy of God, I ask Your Imperial Majesty, and Your Illustrious Lordships, or anyone of any degree, to defeat them by the writings of the Prophets or by the Gospels; for I shall be most ready, if I be better instructed, to recant any error, and I shall be the first in casting my writings into the fire."
While few of us will face such a dramatic test of our convictions, we should all make the same appeal to scripture if we hold to any work which is proven to be in error.
You asked the following question to Martin:
"Again, what part of the confession to which you adhere (the parts with which you find agreement) do you believe to be fallible and subject to revision?"
Your question begs the assumption that a subscriber to the Confession recognizes known errors within the same. As a subscriber to the Confession, I view it differently. The Confession is a commentary on biblical doctrine and practice. Ergo, the real question is whether the framers of the Confession were correct in their understanding of scripture. Were they accurate in their summations and conclusions? If not, did they err in the entire document or in certain parts? What are the ramifications of an error if one is found? Does such an error impugn the entire Confession or just a part?
While I do not consider any man-made document to be infallible, I do believe specific documents to be truthful to the limit of human understanding. In other words, to the extent that any man is able to produce a work that accurately represents the truth of scripture, that work may be accurate and truthful while not being infallible. Fallibility comes into play when it can be proven that the work contains errors. For instance, I believe chapter 10 of the Confession "Of Effectual Calling" to be completely accurate and truthful in all its parts. The framers of the Confession rightly divided the word of God on this biblical doctrine. Their explanation did not add to the scripture nor detract from it. Since I believe their summation and conclusion to be correct, should I, therefore, believe it to be infallible? No. While unlikely, they could be wrong in whole or in part. So far the conclusions of chapter 10 have been unassailable for the past 329 years, but who knows? Maybe year 330 will be the year it all crumbles! Forgive me for being a bit cheeky, but hopefully, my point has been made.
There is a specific part of the Confession that I would change. Chapter 26.4 calls the pope of Rome "that anti-Christ". I would tighten that language up a bit. I believe the Roman Catholic Church, and the papacy, to be in the spirit of anti-Christ. I would not put the definite article before either institution. Protestant Christianity in the 17th century was still on the heels of the counter-Reformation. It is understandable why there was such a visceral reaction to Romanism. There is no other part of the Confession that I believe needs to be changed or even updated at this time.
One aspect of the Confession that impresses me is the relentless scrutiny and attacks it has endured for over three centuries. The document still stands intact. That alone does not make it accurate but it does prove that many Baptists have seen its worth. But a proper caution is needed. No Confession or Creed should be elevated to being equal with the Word of God. At the risk of being redundant, no man-made document is infallible. Its truthfulness and accuracy rest upon a proper understanding of scripture. Martin Luther appealed to that thought at Worms when he said:
"However, since I am a man and not God, I cannot provide my writings with any other defense than that which my Lord Jesus Christ provided for His teaching. When He had been interrogated concerning His teaching before Annas and had received a buffet from a servant, He said: "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil." If the Lord Himself, who knew that He could not err, did not refuse to listen to witness against His teaching, even from a worthless slave, how much more ought I, scum that I am, capable of naught but error, to seek and to wait for any who may wish to bear witness against my teaching.
And so, through the mercy of God, I ask Your Imperial Majesty, and Your Illustrious Lordships, or anyone of any degree, to defeat them by the writings of the Prophets or by the Gospels; for I shall be most ready, if I be better instructed, to recant any error, and I shall be the first in casting my writings into the fire."
While few of us will face such a dramatic test of our convictions, we should all make the same appeal to scripture if we hold to any work which is proven to be in error.
yes...I also objected to the pope antichrist wording....many do
Thank you for your helpful post, Reformed. You have expressed several points very well.
Exactly so.
Yes; I made this point in post #23. I believe that even ARBCA allow one to disagree with 26:4 ands still be a 'full subscriber' to the confession.
I believe that Article 1:6 is correct. It seems that you have misunderstood what it says. Would you like me to explain it to you?
Someone may err concerning any doctrine of Scripture, whether 'systematically developed' or not. There are plenty of instances of people misinterpreting the very plainest portions of Scripture.
I am just asking if you consider your theology failable, does it have the potential for error?
The reason I ask is that one area where doctrine is eroded is through redefining or expanding terms, meanings, and definitions. Scripture becomes subjective to what people see implied (as with defining "propitiation" as "wrath bearing" in order demand one interpretation of 1 John). When this happens there is no solid ground left as it undermines anything you would seek to found upon Scripture. And error creeps into the church.
Thank you for the reply. I have studied the historical confessions, and I agree with you here.
My concern was with appealing not only to Scripture (to "what is written") but also to what we believe to be "necessarily contained". To illustrate, @Martin Marprelate insisted on another thread that 1 Jn 2:2 demands the word "propitiation" be defined as "bearing wrath" because of context and what is "necessarily contained" in Scripture. I understand the argument that Jesus bore God's wrath, but if this is how Reformed theology seeks to validate that argument (by reading into Scripture what it sees as "necessarily contained") I question its validity.
Our disagreement is that I believe all doctrine must be evaluated by what is written in Scripture. I understand teaching theology and doctrine, and I understand standing by what one believes. I have never been a member of a Reformed Baptist church and was simply unaware that you viewed systematically derived doctrine as on par with Scripture (in our example, the infallibility of the Penal Substitution Theory yields the definition of "propitiation" to be rendered "bearing wrath" rather than traditional definitions).
The reason I believe we have to appeal to what is written is that we have differing ideas about interpretation and what is taught or implied. If we view our theology as "necessarily contained" and therefore on par with Scripture then we can only debate those who agree with our theology (or the theological point we believe is Scripture itself).
When we start allowing our theology to define terms, and alter definitions, then the door is opened for false doctrine to enter the church - not because of a lack of a proper confession but because we have moved away from what is written in Scripture. Once we allow Scripture (what is written) to become subjective then everything else follows.
That was common language for centuries. And I actually don't object so much with that part (in terms of being an antichrist) as any man who views himself as Christ's vicar on earth seems to meet the definition.
Before we go any further, would you like to show me where I have described "propitiation" as "wrath bearing"? The two terms are certainly not synonymous. Hilasmos means an appeasement, a sacrifice or offering that turns away wrath.
Now this is what I wrote on another thread:
However that verse [1 John 2:2] is not in a vacuum, and is the culmination of a doctrinal section that begins in 1 John 1:5. I'm not going to go through all the verses-- go read a commentary-- but I think we can find the meaning of the section quite easily. I reserve the right, however, to ski off piste.
'.......God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.' We note that darkness cannot abide in the presence of God (Revelation 22:5), and that light and darkness in John are spiritual rather than physical. Thus we see the darkness of ignorance in Nicodemus (John 3:2), and the darkness of sin in Judas (John 13:30). If we are walking in darkness, we can have no fellowship with God (v.6). Yet, 'if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us' (1 John 1:8). How can we ever be right with God? How can sinners walk in the light?
'Eternal light! Eternal Light!
How pure that soul must be
When, placed within Thy searching sight,
It shrinks not, but with calm delight
Can live and look on Thee?
.......Oh, how shall I whose native sphere
Is dark, whose mind is dim,
Before the Ineffable appear
And on my naked spirit bear
The uncreated beam?
But verse 8 tells us that 'If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.' How can He do that? God is faithful; that is, He is true to His character and true to His word, which states that He is 'By no means clearing the guilty' (Exodus 34:7). He declares, 'I will not justify the wicked' (Exodus 23:7). God is just: the wicked must be punished. How can He forgive us? We see the remarkable similarity of 1 John 1:5-2:2 and Romans 3:21-26. '.......That [God] might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.'
'There is a way for man to rise
To that sublime abode:
And offering and a sacrifice,
A Holy Spirit's energies,
An advocate with God.'
God's law must be upheld; the guilty must be punished; God's wrath, 'Against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men' must be appeased. And this is done by the Lord Jesus Christ. 'He Himself is the propitiation for our sins......' Sin has been punished in Him (Isaiah 53:6). 'Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree' (1 Peter 2:24). And the use by Peter of 'tree' rather than 'cross' reminds us that Christ also bore the curse that our sins brought upon us (Deuteronomy 27:26; Galatians 3:13). Sin has been punished, in Christ; God's righteousness has been upheld, in Christ; we are free from condemnation in Christ (Romans 8:1), because we become 'the righteousness of God in Him' (2 Corinthians 5:21), because He has borne our sins, every last bit of them, and God looks at us and sees the perfect, unblemished righteousness of Christ.
Now if you would like to coment on those paragraphs rather than inventing views for me, that would be good. I deliberately kept it short since you have failed in the past to deal with longer posts.
Last edited:
Is the Penal Substitution Theory the most common theory throughout history? post # 128.
My argument against @The Archangel was that defining "propitiation" as "bearing wrath" reads theology into the text and is not faithful to what is written (regardless to the validity of his theology). It is eisegesis by definition.
And in post # 140 you argued for @The Archangel definition of propitiation, linking my insistence it meant turning aside wrath based on the previous verses to hetesy.
Last edited:
I think I know what you mean by "necessarily contained" but I am not sure. Our Presbyterian brethren use the term "good and necessary consequence" when defending infant baptism even though there is not one passage in scripture that commands the practice. I understand their reasoning even though I disagree with it. It would be a wonderful thing if scripture solved many of our theological quandaries by simply saying "Free will is correct" or "Repentance precedes faith". Unfortunately, it does not. The serious student of the Bible will seek to understand the text and whether it is teaching a more expansive point. Scripture has many tentacles that intertwine with each other. They are hard, if not impossible, to separate. The important thing is to never exceed scripture's mandate while at the time understanding the theological impact of a particular passage.
I think you are employing "necessarily contained" in a manner in which you criticize others. I will not speak for anyone else but I believe in penal substitution because I believe that is what scripture teaches. I have studied the text and that is my conclusion. I do not believe it because a long-dead theologian in black garb and a beard told me to believe it; although their contribution to theology has been helpful to my study.
I have a hard time not taking a certain level of offense at that statement. Our disagreement is in our interpretation of scripture, not whether we actually appeal to scripture. Would it be fair for me to say that because scripture does not address cyber crimes that it is OK for me to engage in that activity? Of course not! The general teaching of the 8th Commandment still stands, "You shall not steal".
I can see you are having a hard time with this. Would you rather I believe randomly derived doctrine? In 1 Corinthians 14:40 the Apostle makes an appeal to order. A consistent order is what systematic theology is all about. There is a current that runs through scripture that is both historically and theologically consistent. To try and convince you of systematic theology in a message board thread is a tall order. For the sake of brevity, I will reword your statement to say, "The Bible teaches systematic doctrine".
And who interprets your "appeal to what is written"? You are still going to have differing ideas about interpretation. Your view does not solve the problem. It just places it in a different category.
When you show me where that has been done (moved away from Scripture) I will agree with you. Until then, I think you have created a red herring.
Last edited:
Is the Penal Substitution Theory the most common theory throughout history?
"Romans 3 says God put Jesus forth as a propitiation.
Propitiation is the key word.
By definition it is bearing the just and righteous anger and wrath of God against sin. "
Do you see how this is taking interpretation and reading it back into Scripture?
Jon, is your point there are other atonement theories? So? I am convinced that scripture teaches penal substitution. Can we not just disagree about that without the accusation that my position was not derived from the study of the text?
So when your [former] church revised the Confession there, what wording exactly did you settle on?
Last edited:
Yes, the Baptist confession at 1:6 rejected Westminster's wording at 1:6, that which "by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture."
The Baptists replaced that with: that which is "necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture."
Martin Marprelate, yes, please do explain the difference between the rejected Presbyterian language and the Baptists' "necessarily contained".
You've used "necessarily implied" and "necessarily consequential" in your argumentation. Aren't those more like the Presbyterian scheme ("by good and necessary consequence may be deduced")?
Last edited: