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.