Posted by deangonzales on August 25, 2008
According to Luke 7:34, “The Son of Man [came] … drinking.” As we saw in our previous post, the text interpreted in context indicates that Jesus was a social drinker. That is, Jesus used alcoholic beverages in moderation, and he sometimes drank in public.
The Answer Applied
What does this mean for us today? How does the question of Christ’s social drinking apply to modern believers and the modern church?
1. According to this passage (and the rest of the Bible), it is legitimate for a Christian to drink alcoholic beverages in moderation and even socially when appropriate.
Follow the logic: If the Lord Jesus drank wine in moderation (and He did), and if He remained sinless in doing so (and He did), and if Christ is our pattern for a God-honoring life (and He is), then Christians too, like Jesus, may legitimately drink alcoholic beverages such as wine in moderation and even socially when appropriate. Before you close your browser, let me quickly inject some words of clarification and qualification.
a. Clarification
I am not asserting that all Christians must drink or even that all Christians should drink wine. I know of no commandment in the Bible that absolutely obligates every Christian to use alcoholic beverages. The Bible seems to present the moderate use of wine as a liberty, not as a necessity. Furthermore, there is no indication in our text or anywhere else that Jesus criticized the practice of John the Baptist. John lived a God-honoring life and abstained from alcohol. And there have been many godly Christians in the history of the church who have done the same (e.g., John G. Paton). Therefore, voluntary abstinence is a legitimate option for the Christian.
b. Qualifications
So the Christian may drink wine in moderation. However, if and when this liberty is exercised, it must be exercised prudently and lovingly. The Bible portrays social drinking as a Christian liberty, but it also teaches that there are sometimes wise and loving reasons to refrain from using our liberty. I can think of at least four examples.
(1) Do I have a physical condition that precludes the moderate use of alcohol?
Some Christians should refrain from drinking for health reasons. Interestingly, there is growing scientific and medical evidence that a moderate use of wine can actually be beneficial to one’s health.[1] And this should not surprise us since the Bible itself seems to commend wine for medicinal purposes (1 Tim. 5:23). Nevertheless, some people do have certain medical conditions that would make it unhealthy for them to drink wine or any other alcoholic beverage. This is true about other foods as well. Some people are allergic to dairy products. Some people can’t use sugar. Others can’t eat wheat products. Similarly, some people cannot drink wine without doing damage to their body. And since the sixth-commandment as well as the indwelling of the Holy Spirit obligates us to take care of our body, then some of us should refrain from drinking if it’s harmful to our bodies.
(2) Do I possess the grace of self-control?
Some should abstain because of a lack of self-control. People who’ve been converted to Christ from a life of alcohol abuse usually don’t immediately possess the self-control to switch from drinking a twelve-pack of beer per day to drinking only one or two beers per day. Only after a good deal of spiritual growth and maturity and the cultivation of self-control may a former alcoholic even consider an attempt to use alcohol moderately. Unless you have the moral fortitude to use wine and beer with proper restraint, then don’t use it at all (1 Cor. 6:12).
(3) Do I have a weak conscience?
Christians with a weak conscience should not drink alcohol. There are some brothers who believe it would be a sin for them to drink a glass of wine. If that’s your conviction, then you need to obey your conscience. That doesn’t mean that your conscience is right. But it does mean that violating your conscience is a very serious matter. Therefore, if you believe it would be wrong for you to drink wine, then by all means abstain! (Romans 14:14, 23)
(4) Will the particular occasion in which I drink cause a weaker brother to stumble?
Strong Christians should refrain from drinking in situations that may encourage the weaker brother to sin against his conscience. In connection with this point, someone may ask, “Should not the stronger Christian perpetually abstain from wine at all times and in all places, since there is always the potential of causing a weak brother to stumble?” This is position taken by many Christians today. It sounds biblical and loving. But if Jesus did not abstain from wine at all times and in all places for the sake of weaker brethren, then we cannot make it an absolute requirement for His disciples. Moreover, Romans 14:1-3 indicates that the weaker brother must not expect the stronger brother to adopt his convictions.
These qualifications are important and must be taken seriously. Nevertheless, even with these qualifications in view, Christ’s example in our passage legitimizes the use of alcoholic beverages in moderation and even socially when appropriate.
2. It is best for the local church not to make abstinence from alcohol a requirement for membership and a standard for holiness.
I realize that many churches do require abstinence from their members. I do not question their motives in doing so. In light of the example of Christ as well as other teaching in Scripture, however, I believe such a requirement is unwise and could be potentially harmful for the following reasons.
a. Such a requirement would potentially exclude godly people from the church.
If we as a church made abstinence a requirement for membership, then the Lord Jesus Christ could not be a member of this church! Have you ever considered that? Would you want to exclude the godliest man who ever lived from being a member in good standing in your church? And we would be excluding lots of other godly Christians as well. The great Reformer Martin Luther drank beer. After his famous stand at the Diet of Worms, Luther returned to his room and enjoyed a silver flagon of Eimbeck beer.[2] Did you realize that the godly Pilgrims who came to America enjoyed both beer and wine with their meals? Did you realize that Oliver Cromwell’s brother was known as both a devout Christian and a brewer? Did you realize that until the last 200 years most godly Christians have never made total abstinence an issue of church membership? Folks, if we took the position that the moderate use of alcohol is totally inconsistent with membership in Christ’s church, we would be excluding lots of godly Christians as well as Christ Himself![3]
Some brothers would respond to this point by arguing that if Jesus and these other Christians were alive today, they would abstain because of the problem of alcoholism in America. In other words, total abstinence may not have been necessary in Christ’s day or Martin Luther’s, but it is necessary today. But the problem with such reasoning is that drunkenness (what we call ‘alcoholism’) was a big problem in Jesus day too. Look up the words ‘drunkenness,’ ‘drunk,’ and ‘drunkard’ in a Bible concordance and you’ll find it listed alongside the other major vices of Jesus’ day. In fact, drunkenness has been a major problem in almost every society at every point in history. Yet Jesus and many other godly believers did not choose to abstain from alcohol.
Therefore, I do not believe that it would be wise to make abstinence a requirement for membership in this church since we would potential exclude godly Christians from the church.
b. We would be calling “evil” what God has called “good”
He causes the grass to grow for the cattle, and vegetation for the labor of man, so that he may bring forth food from the earth, and wine which makes man’s heart glad, so that he may make his face glisten with oil, and food which sustains man’s heart (Psalm 104:14).
Commenting on this verse, Calvin writes, “God not only provides for men’s necessity … but in his goodness he deals still more bountifully with them by cheering their hearts with wine and oil. Nature would certainly be satisfied with water to drink; and therefore the addition of wine is owing to God’s superabundant liberality.”[4]
Go then, eat your bread in happiness and drink your wine with a cheerful heart; for God has already approved your works (Ecclesiastes 9:7).
The LORD of hosts will prepare a lavish banquet for all peoples on this mountain; a banquet of aged wine, choice pieces with marrow, and refined, aged wine (Isaiah 25:6).
These texts clearly indicate that wine is a God-given blessing to be enjoyed.[4] Of course, this blessing can also be abused. That’s what the Bible calls drunkenness. And drunkenness is a sin. But so is gluttony—the abuse of food. So is greed—the abuse of money. So is fornication—the abuse of sex. But the solution to these sins is not to call evil what God intended for good. The solution is not even to abstain from these things. Martin Luther expresses it pointedly: “Do not suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying the object which is abused. Men can go wrong with wine and women. Shall we then prohibit and abolish women?”[5]
Nor do I believe it’s necessary to prohibit and abolish wine. The solution to gluttony, greed, fornication, and drunkenness is to use God’s gifts as they were intended. In the case of wine, God commands moderation. And when wine is used in that way, it may be viewed as a gift from God. Therefore, let us beware of calling evil what God has called “good.”
c. We’d be erecting a man-made standard of holiness in place of a God-given standard of holiness, which is the error of legalism.
This was the great error of the scribes and the Pharisees. They erected all sorts of man-made standards. At first they may have only intended these standards as safeguards. However, it wasn’t long before they began to use them as tests to determine a person’s spiritual state. And I’m afraid that this is the way many professing Christians use abstinence today. Perhaps it was originally intended as a safeguard, but now it has become a major criterion in determining whether a person is right with God or not. For example, one modern writer has declared that he “seriously doubts Christians who drink can be called saints.”[6] Another says, “Alcohol is never approved of by God in any amount for the obedient Christian.”[7]
But as we’ve noted, Jesus who is the model of a perfect Christian used alcohol in moderation. Moreover, the Bible elsewhere portrays alcohol as a gift from God to be enjoyed though not abused. Is the Bible a sufficient standard for holiness or not? I believe it is!
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16).
If the Bible is a sufficient standard for holiness, then we don’t need to add a bunch of man-made standards. If it was possible for Jesus to drink wine in moderation and to live a holy, God-honoring life at the same time, then what’s good for Jesus ought to be good for us. Let us, therefore, avoid legalism, and let us be satisfied with the Bible as our standard for holiness!
[1] Among the numerous articles and reports highlighting the potential health benefits of the use of wine, see “The Health Benefits of Wine”(http://health.yahoo.com/experts/joybauernutrition/21540/
the-health-benefits-of-wine/; accessed 25 of August 2008; Internet); “Is Wine Good for You?” (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21478144/; accessed 25 of August 2008; Internet); “The Health Benefits of Wine” (http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.nutr.20.1.561; accessed 25 of August 2008; Internet). These and other articles that support the health benefits of moderate alcohol intake also note that for some individuals the potential benefits of moderate alcohol use are outweighed by potential negative health effects on account of other health conditions the person may have. Moreover, it is also noted that too much alcohol intake can be harmful.
[2] See Jean Merle D’Aubigne, History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, trans. H. White (1846; Rapidan, VA: Hartland Publications, n.d.), 246.
[3] For an interesting historical survey of the use of wine among Christians of the past, see Jim West, Drinking with Calvin and Luther: A History of Alcohol in the Church (Lincoln, CA: Oakdown, 2003).
[4] Commentary on the Book of Psalms (Reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2003), 4:155.
[5] Another key text is Deuteronomy 14:22-26, where God encourages the people of God to enjoy “strong drink” (shekar)—in moderation, of course.
[6] Cited in Roland Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther, 1st edition (Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1950), 214.
[7] David Wilkerson, Sipping Saints (Old Tappan: Revell, 1978), 12.
[8] In the forward to Jack Van Impe’s book Alcohol: The Beloved Enemy (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1980), cited by Kenneth Gentry, God Gave Wine: What the Bible Says About Alcohol (Lincoln, CA: Oakdown, 2001), 4. Gentry’s book provides one of the best critiques of both the prohibitionist view and also the complete abstentionist view as well as a reasoned biblical defense of the moderationist position.
[9] See the excellent article by John Piper which underscores this point: “Brothers, Don’t Fight Flesh Tanks with Peashooter Regulations,” in Brothers, We Are Professionals (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2002), 151-58.
Posted by deangonzales on August 22, 2008
Was Jesus a social drinker? Many of us approach a question like this with strong feelings, opinions, and convictions. Some of us have come from families in which we’ve witnessed loved ones lose their jobs, destroy their marriages, and ruin their health because of alcohol abuse. Moreover, some of us have come from churches that have taken strong positions on this issue. It would be easy to allow our strong feelings, personal convictions or even our church traditions to answer the question. But we must not impose our feelings, convictions, or traditions upon the Bible. We must let the Bible speak for itself. When we ask the question “Was Jesus a social drinker?” our great concern should be, “What does the Word of God teach?”
The Question Answered
So how does the Bible answer this question? Was Jesus a social drinker? Before I attempt to answer this question, let me clarify it. By “social drinker,” I’m referring to someone who drinks alcoholic beverages in moderation in public or semi-public settings with other people. This definition fits with the one found in the 2006 American Heritage Dictionary, which defines a “social drinker” as “a person who drinks alcoholic beverages in moderation, chiefly when socializing.” With that definition in view, consider the teaching of Luke 7:31-35:
And the Lord said, ‘To what then shall I liken the men of this generation, and what are they like? They are like children sitting in the marketplace and calling to one another, saying: “We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we mourned to you, and you did not weep.” For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, “He has a demon.” The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, “Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.” But wisdom is justified by all her children.’
Commentators agree that the description of Jesus’ practice in verse 34 stands in contrast to the description of John the Baptist’s practice in verse 33. This is confirmed by the illustration used in verses 31 and 32 where a wedding march is contrasted with a funeral dirge. John’s approach to ministry was somewhat “funeral-like.” In contrast, Jesus’ approach to ministry was somewhat “wedding-like.” So if we can determine what John’s practice was according to verse 33, then we’ll be able to attribute the opposite practice to Jesus in verse 34. According to Jesus, “John came neither eating bread nor drinking wine.” And John’s practice of abstinence finds its rationale in the birth announcement, which the angel Gabriel made to John’s father, Zacharias.
But the angel said to him, ‘Do not be afraid, Zacharias, for your prayer is heard; and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth. For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb (Luke 1:13-15).
Clearly, the angel describes John’s future ministry as being characterized by the practice of complete abstinence from alcoholic beverages. Some commentators believe the angel is alluding to the Nazirite vow. As a Nazirite, John could not cut his hair, use alcohol, or touch anything dead. Whatever the case, both Gabriel and Jesus describe John as a teetotaler. Now follow the logic: if the “came not drinking” in verse 33 of our passage equals abstaining from wine, then the “came drinking” in verse 34 of our passage must mean the opposite. So if John the Baptist practiced abstinence, Jesus did not. Jesus, unlike John, enjoyed an occasional glass of wine even in public.
The slanderous accusations of verse 34 also assume that Jesus was a social drinker. Jesus’ enemies were saying three negative things about Him. First they call Him “a glutton.” Second, they call Him “a drunkard.” And third, they call Him “a friend of tax collectors and sinners.” By “friend” they mean one who condones and participates in their sinful practices. What did tax collectors and sinners common do in that day? They glutted themselves on food and they got drunk on wine. It’s important to note that each of these accusations were slanderous exaggerations of Jesus’ practice. When they accuse Jesus of being a glutton, they are referring to the fact that Jesus ate at feasts, and based on that fact, they then exaggerate His practice and falsely accuse Him of gluttony. In the same way, when they accuse Jesus of being “a winebibber,” they’re referring to the fact that Jesus did drink wine. But they slanderously exaggerate what is true and accuse Him of drinking wine in excess.
In other words, the scribes and Pharisees did not create these accusations out of thin air. The very accusations assume the practice! Therefore, according to our text, Jesus was a social drinker. Commentator J. C. Ryle, a friend of the temperance movement, agrees when he notes,
Comparing this verse with the preceding one, and remembering also our Lord’s miracle at the marriage in Cana, and the Institution of the Lord’s Supper, I certainly think there is a strong probability that our Lord did not altogether abstain from the use of wine. I say this with the utmost respect for the friends of temperance. But I do not like to see a good cause injured by its advocates taking up untenable ground.[1]
I have to address one objection commonly advanced by scholars and by well-known preachers today. Some argue, primarily on the basis of extra-biblical data, that the wine of Jesus’ day was heavily diluted with water in order to minimize its alcoholic content. For example, in an article entitled, “Wine Drinking in New Testament Times,” Robert Stein argues that the wine of NT times was three parts water to one part wine. In fact, Stein believes the main purpose of wine was to purify water. He writes,
In ancient times there were not many beverages that were safe to drink. The danger of drinking water alone raises another point. There were several ways in which the ancient could make water safe to drink. One method was boiling, but this was tedious and costly. Different methods of filtration were tried. The safest and easiest method of making the water safe to drink, however, was to mix it with wine. The drinking of wine … served therefore as a safety measure, since often the water available was not safe.[2]
Stein concludes his article that arguing that
To consume the amount of alcohol that is in two martinis by drinking wine containing three parts water to one part wine [i.e., the wine of the NT], one would have to drink over twenty-two glasses. In other words, it is possible to become intoxicated from wine mixed with three parts water, but one’s drinking would probably affect the bladder long before it affected the mind.[3]
Therefore, Christians and scholars like Stein argue that it’s invalid to compare the wine of Jesus’ day with the wine of our day. Jesus was not drinking a glass of Cabernet Sauvignon but the ancient equivalent of a bottle of modern purified water.
Does this argument force us to revise our conclusion about Jesus and social drinking? I don’t believe so for the following reasons: first, even if the wine Jesus drank had a lower alcohol context than today’s wine, the issue is still moderation not abstinence. The believer may not be able to drink as many glasses of modern wine compared to ancient wine and remain within the bounds of moderation. Instead of drinking 20 glasses of ancient wine, we’d have to limit ourselves to 2 glasses of modern wine. But still, the issue is moderation, not abstinence.
Second, though the terminology for “wine” in the Bible may sometimes refer to diluted wine, it can also refer to undiluted wine that has fairly high alcohol content. So it’s begging the question to insist that Jesus drank nothing more than highly diluted wine or purified water. In fact, I think that’s highly unlikely in light of two factors related to our passage: the wine from which John abstained was most likely the kind with higher alcohol content. Remember that the angel Gabriel placed it in the same category as “strong drink [sikera]” (Luke 1:15), a Greek transliteration of the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew noun sekar, which elsewhere refers to an intoxicating beverage, probably beer (Lev. 10:9; Num. 6:3; Deut. 14:26; 29:5; Judg. 13:4; Isa. 28:7; 29:9). Moreover, the Pharisees’ slanderous accusation would make no sense if the wine of Jesus’ day were merely purified water! What would be morally wrong with drinking plenty of purified water? So I think it’s more likely that the wine that Jesus made at the wedding feast in Cana and that which He drank at festive occasions with tax collectors and sinners was probably more potent than Dr. Stein allows.
Third, Dr. Stein’s conclusion that NT wine would affect a person’s bladder long before it affected one’s mind is, I think, an overstatement. Think for a moment of what Stein’s view of NT wine does to one’s interpretation of passages like Ephesians 5:18: “Do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit.” Traditionally, this text has been interpreted to mean that believers should not drink wine in excess, which results in a lack of self-control and moral restraint; rather, they should be “filled with the Spirit,” that is, they should submit their minds and affections to the Holy Spirit’s controlling influence. But if we follow Stein’s interpretation of NT wine, then the metaphor takes on a different meaning. Paul is exhorting the believer to avoid filling their physical bladder with wine, which would result in many trips to the bathroom. Rather, they are to allow their “spiritual bladder” to be filled with the Holy Spirit! And what will be the effect? I’ll leave that to reader’s imagination. According to 1 Timothy 3:3, a qualification for the elder is that he not be “given to wine.” Once again, commentators have traditionally interpreted this as a prohibition against the abuse or overuse of wine, which has the potential of intoxicating the mind and judgment. But if we followed Stein’s reasoning, then we’d have to see this as a prohibition against drinking too much purified water. Perhaps the fear would be that the pastor would have to make too many trips to the bathroom during the sermon or pastoral oversight visit!
What’s the bottom line? According to our passage, Jesus drank wine that had enough alcoholic content to intoxicate a person if used in excess. We know Jesus was sinless; therefore he never drank in excess and was never guilty of drunkenness. Jesus used alcohol in moderation, and he sometimes drank in public. So the unavoidable answer to the question with which we began this study is “Yes, Jesus was a social drinker.” In our next installment, we’ll consider the practical implications this answer has for the individual Christian and the local church.
[1] Expository Thoughts on the Gospels (Reprint, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1956), 2:232.
[2] Christianity Today (June 20, 1975), 10.
[3] Ibid., 11.
Posted by deangonzales on July 17, 2008
Objections Answered
1. Confessions undermine the authority of Scripture.
This can and does happen. For instance, the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church extend the claim of infallibility to several of their creeds, elevating the authority of their creeds to a place equal with Scripture.[1] The problem is not with creeds per se, but with the church’s attitude towards the creeds. If we venerate our confession of faith and assign to it coordinate authority with Scripture, we have a problem. But the problem is not the creed. The problem is our attitude towards the creed!
We have already stated that a creed is merely an extension of ecclesiastical, and therefore, of human authority (see Part I). As a result, all creeds—except those found in Scripture—must be viewed as authorities subordinate to Scripture. Our own Confession of Faith, 1.10, articulates this viewpoint:
The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved.
We need to take the teaching of this paragraph seriously, especially with respect to the Confession itself. Even though our Puritan traditions are much more biblical than those of the Pharisees or those of the Pope, we must resist the temptation to elevate them to a level equal with Scripture. And one way this can happen is when Reformed pastors and theologians become more concerned with what Rabbi Calvin or Rabbi Owen or Rabbi Spurgeon say on a given matter, than with what Moses, Jesus, or Paul have to say. We must beware of this pitfall. We must view our Reformed Confession as our guide not as our ultimate master. Calvin, Owen, Spurgeon, and the framers of our own Confession would urge us to make the Scripture alone our highest authority.[2]
2. Confessions contradict the sufficiency of Scripture
Does not Paul assure Timothy that Scripture is sufficient to equip him for “every good work” (2Tim. 3:16-17)? If this is so, then why do we need confessions?
This objection misunderstands the nature of Scripture’s sufficiency. When we say that the Bible is sufficient as a rule of faith, we do not mean to exclude the need for a written confession of faith. As Sam Waldron explains, “The Scripture was not given to be a complete catalog of all the sermons the church would ever need. It is not sufficient for that, and in the same way it is not sufficient to serve the church as a confession of faith.”[3]
Perhaps the best way to view the nature of Scripture’s sufficiency is to view the Bible as the foundation upon which the super-structure of Christian doctrine and practice is built. As a foundation for our faith the Bible alone is sufficient. Yet, like a foundation, the Bible was never intended to stand alone. In this regard we may also compare the sufficiency of Scripture with the sufficiency of saving faith. Faith alone is sufficient for the sinner’s justification. But justifying faith was never intended to stand alone but to be accompanied by good works. Similarly, Scripture, though sufficient as our ultimate authority and standard of faith, always calls for a human response of interpretation and commitment, which is precisely the nature of a Confession.
3. Confessions intrude upon liberty of conscience
When creeds exceed the bounds of Scripture, then liberty of conscience may be infringed upon. Our own Confession, 21.2, warns against this danger:
God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to his Word, or not contained in it. So that to believe such doctrines, or obey such commands out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring of an implicit faith, an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience and reason also.
Certainly, we must be careful that our creed does not “add” to Scripture (Deut. 4:2; Rev. 22:18). Furthermore, we must beware of requiring premature or word-for-word agreement with the Confession. We should give each conscience a sufficient amount of time to be instructed and an appropriate degree of latitude with respect to the actual wording of the confession.[4]
If the creed or confession of faith is an accurate guide to what the Bible teaches, however, then it cannot be viewed as an intrusion upon our liberty of conscience. Our minds have been freed from the shackles of sin, so that they might freely embrace God’s truth, not reject it.[5] In fact, according to Scripture, the rejection of biblical truth is actually an indication of a bad conscience (1 Tim. 1:19-20; 2:17-18). As one writer has wisely observed, “Men are seldom opposed to creeds, until creeds have become opposed to them.”[6] Consequently, the rejection of a creed may not reveal a problem with the creed, but rather a problem with the heart.
In conclusion, a public confession of biblical truth in the form of a creed need not undermine the authority of God’s Word, contradict the sufficiency of Scripture, or infringe upon liberty of conscience.
[1] Phillip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 1:7-8.
[2] Reformed Christians should be concerned when Reformed seminaries and journals give place a higher emphasis upon historical theology, than upon exegesis and biblical theology. The Reformed theologian John Frame has written two helpful articles entitled, “Traditionalism and Sola Scriptura,” in which he cautions against a Reformed version of traditionalism (www.thirdmill.org/files/english/practical_theology/ 23715~6_1_99_9- 56-44_AM~Frame.Traditionalism; accessed March 2002).
[3] From an unpublished lecture entitled, “Why Should the Church Hold to a Confession of Faith?”
[4] I presently advocate a two-level subscription in the local church: substantial subscription for members and full subscription for church officers and official teachers. Space does not permit a fuller explanation and defense of this perspective.
[5] Cf. 1689 LBC 21.3.
[6] Samuel Miller, The Utility and Importance of Creeds and Confessions (reprint, A Press, 1987), 40, quoted by Robert P. Martin, “The Legitimacy and Use of Confessions,” in Samuel E. Waldron, A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith (Durham: Evangelical Press, 1995), 14.
