Featured Confessionalism and the Salters' Hall Synod

I suppose it is anecdotal to an extent. I tend to keep my associations from the same circle, so it is true for me.

 

From the thread London Baptist Confession 1689:

 

@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.

 

yes...I also objected to the pope antichrist wording....many do

 

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.

 

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?

 

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")?