The Danger of Reformed Traditionalism, Part II
Posted by deangonzales on September 11, 2008
6 Comments
In our previous post, I sought to caution against an unbridled enthusiasm for and unquestioning commitment to our Confession of Faith in particular or our Reformed heritage in general that can subtly weaken our commitment to sola Scriptura. In general, I believe our Confession and Reformed heritage reflect accurately the teachings and emphases of Scripture. But I am not convinced the Reformed tradition as embodied in our Confession is accurate or balanced 100% of the time. (If it were, it would carry an authority equal with Scripture.) In this post, I want to suggest some ways in which we can demonstrate our commitment to sola Scriptura by building upon and enhancing the rich Reformed heritage we’ve inherited from our Reformed, Puritan and Baptist forefathers. Although I’ll be recommending some changes to the 1698 London Baptist Confession of Faith in particular, I think some of the principles on which I base my recommendations will apply to other Reformed symbols as well.
So here’s where “the rubber meets the road.” It’s one thing to affirm one’s commitment to sola Scriptura and offer a general warning against an imbalanced commitment to one’s Confession of Faith. Most won’t object too strongly. It’s quite another thing, however, to venture suggestions as to how one’s Confession of Faith might have some deficiencies that need improvement. I don’t expect that my readers will fully agree with all of my suggestions—at least immediately. But I do hope that you’ll give the matter careful prayer and reflection. In general, I think there are at least three ways in which the 1689 London Baptist Confession can be improved.
1. Updating the Language of the Confession
Most of the evangelical church has come to the realization that the 1611 King James Version of the Bible is outdated and fails to communicate well to people in the twenty-first century. Accordingly, many of our churches use a modern translation of Scripture (NAS, NKJV, NIV, ESV, etc.). This change, which makes God’s revelation available in the common tongue, is both Scriptural (Deut. 31:11-14; 1 Cor. 14:2-5, 13-19, 23-33) and Confessional (WCF/Savoy/LBC 1.8). Isn’t it time that we update the language our 1689 Confession? Thankfully, some have offered or are working on a modern version.1 But, as some have pointed out, once we update the 1689 Confession, it ceases to be a “1689” Confession. True enough. Nevertheless, we should still feel constrained to confess our faith to our generation. Ideally, it would be nice if Reformed Baptist churches could band together and work on a new confession for the twenty-first century. But present circumstances may not be conducive to such a unified effort. Maybe the best strategy for local churches is to adopt a modernized version of the 1689 (or something similar and essentially compatible with its theology) for use in teaching God’s people as well as publishing its doctrinal convictions to the world at large while at the same time continuing to affirm the old 1689 (much like we continue to affirm the Apostles’ or Nicene creeds).
2. Adding Theological Affirmations to the Confession
The second area of change involves adding formulations to address important issues that for whatever reason our Puritan forefathers failed to address adequately. Here is where I want to focus the majority of our attention. Creeds and confessions are usually born out of circumstances that threaten the doctrinal and practical integrity of the church. In other words, historically creeds and confession have been the church’s response to erroneous or heretical teachings that arise from within or without the church. In the Early Church, the debates focused largely on Christology. Hence, the great Christological creeds of Nicene and Chalcedon. During the Reformation, the Lutheran and continental Reformed symbols addressed questions related to religious authority, divine sovereignty and human responsibility, the nature and means of justification, and the nature of the sacraments contra Roman Catholic tradition. The English Puritans brought further refinements to the Reformed tradition in addressing issues related to church government and corporate worship in response to what they perceived to be errors in the Anglican Church. Since many of the doctrinal positions in the historical creeds and confessions were conditioned or prompted by particular errors or circumstances that gave rise to the particular creed or confession, we shouldn’t assume that one creed or one confession of faith sufficiently addresses every conceivable error or circumstance that we might face today. Consequently, there may be “holes” that need to be filled. There may be important issues that the modern church today faces, which, for one reason or another, were not addressed by our Puritan Baptist forefathers.
Let me offer just three examples (there might be others). First, both the Savoy and also 1689 unfortunately deleted two entire paragraphs from the Westminster Confession’s chapter on marriage. The WCF ch. 24 (which is ch. 25 in the Savoy and 1689) includes two paragraphs that address the grounds for divorce and remarriage. For some reason, both the Savoy and 1689 omit these paragraphs. I’m not a historian, so I can’t venture a guess for the rationale of this omission. In his exposition of the 1689, Dr. Samuel Waldron notes this omission and labels it inexcusable.2 I agree and think it needs to be remedied. Perhaps the easiest way to remedy the problem would be to reassert the missing paragraphs from the WCF.
The second example has to do with the question of male and female roles in the church, in the family, and in society. Feminism has been “baptized” by some pastors and theologians and is making inroads into the modern church. I don’t believe any of the English Puritan-Reformed confessions adequately addresses this issue, which is being hotly debated today. Of course, the biblical roles of men and women were generally assumed and practiced to a greater degree in seventeenth century England than in twenty-first century America. But I think Reformed Baptists would do well to follow other conservative evangelicals who have given a confessional response to today’s aberrations.3
The third example under this heading relates to evangelistic outreach and missions. In my opinion, the WCF, Savoy, and 1689 fail to give adequate expression and emphasis to the church’s responsibility to take the gospel to all the nations. When one turns to the chapter entitled “Of the church” (WCF ch. 25; Savoy & 1689, ch. 26), he finds an exposition of the nature of the church universal and local, its authority, its institution, its membership, its government, its worship, and its fraternal relations. But he searches in vain for a clear and comprehensive summary of the church’s duty to publish the gospel outside the four walls of the sanctuary. I suppose one might infer the Great Commission mandate from the allusions to the ministry or preaching of the word (26.10, 11). But in the context, the focus appears to be on preaching in the church, not on proclaiming the gospel outside the church in order to make disciples and plant new churches. The Savoy and 1689 do add a chapter (ch. 20) not contained in the WCF entitled, “Of the gospel and of the extent of the grace thereof.” But though this chapter focuses on the necessity and sufficiency of special revelation, it fails give a clear and explicit emphasis on the church’s and the Christian’s responsibility to propagate that revelation.
Why this seeming lack of emphasis on evangelistic outreach and missions in the seventeenth century Puritan-Reformed confessions? I am not an expert in church history, so I can only speculate. I don’t believe it was because of a lack of concern for the lost or a lack of conviction that God would ensure Christ’s gospel reached the ends of the earth.4 Perhaps the Reformers and the Puritans felt the need to give a higher priority to the church’s reformation than to its outreach to the world. Deer rifles are made for hunting deer. However, if someone gives you a broken deer rifle as a gift, you have to fix the rifle before you take it hunting. In the same way, the church was in terrible disrepair. The gospel itself had been terribly distorted. Therefore, before the Reformers and Puritans could focus their attention outwardly, they had to focus their attention inwardly on the church. This may be one reason why the so-called “three marks of a true church,”5 which Calvin expounds in his Institutes (Book IV, 1.7-9) and many in the Reformed tradition continue to employ, do not include the church’s calling and obligation to take the gospel into all the world.6
Another possible reason for the Reformers’ and Puritans’ lack of emphasis on evangelistic outreach and missions may be the fact that they lived in a sacral society (a kind of Christian theocracy). In such a society, every citizen was a member of the church and most would have attended some church. And yet, many of these citizens were probably lost. Since a good percentage of these lost citizens were attending church, it was not so necessary for the church to “reach out.” Under such circumstances, the pastor did much evangelism from the pulpit. That’s why we have so many excellent evangelistic sermons and books by the Reformers and the Puritans. This also explains why there were sometimes mass conversions among the churches during periods of revival. And, as I say, I believe this may be part of the explanation why we don’t find a big emphasis on outreach or missions in our Reformed Confession of Faith. It’s there implicitly, but not explicitly.
It’s not my purpose to critique Calvin or the Puritans on their sacral view of society. I do, however, want to highlight the fact that we no longer live in such a society. Our society is rapidly becoming pagan and pluralistic. It much more resembles the Rome of Paul’s day than the Geneva of Calvin’s day. Therefore, we shouldn’t expect the Reformed tradition of Calvin or of the Puritans to say everything we need to know about evangelism and missions today. Accordingly, I would recommend that our Reformed churches make more plain to our sister evangelical churches as well as to the world at large our convictions regarding evangelistic and missionary outreach. An entire paragraph (or two) could be added to ch. 26 “Of the church.” Or, as Tom Nettles has elsewhere suggested, phrases could be inserted into the four paragraphs of ch. 20 “Of the gospel and of the extent of the grace thereof” (see “A Suggested Addition to the Second London Confession”).7 But one way or another, I believe the 1689 needs to be augmented in this area.
What’s the point I’m driving at? If we really want a biblical church, we must be more than a 1689 Reformed Baptist Church. We must not be less than that. But we must be more than that as well! Especially, in giving proper emphasis to biblical evangelism and missions! As John Frame has properly remarked, “A church that is not preoccupied with reaching the unsaved is not merely a weak church; it is not properly a church at all.”8
3. Making Modest Refinements to Some Doctrinal Formulae
This point, I think, definitely requires the most caution and care. I can think of a few areas in the Confession in which greater refinement in doctrinal formulae could be helpful. For example, Confession’s depiction of the Scripture’s as infallible (1.1) and divinely authoritative (1.4) could use further clarification in light of modern attacks on the inerrancy of Scripture.9 Confession’s assertion that God is “without body, parts or passions” needs clarification so as not to leave the impression that God is incapable of responding emotively. Moreover, I think some of the 1689’s statements related to covenant theology could use some fine-tuning. The chapter dealing with worship (ch. 22) could be improved in order to expand on the teaching of chapter 1.6 and address some of the confusion surrounding the Regulative Principle of Worship and its application. But since I’m running out of space (and perhaps the reader’s good favor), I think I’ll leave any elaboration of this point for another occasion.
In closing, I want to leave the reader with three exhortations:
(1) Let us strive to maintain our highest commitment to the Holy Scriptures as the pattern for church doctrine and practice.
As a Reformed Baptist missionary to the Far East reminded our churches, it’s not enough to go back to our Puritan and Reformed traditions. We need to go back to the apostolic traditions as they are expounded and fleshed out in the Book of Acts. We must never allow our deep respect for our Reformed heritage to hinder us from re-examining our faith and practice in light of God’s Word. John Murray underscores this point when he remarks,
When any generation is content to rely upon its theological heritage and refuses to explore for itself the riches of divine revelation, then declension is already under way and heterodoxy will be the lot of the succeeding generation.10
(2) Let us be willing to learn from other church traditions as well as our own.
As Reformed Baptists, we don’t claim to have a corner on the truth. We simply believe that as far as we know, we are more biblical than other traditions. (If we didn’t believe that, then we’d need to change traditions.) But there are two ways of looking at that position: (1) we’re ahead of all other churches in every point of doctrine and practice; or (2) we’re ahead of other churches in many but not all points of doctrine and practice. Personally, I believe the latter of these two is truer to reality. We have a lot to bring to the table. But I do not believe we’re the only denomination or tradition qualified to teach others. I genuinely believe that there are probably a number of things we can learn from other churches that may not be entirely committed to our tradition. As one Reformed brother has wisely observed,
It is a short, and perilous step from saying, “We want to do everything Biblically” to saying, “Everything we do is biblical.” The one is from God’s grace; the other is proud and can lead to stubbornness.11
(3) Let us not be uncritical in our study of our Confession of Faith
Sometimes, the word “critical” is used in a negative sense. But I’m using it in a more positive sense, as that which is marked by careful judgment and evaluation. Both the Scripture and our Confession encourage us to be critical in our attitude towards religious teaching:
Now [the Bereans] were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so (Acts 17:11).
God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing 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, and absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience and reason also (LBC XXI, 2)
Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
- See Carey Publications’ A Faith to Confess: The Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 Rewritten in Modern English (Carey Publications, 2002). Stan Reeves, an elder of Grace Heritage Church in Auburn, Alabama, is also working on a modern version (see http://modern1689.reeveshome.org/). [↩]
- A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, 2nd ed. (Evangelical Press, 1995), 300. Waldron also notes that all three confessions lack a helpful definition of marriage (299-300). [↩]
- Several leading evangelical leaders compiled a thorough affirmation of biblical complementarianism in contrast to so-called evangelical egalitarianism at Danvers, Massachusetts, in 1987. The “Danvers Statement” may be accessed at http://www.cbmw.org/Resources/Articles/The-Danvers-Statement or found in the appendix of Recovering Biblical Mandhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Crossway Books, 1993), 469-72. The Baptist Faith and Message (revised 1998 version) includes a helpful Article (XVIII) on “The Family,” which articulates biblical complementarianism more concisely. [↩]
- In his book The Puritan Hope, Iain Murray demonstrates the conviction of many Puritans that God would eventually convert the nations before Christ’s return. But he notes, “The indifference to doctrine in the Established Church together with the struggles and decline of Nonconformity make it a matter of no surprise that missionary work practically stood still after 1660. John Eliot’s name, instead of being found at the head of a succession of missionaries endowed with a common purpose, remained practically alone in missionary annals until eighty years later when the Great Awakening in New England saw his mantle passed on to David Brainerd” (131). Interestingly, it is not a seventeenth century Puritan but an Baptist living at the end of the eighteenth and beginning of the nineteenth centuries, William Carey, who is honored with the title, “The Father of Modern Missions.” [↩]
- The three marks include (1) the gospel purely preached and heard, (2) the sacraments faithfully administered, and (3) church discipline exercised. [↩]
- Some have tried to include these under the first point, namely, the preaching of the gospel. However, when I read what Calvin and the Puritans say about this point, I don’t get the impression that they were primarily thinking about preaching within the church, not outside the church. [↩]
- Nettles observes, “The 1677/1689 confession of the London Baptists, now universally useful among many Baptist churches, anticipated the missions movement in some ways. The historical dynamics, however, that pressed missions into the Baptist conscience developed through the subsequent century. Because the theological discussion preceding this missions movement dealt with issues inseparable from the doctrine of the fall and sin, the nature of the gospel, the covenant of redemption, and the person and work of Christ, the church’s stewardship of the gospel world-wide should be a part of its confessional commitment [emphasis added].” Nettles’ suggested addition does underscore the church’s responsibility in general but does not seem to highlight the responsibility of every individual disciple of Christ to propagate the gospel. He does, however, cite Article XI of The Baptist Faith and Message (2000), which does: “It is the duty and privilege of every follower of Christ and of every church of the Lord Jesus Christ to endeavor to make disciples of all nations. The new birth of man’s spirit by God’s Holy Spirit means that birth of love for others. Missionary effort on the part of all rests thus upon a spiritual necessity of the regenerate life, and is expressly commanded in the teachings of Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ has commanded the preaching of the gospel to all nations. It is the duty of every child of God to seek constantly to win the lost to Christ by verbal witness undergirded by a Christian lifestyle, and by other methods in harmony with the gospel of Christ [emphasis added].” For a biblical defense of lay-evangelism, see my article Giving Proper Due to the People in the Pew: A Biblical Defense of Lay-Ministry and Lay-Evangelism, Part 3 [↩]
- Evangelical Reunion: Denominations and the Body of Christ (Baker Books, 1991), 139. [↩]
- Note, for example, the clear affirmation of biblical inerrancy on Reformed Baptist Seminary’s website: About Us: Doctrinal Beliefs. [↩]
- “Systematic Theology,” in vol. 4 of The Collected Works of John Murray (Banner of Truth, 1982), 8. [↩]
- This comment is from church-planter Matt Troupe and can be found in the comments section here. [↩]
