Review: A Modern Exposition of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, Part 3: Of God and the Holy Trinity

To this point, I have interacted a great deal with Waldron's ideas on the confession. However, on this particular issue we have extensive online access to Waldron's thoughts on the matter. Much of Waldron's commentary in this chapter centers around hypostatic subordination of Christ in relation to tdeeplher. In a response to a book by Millard Erickson, Dr. Waldron gives us detailed commentary on this doctrine and how it plays out in our everyday lives. (It should be noted, that while I have a great deal appreciation for Dr. Erickson's Systematic Theology, his stand on the issues in question is a great disappointment to me.) As the following links will show, there is great implication for the relationship between husbands and wives in the relationships of the Trinity. Here is Waldron's work:

Who's Tampering with the Trinity? Part 1

Who's Tampering with the Trinity? Part 2

Who's Tampering with the Trinity? Part 3

Who's Tampering with the Trinity? Part 4

Who's Tampering with the Trinity? Part 5

Who's Tampering with the Trinity? Part 6

Waldron's work is strong and insightful, I highly suggest you give it a read. 

Rationalism and the Trinity

The links above will give you a very full impression of Waldron's commentary on subordination in the Trinity, so now we will focus on Waldron's ideas relating to how we are able to understand the Trinity, itself. First, let's take a look at the specific paragraph being discussed from the confession:

In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and the Holy Spirit. All are one in substance, power, and eternity; each having the whole divine essence, yet this essence being undivided.The Father was not derived from any other being; He was neither brought into being by, nor did He issue from any other being.- The Son is eternally begotten of the Father.- The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.- All three are infinite, without beginning, and are therefore only one God, Who is not to be divided in nature and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties, and also their personal relations.- This doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God, and our comfortable dependence on Him.

Now, with this description in mind, this description that is one of the most extensive on the Trinity in any confession or creed in the history of the church, let's take a look at Waldron's reaction, the emphasis is mine:

The doctrine of the Trinity is and must forever be a divine mystery. It is a misconception of the creeds of the church (which are epitomized in this paragraph of the Confession) to think that they were intended to explain this mystery. Historically, the opposite was really the case. In the Monarchian (also known as the Sabellian or Modalist) heresy, the church was offered the option of explaining the mystery by saying that God was ultimately only one person in three successive modes of existence. In the Arian heresy the church was offered the option of explaining the mystery by saying that Jesus Christ and the Spirit were not God in the full sense of the word. Both options would have resolved the tension, but the church refused to say either. It maintained the mystery by maintaining that God was in one sense one and in another sense three. It asserted that ultimately God was both one and three: One essence or substance and three persons or subsistences. The creeds of the church fence the mystery. They do not explain it. The incomprehensibility of God means that the doctrines will involve holy ministries which transcend human reason and contradict fleshly wisdom (Note, for instance, chapter 3 'Of God's decree' and chapter 8 'Of Christ the Mediator'). Such mysteries must be accepted with humility and reverence by an intellect weaned from the arrogant and foolish notion of rationalism that it must or can comprehend the divine Being (Ps 131).

Now, as evidenced by the half a dozen links at the top of this post, it is not Waldron's contention that this small piece of the confession is all that the church can say in relation to the Trinity. What he is saying, however, is that the proper relationship of humanity to certain mysteries of God is one where we can frame the terms of the mystery (as the confession does) and consider implications of that mystery (as Waldron does in the articles above and in the rest of his chapter in our text). Neither of these constitute trying to grasp the full details of this mystery through rationalism. Instead, he insists that we should, out of humility, accept our inability to grasp this mystery and stop there.

This screams against every impulse of the modern philosophical and evangelical community. This idea that we should halt our inquiry is met in the contemporary mindset with derision and accusations of laziness or unwillingness to grow intellectually. This is a very serious charge and one that must be dealt with by those of Waldron's perspective with great care and respect. Waldron, in his exposition, is not giving us a course in epistemology, so we would certainly not expect him to make a fully defense of his assertions, but let us consider briefly a few considerations that are outside of Waldron's purview.

I discussed in my last post, which you may find here, that there are times when our confessions should be expanded or revised such that the substance of our beliefs can address new, modern questions in a way that is consistent with our heritage. On the surface, what Waldron is proposing here seems to be in direct contradiction to that idea. Many scholars would insist that the historic creeds and confessions need extensive revision on this topic, because they are not nearly complete in their explanation of this doctrine. They would happily apply Waldron's own argument against him and demand that he revise his statement.

How should Waldron respond? Well, it seems obvious that based on Waldron's argument that any expansion should be completely consistent with the heritage behind it. Waldron's contention, then, rests on the idea that all attempts to subject the doctrine of the Trinity to rationalism violate the doctrine put forth in the historical creeds and confessions.

Further, and more importantly, a confession is the declaration of what the Bible teaches about a doctrine, not what rationalism or philosophy says should be the case. Our proposed revisions in our last post were centered in trying to better explain what the Bible says about topics in a way that addresses modern forms of questions surrounding those topic. Waldron would argue (rightly) that the mystery that we see in the confession is the one that the Word of God itself leaves us with.

That makes the burden of updating the confession a Biblical enterprise and not a rationalistic philosophical one. That is not to say that reason has no place in theology; of course not! The entire discipline of systematic theology is an example of reason in the building of doctrinal expression, but this enterprise is deeply rooted in Scripture as its sole source of information.

One might respond to this by saying "yes, but already we have discussed the term 'verbal plenary inspiration', and even here you use the word 'Trinity' neither of which are in the Bible!" Yes, of course, we use these terms with the intention of having them represent what the Scripture teaches. These are terms of systematization of the message of Scripture, not concepts that we are developing outside of the testimony of the Word.

Conclusion

The header for this blog says that theology and philosophy are not at odds with one another, they simply need to be put in the right order. This topic of the Trinity is a perfect example of that.principle in action. Philosophical truths are used in the systematization of of what the Scripture teaches, but if ever Philosophy adds to the concepts taught in Scripture, it has overstepped its bounds. Reason is a God given gift, but we must use it as God intended, and it should never be used to add to the truth of God's Word.

This youtube video is a bit different in tone from our post, today, but it communicates the same truth, and for that reason I'm thrilled to share it with you:

Review: A Modern Exposition of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, Part 2b: The Holy Scriptures

This is part two of our discussion on the chapter discussing the Holy Scriptures in Sam Waldron's commentary on the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. You can find part one, here. In that section we discussed the relationship between Reformed theology and the inspiration of Scripture, and we discussed the relationship between the confession and the cessationist/continuationist debate. If you want to start at the beginning of this series, you can start here. Also, if you are willing to read all three of these so far, I thank you in advance. I understand that for someone who isn't a Reformed Baptist, this probably bores you to tears, and if you are a Reformed Baptist, you have probably been through this confession more than I have. My hope is to engage the confession in a bit different way so that those with interest in it can think about it a little differently. 

How do we defend the authority of Scripture?

I have a bachelor's degree in Religion, nearly every class I took in my major in college involved some form of textual criticism, then I went to grad school and manuscript evidence for the Scriptures were a critical component to arguing for the authority and reliability of Scripture. However, Waldron asserts that these arguments are unnecessary for finding the Scripture trustworthy. He says:

"Without reasoned dissertations or external arguments being added to them, the Scriptures are sufficient to warrant the confidence in their truthfulness which is required for saving faith. If one does not clearly state that the Scriptures are sufficient to oblige belief in and of themselves, one seriously undermines the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scriptures."

What Waldron is asserting is that we are in error if our reason for trusting the reliability of Scripture is based on the external arguments of man. To rely on something outside of Scripture to prove the reliability of Scripture is essentially to say that the Scriptures cannot defend themselves. None of this is to say that the information brought in from the field of textual criticism or manuscript evidence should not exist. After all, even Waldron makes reference to the manuscript evidence in his work, but it is in no way the reason why he finds the Scriptures trustworthy. 

This is not fideism in the negative sense. Yes, we are relying on revelation for our knowledge, but we are not doing so blindly. Waldron gives us a thorough argument that shows that the Old Testament is trustworthy because it is fulfilled by the New Testament, and the New Testament is trustworthy because of it's completion of the old. If this book were written all at once, this argument would be begging the question, and would not work, but since these texts were written independently and hundreds of years apart, we can see things prophesied centuries before in the Old Testament being fulfilled as much time later in the New. 

Waldron's argument here is as convincing as it is sound, once again he provides us with an extremely valuable insight. 

Revising the confession?

To take a different turn, the Reformed confessions are somewhat of a historical curiosity. During the 1500s and 1600s, we can find at least forty significant Reformed confessions and catechisms produced by various groups. Since that time we have not seen a third as many. Revision of confessions was something not shied away from, nor was writing an entirely new statement. A prime example is the 1644 and 1689 Baptist confessions. The 1644 confession relied on the 1596 True Confession. The 1689 Confession relied on the Westminster Confession of 1646. A large motivation for relying on the newer confession was due to a desire to not be seen as anachronistically misinterpreting a confession that was nearly eighty years old by the time the 1689 was written. (It was actually written in 1677, but it was publically confirmed in 1689 after England passed the Religious Toleration act into law and the Baptists no longer had to fear persecution from the Presbyterians or the Anglicans.) 

The Baptists updated their confession because they needed an expression of their faith that was relevant and clear for their own time period. With this in mind, why on earth do we not update our confessions far more regularly?

There are two primary reasons why a confession of faith would be revised. The first would be that a group decides that the current confession is in error so a chapter needed to be removed or amended. This is essentially what the Particular Baptists did with the Westminster Confession. They removed chapters they did not agree with, altered others, and produced a new confession for themselves while maintaining a strong connection to the tradition of their predecessors. The second type of revision is one that we see very frequently in Systematic Theologies. A new systematic will be written by a thinker in the same tradition of former systematics in order to address new questions that have arisen in the life of the church or in the life of society. The intent is not to change the tradition, but merely give an account of how the established belief addresses the new problem. 

Both of these types of revisions can be healthy, but the second type is what we specifically want to address, because obviously we appreciate greatly the system of belief put forth by the 1689 confession. As we are warned in the introduction, we should not merely change something in a confession because a theological trend has changed. Our motivation should be deeply rooted in Scripture and should serve a specific purpose. Waldron gives us an example of one such potential revision:

"The unfolding of error in history and the progress of the church's understanding and ability to express truth in words does occasionally require that formulas once sufficient to exclude error be strengthened and clarified. May there not be a place for expanding the Confession at this point and include an explicit adoption of the position that the Bible is verbally and plenarily inspired and a pointed statement that the Bible is inerrant in all that it affirms?"

Waldron is precisely on point in his concern. What he is proposing would not be inconsistent in any way with what the confession already teaches, it would simply address more clearly an issue that raised its head after 1677. 

In the same vein, why not add a chapter in the confession that condemns the practice of abortion? Why not clearly state what is already implied about the nature of Christian ministry, specifically that it is men who are called to be the pastors and elders and ministers of the church and not women? These revisions would not conflict anything currently in the confessions, and they would address more clearly issues that are a greater challenge now then they were when the confession was written. Each of these visions would be just as fitting in the Westminster and Belgic confessions.

Conclusion

The Scripture is self-sufficient and self authenticating, and we as Christians are called to rely on its testimony for believing in its trustworthiness. Our confessions, in great contrast, do not endure in the same way, and the historical oddity of confession revision and composition effectively dying off after the 1600s is uncalled for and is a trend that needs to change. The Reformed faith has a lot to offer, and it should be willing to update itself in order to give what it has to offer to new generations of Christians, all the while staying true to the historic theology that we cherish so much. 

Review: A Modern Exposition of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, Part 2a: The Holy Scriptures

Last time I began a discussion on the book A Modern Exposition of the London Baptist Confession of Faith by Dr. Samuel Waldron. The introduction was discussed, and that can be read, here. I recommend reading that before proceeding here.

Today we turn to the first chapter of the confession, 'Of the Holy Scriptures'. To expound on the confession itself would be redundant to Waldron's work, so I will assume that you have read the relevant chapter of the confession and proceed with interacting with Waldron's commentary. (You may read the first chapter of the confession at http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bcof.htm )

The necessity of compatibilism for the authority of Scripture.

Underlying everything said in the confession about the authority and sufficiency of the Word of God is something that in the modern context we call 'inerrancy'. I've referenced it before, and I will reference it again, but a definition of inerrancy in much detail can be found here. The Bible was written by men in such a way that, though it maintains their distinct styles and personalities, it says exactly what God intended and furthermore, it is literally his word. This conjunction of both ideas is important, because as reformed thinkers we would say that everything is as he intended, but not everything is directly his word. As a consequence of this, Waldron brings up an extremely compelling point that I had never actually considered before when he says:

"Organic inspiration assumes the reformed and biblical view that the same activity can be and is both divinely ordained and the product of free, human agency. Thus, the Bible can be the product of human beings writing acting freely, while at the same time it is divinely inspired and inerrant.

The implication is that those who reject reformed views of divine sovereignty and yet understand the pervasive humanity of the Bible must logically reject the complete inerrancy of the Bible."

For the incompatibilist, the person who thinks that divine determination and human freedom cannot coexist in the same free act of the individual, the Word of God as a man written document with divine inspiration does not work. If the incompatibilist believes that all acts of mankind must be free in their acts, then the Bible cannot be literally the Word of God, it can only be something that is somewhat influenced by God. God cannot actually control what is in the text. On the other hand, if the incompatibilist holds that some events are not free, but others are, then the Bible becomes a determined event, not a free human act. This account fails to explain the distinct writing styles of each Biblical author. The Biblical understanding of inspiration requires that both man's style and God's precise message exist, simultaneously. This can only happen if compatibilism, the reformed view of sovereignty, holds. In compatibilism, what can occur is that man is his creaturely freedom decides to write in a certain way, and it happens precisely because God has decreed that these words are his words.

Continuationism and the Confession

The first point of the chapter on the Scriptures contains with the following statement:

"Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in divers manners to reveal Himself, and to declare His will to His church;

- and afterward, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church, protecting it against the corruption of the flesh and the malice of Satan and the world,

- it pleased the Lord to commit His revealed Truth wholly to writing. Therefore the Holy Scriptures are most necessary, those former ways by which God revealed His will unto His people having now ceased."

Waldron, and many other Reformed Baptists interpret this section to mean that the position of the confession is necessarily one of cessationism, or, in other words, that many of the spiritual gifts listed in Scriptures no longer occur in the church. The language here is a direct reference to Hebrews 1:1-2. In addition the textual proofs also include Acts 1:21-22, I Corinthians 9:1, I Corinthians 15:7-8, and Ephesians 2:20. Conspicuously absent are the staple verses interpreted by cessationists to support their position, I Corinthians 13:10, and 2 Corinthians 12:11-12. Instead what we see in the context of the confession, along with the proof texts, is three primary concerns: the sufficiency of Scripture, the completeness of Scripture, and the guiding rule for the interpretation of Scripture.

The Scriptures are sufficient for their redemptive purpose; they are complete in what they contain as the Word of God, and the primary guiding rule for the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself. So long as a continuationist position does not violate those concerns, it does not violate the confession.

Now, to be clear, there is no argument that the majority of the writers of the confession, and of the Westminster Confession of Faith which this article of faith was taken from, did not believe that the gifts had continued. However, let us look at their context. First, they had to deal with the Roman Catholic Church, who believed that the continued use of these gifts validated the authority of their church tradition alongside and equal to that of the Bible. Second, they had to deal with Anabaptist sects who believed that leadings of the Holy Spirit could be of equal authority and guidance in the lives of the individual as were the Scriptures. It is as obvious why the Reformers rejected these notions of gifts as it is unfortunate that they extended this rejection to any use of the gifts in any way at all. As Waldron points out:"Both the Catholics, with their infallible pope and church, and some of the radical Reformers, with their claim to present revelations from the Spirit, denied or downgraded the necessity of Scriptures." He goes on further to say that "claims to continuing revelation conflict with the clear and fundamental statements of the Confession and the reformed and Puritan Christianity which it epitomizes". The continuing revelation, here , is that which adds to the Scriptures in any way, and it is this that Waldron insists is rejected by the confession. Since the continuationist position also rejects this sort of revelation, even by Waldron's strict cessationist position they are not in conflict with the confession. 

With this context, we understand clearly that the Reformers were rejecting authorities outside of Scripture and not explicitly rejecting the notion of gifts itself within their confession. (After all, the confession is a statement of what these men considered essential points of agreement, and is not intended to share everything they believe.)

As we have said, as long as a continuationist position does not violate the authority of the Word of God as laid out by this first article of the confession, it cannot be rightly said that confession teaches against continuationism, instead it is more properly stated that it teaches against adding to the Scripture in any way at all. The type of revelation that gave us Scripture, called verbal plenary inspiration, is done. The continuationist position would agree with this completely.

For an example of how the continuationist position works, I recommend the following article by Dr. Wayne Grudem: http://www.waynegrudem.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Why-Christians-Can-Still-Prophesy3.pdf

Conclusion

As Waldron points out, books upon books can be written on the first chapter of this confession, because the importance of the Scriptures and everything about them are beautiful and vital to the Christian faith. I will be composing one more section on the Scriptures, where the discussion will center on how the authority of Scripture is proved and ideas and implications for the revision of the confession, including the revision offered by Waldron. 

Review: A Modern Exposition of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, Part 1: The Introduction

As a Baptist with Reformed leanings, the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith has always been important to my theology. I have read through it a few times, but I have never studied it thoroughly enough to say "I affirm this document", which is obviously the obstacle to saying that one is "confessional". As I read this book, written by Baptist scholar Samuel Waldron, I intend on leaving my thoughts here, providing what will eventually be an in depth review of the book, or at least of key parts of each chapter of the book. There will also be some commentary on the confession itself, though I imagine the commentary of Waldron will be cause for the majority of my reflection.

Some initial considerations:

Going in to this exercise there are a couple of personal reservations that need to be made clear so as to treat Waldron's work fairly. First, Waldron and I disagree on the nature of spiritual gifts. He is a strict cessationist, and I am a continuationist. It is my natural inclination to bristle when Waldron refers to what he calls "charismatics", because, while I maintain a distinction between the terms "continuationist" and "charismatic" (as would most self-designated continuationists) that I think is important, it is sometimes unclear whether or not Waldron fully appreciates this distinction. To gain a grasp of how Waldron views this topic, I recommend watching the debate between Dr. Waldron and Dr. Michael Brown that can be found here. 

The other key reservation is a longstanding one that I have in regards to confessionalism itself. The use of confessions as a piece of binding authority is bothersome to me. I take the sole authority of the Bible very seriously, and I insist on seeing confessions only as expressions of what is believed about the Bible itself. What is very important about this is that it means that, in my view, if a person's view changes on a particular topic, they should either edit their current confession or find a new one entirely. The only situation in which a confession is binding is in the context of the local church, where a church member who has affirmed the confession as part of his membership can see his or her membership contingent on their continuing upholding of the confessional standards. At no point in any theological debate is it appropriate to say: "The (insert confession here) says this, therefore, it is the theological truth." That type of use is reserved for the Scripture alone.

The author of the introduction:

Dr. Robert P. Martin writes this extremely thoughtful introduction. If you are not a Reformed Baptist he is probably not someone you are familiar with. You can find a link to his bio, here. If you have an academic interest in the Puritan tradition, his book A Guide to the Puritans is invaluable, you can buy it, here.

Positives:

Dr. Martin lays out an excellent case for why the local church should have a confession of faith. I agree with him, completely. His argument proceeds as follows:

1. Any local church is going to have standards for membership, whether they are written down or not. 

2. A member who does not uphold these standards is likely to be removed from membership. 

3. It is unfair to members if there is not an objective, written standard.

4. Therefore, local churches should have a written confession of faith.

I believe this argument is sound. Using a confession of faith in this way keeps not only the membership, but also the church leadership, accountable to objective standards for membership in the church. 

Point of critique:

Martin gives us an extension of his above argument that is open to a couple of potential interpretations, and depending on which one we take, some issues may arise. Here is the section in question:

"And what is true of life within the local church is also true of fellowship between local churches. What church, which values the preservation of its own doctrinal purity, as well as its own peace and unity, could safely have fellowship with another body, knowing nothing of its stand on matters of truth and error? With no defined faith or polity, such a non-confessional church might be a source of pollution instead of edification. Under such circumstances, we could not open our pulpits or encourage fellowship among congregations with a clear conscience."

Then he has a footnote attached to this paragraph: "When we discover that there is not absolute agreement between our confessions, at least we are able to fellowship with our eyes wide open to those perspectives which divide us"

There is context that needs to be added to these statements. Prior to this section of his introduction, Martin has already told us that a confession will keep multiple groups from existing in the same congregation: "Can Calvinists, Arminians, Pelagians and Unitarians pray labour, fellowship, and worship together peacefully and profitably, while each maintains and promotes his own notion of truth?... Can they sit at the same sacramental table?"

The issue that arises here is twofold. First, what exactly does he mean by "Arminian" in this context? Is he using a narrow, technical definition of Arminianism, or is he simply referring to anyone who holds a notion of libertarian freedom that requires a prevenient grace? If it is the former, then he is exiling a group whose founder held to the Belgic Confession of Faith (a Reformed Confession, just as the 1689 LBCF, is) until the day he died, if it is the broader definition, then the implications of his argument seems to be a pretty broad condemnation of the entire Southern Baptist Convention, which includes both churches who affirm 1689 LBCF and those who do not. These churches are bound together by the Baptist Faith and Message, which does not contradict the LBCF but does not take a position on nearly as many theological questions. 

Martin also says in his introduction that this broader type of confession is a negative thing, saying it is "inclusive" when confessions should be "exclusive". The issue at hand here is that Martin seems to be drawing an extremely narrow definition of who our congregations can be affiliated with. At what point can we say "Yes,we disagree, but we both are supporting the Gospel of Christ, and in that singular mission we are brothers in arms."

Fully answering that question is too broad for our purposes, today. I would personally be happy to work together in ministry with various Wesleyan/Arminian/Free Will Baptist groups and would be very hesitant to offer the same to Pelagians or Unitarians... That is a complicated issue unto itself, but suffice to say that Martin's position is an extremely bold statement that would require a significant amount of merit to support. The introduction he provides is not intended to be a full defense of that position, but this might be something to keep in the back of our minds as we proceed in the reading of this book. 

Conclusion:

Overall, Dr. Martin's introduction is extremely helpful and is a great preparation for a sincere investment in the study of a Reformed confession. It makes very compelling case for the need of confessions in our churches, acknowledges the potential need to revise these confessions, and does a good job in properly measuring how the authority of a confession should work. It leaves some lingering questions on the implications of confessions for inter-congregational interaction, but in classic Baptist form these are questions that can be answered by individual congregations.