None of us own a patent on the label “Reformed Baptists.” Interestingly, the signers of the 1689 didn’t refer to themselves by that name. I think we’re free to use such titles so long as we add further qualifiers to help others understand our position. The main thing is that we’re true to Scripture. Tradition should serve as our guide but not our ultimate master. I can affirm the teaching of the 1689 Confession. But I don’t think it has the last word on everything. God’s Spirit has continued to teach the church since the 17th century, and I’ve enjoyed learning some important and valid truths from brothers outside my own tradition. So whether or not we cross our t’s or dot our i’s exactly the same, I suspect we share much in common and would enjoy worshiping our Sovereign God together and promoting His fame throughout the earth.

Your servant,
Bob Gonzales

Would we be considered a newer type of “Reformed Baptist” or simply “Baptist” who hold to reformed theology because we do not hold to certain traditions.

Thanks for the comment. I agree. That was the aim of “Part II” of this series. I try to suggest at least three areas in which I believe the 1689 can be refined and enhanced.

If the confession can be improved upon, is not the burden of proof placed on the person who would do so? Is there a suspicion that one or more parts of the 1689 LBC may need correction or improvement?

Who says the creation account resembles ANE? Why doesn’t ANE resemble the creation accounts?

Valid questions and I don’t want to hijack Prof. Gonzales’ thread in answering. I will post them on my blog, see link below but that will probably be Saturday as I will be too buzy this week to do so.

In the meantime you may be interested in Thoughts on Gen. 1:1-2:4a.

I think Richard’s point was that the 17th century Puritans did not have the same amount of archaeological and historical background material to the Scriptures that we 21st century believers currently possess. This material, when used properly, can shed light on certain texts and teachings of the Old and New Testaments. For example, in his Biblical Theology, John Owen writes an excursus in which he argues that the Hebrew vowel points of the Masoretic text were added at the time of Ezra and should be treated as inspired. We now know that they were added much later, during the Medieval period by Jewish scribes. So here we have an example of an area where 21st century biblical scholarship can make a contribution to our understanding of Scripture that advances the contributions of the Puritans. For more on this subject, see my earlier post Peter Enns, Jeffrey Niehaus, the Ancient Near East, and Inspiration. I do believe that a number of modern discoveries regarding Ancient Near Eastern kingship ideology and international treaty diplomacy have shed light on our understanding of OT theology.

But I agree with your main point. Our doctrinal understanding didn’t stop in the 18th century. The older a confession gets, the more we revere it, at times to our detriment…