Infant Baptism: Valid but irregular.

I've posted on Baptism, before. You can find that, here. I am a credo-baptist, however, unlike many Baptists, I do not think that someone who was baptized as an infant has a baptism that is necessarily invalid. I think we have an example that makes this consistent with the theology we already have in place. You can listen to a short exposition of that position, here, by John Piper.

A Cognate:

If you took the time to click on the Piper link, what you heard was a description of whether we should baptize those who are mentally challenged to the point that they cannot make a public profession. He argues that we should baptize these folks on the basis of a perception that we can gain from that individual. He then argues that we should probably not baptize these people if we gain no perception from the individual. 

I mostly agree with Piper, here. I think he has focused on God's grace and also defended the sanctity of Baptism in a very meaningful way. Therefore, I also agree with him that the Baptism of these non-professors would be valid.

Infant Baptism?

Okay, so, what about infant baptisms, are all infant baptisms valid? NO, they most certainly are not. Okay, I am sure that I've lost a bunch of folks at this point, but bear with me. I, as a Baptist, don't remember a single time in my life where I did not love God. That's not to say that there was no specific moment where I repented of my sins and professed myself to be a follower of Christ. There was definitely such a time, and it was on December 18th, 1995. I was six years old. But, thinking in terms of a Calvinistic soteriology, I do not believe that I lacked faith in God and his promises before that point, and I do think that God regenerated my soul before that point and brought me to that faith. 

If I had been baptized before my profession, given those details, I would readily accept them as valid. The presence of that regeneration, though prior to my profession, would be evident in a way that was similar to what we have seen in the discussion of the mentally disabled, above. If I am going to count the baptism of the mentally disabled as valid without a clearly articulated profession, it is only consistent that I grant the same to those infants who were baptized and who showed signs of God's regenerative work before articulating a confession. 

Now, in line with what Piper talked about with those who showed no signs of regeneration... if a person who was baptized as an infant do not reflect in their lives the work of regeneration, and live out a rebellion against God without ever having done so, and then they repent and come to faith. I would say that when that person was baptized there was no evidence of the work of redemption and therefore no evidence that God had worked regeneration in their souls. This person was an improper candidate for baptism as an infant.

Why not baptize everyone as infants?

As a Baptist, I believe that the form of baptism prescribed for believers is upon profession of faith. I respect a lot of my paedo-baptist brothers and I cherish them. However, I also believe that baptism by immersion is what is prescribed in Scriptures, and I would readily affirm that a baptism is not invalidated simply because it was not by immersion (Sam Waldron, who wrote an exposition of the LBCF 1689 that I have reviewed a few chapters of, agrees.) So, though a baptism not done by immersion would be irregular, it's still a valid baptism. I think in the case of these infant baptisms we have the same situation. 

Conclusion

A pastor or group of elders at a church is unlikely to know the circumstances of God's regenerative work in a person. Thus, I put the responsibility on the believer to determine their baptismal candidacy as it relates to their infant baptism. I believe this very short description matches a sense in which a person can both hold to credo-baptism and also affirm that infant baptism can be valid, but irregular.  

The Sabbath

I have two study Bibles that I use on a very regular basis. One is the Reformation Study Bible, produced by Ligonier Ministries, the other is the ESV Study Bible, produced by Crossway Bibles. I love both these study bibles and reference them repeatedly. As much as I love the resources in both these Bibles, there is one subject which they both get wrong: The Sabbath.

Romans 14

Romans 14 is a powerful declaration of Christian liberty. Verse 5 says the following:

"One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind."

One thing we know for sure, the words of the Scripture, here, are completely true, but what do they mean?

The two Study Bibles listed above give us two different interpretations:

Reformation Study Bible:

14:5 One person esteems one day as better than another. A pattern of holy days characterized the Jewish year, and it is probably to these that Paul refers, and not the Sabbath. If the Sabbath were in view it would have been more natural to say, “One man considers the Sabbath above the other days.”

ESV Study Bible

14:5 The weak thought some days were more important than others. Given the Jewish background here (see v. 14), the day that is supremely in view is certainly the Sabbath. The strong think every day is the same. Both views are permissible. Each person must follow his own conscience. What is remarkable is that the Sabbath is no longer a binding commitment for Paul but a matter of one's personal conviction. Unlike the other nine commandments in Ex. 20:1–17, the Sabbath commandment seems to have been part of the “ceremonial laws” of the Mosaic covenant, like the dietary laws and the laws about sacrifices, all of which are no longer binding on new covenant believers (see also Gal. 4:10; Col. 2:16–17). However, it is still wise to take regular times of rest from work, and regular times of worship are commanded for Christians (Heb. 10:24–25; cf. Acts 20:7).

The Reformation Study Bible gives us what is widely considered the 'classic Reformed' perspective, here. What is ironic about this, is that the fountainhead of the Reformed tradition, John Calvin, would be an Antinomian by the standard put forth by it. (This shall be covered more, later.) The ESV Study Bible gives us a perspective that has a distinct New Covenant Theology flavor, and essentially leaves us with only nine commandments, not ten, when we read the Mosaic law.

Both views are particularly flawed.

Reformation Study Bible

According to the Reformation Study Bible, if Paul were talking about the Sabbath, it would have been more natural to say that 'One man considers the Sabbath above other days." Unfortunately, their logic here makes no sense. If Paul were merely to list the Sabbath, he leaves open the possibility that his audience could still consider other feast days as set apart and above others. I would offer, to the contrary, that if Paul, an expert in Jewish law in his own right, felt it necessary to exclude the Sabbath from what he was discussing, he would certainly have pointed that out. The argumentation in Romans is wonderfully thorough from start to finish, and I see no reason for this oversight on Paul's part if he had intended for us to continue holding one Sabbath day in the mode that it was held in the OT.  If, on the other hand, he meant that NO days, including the Sabbath, were necessarily held above others, then he would have said "One person esteems one day above another, while another esteems all days alike." Which is precisely what he said. The brief argument given to us by the Reformation Study Bible is weak and unconvincing.

A possible salvation for this argument?

The Reformation Heritage Bible, which is of the same mind as the Reformation Study Bible, offers a slightly different angle to try to save this position:

A second example: honoring special days, probably the ceremonial holy days of the old covenant, once appointed by God but canceled in Christ (Gal4:10, Col2:16-17). While this could include some ceremonial elements of the mosaic Sabbath observance, the Sabbath itself is a creation ordinance and therefore has abiding moral force (Gen2:1-3; Ex20:11; Rev1:10). Paul's words here cannot mean that Christians are under no obligation to observe any sacred days, for then his words about food (verses14-23) would imply that Christians are under no obligation to observe a sacred use of food, as in the Lord's Supper.

This would be an incredibly powerful argument, if it were valid and sound. Unfortunately, it is not. What does Romans 14 say about food? We have that, here:

2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand... 14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. 15 For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. 16 So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. 19 So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding. 20 Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. 21 It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. 22 The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.

 How the Reformation Heritage Study Bible draws their inference about what the rejection of a particular Sabbath day implies for the Lord Supper based on this food is beyond me. The only connection to the Lord's Supper this could possibly have is if a person were to argue that only a specific type of bread and fruit of the vine were acceptable for the Lord's Supper, and a person who rejects a particular day for the Sabbath would be very unlikely to require a specific type of flatbread or product of the vine for the Lord Supper anyway, so the Reformation Heritage Bible utterly fails in showing the contradiction that they would like to show.

The ESV Study Bible

The problem with the ESV Study Bible is that it completely nullifies one of the Ten Commandments, and then turns around and suggests that it is still 'wise' to take a Sabbath rest. By what authority does it assert the wisdom of a Sabbath rest if there is no longer a Sabbath requirement? It seems quite problematic to take the entire Sabbath command, which has its roots in the creation of the world well before the Mosaic law, and try to say that the entire concept is put away along with the ceremonial laws that were firmly established so many years later. 

A third alternative, as held by John Calvin and others...

What I would like to propose is a third option, which does not trip on the apparent Antinomian tendency of the ESV Study Bible position nor does it place us in the apparent bondage that is seen in the Reformation Study Bible position. I would suggest that in the command of the Sabbath rest there are two elements. One that is ceremonial and one that is moral. 

John Calvin wrote in his Geneva Catechism (1560) concerning the fourth commandment the following:

171. Do you mean that this commandment properly refers to the Jews, and was therefore merely temporary? I do, in as far as it is ceremonial.

172. What then? Is there any thing under it beyond ceremony? It was given for three reasons.

173. State them to me. To figure spiritual rest; for the preservation of ecclesiastical polity; and for the relief of slaves.

174. What do you mean by spiritual rest? When we keep holiday from our own works, that God may perform his own works in us. 

Calvin saw a certain part of the Sabbath day to be distinctly ceremonial in nature, and he happily asserted that this portion of this command was gone. However, he also asserted that the Sabbath command had three reasons in it which are still necessary for us, today: spiritual rest, the preservation of ecclesiastical polity, and the relief of slaves.

But doesn't preservation of ecclesiastical polity revert back to having one specific day? Certainly not, it simply means that congregations and even denominations, together, can agree on what day they will celebrate this rest as a body. In Calvin's view, this day could be any agreed upon by the church.

Calvin's full view of the Sabbath has many other elements to it, that deserve their own consideration, elsewhere, but I want to now suggest an outcropping of Calvin's view that he himself may not have fully stated, but which I think accounts for our issue at hand with the different understandings of Romans 14, and is at least consistent with Calvin's greater theory on the Sabbath.

1. If Calvin is correct, and there is a ceremonial aspect of the Sabbath that is completed, then it does not matter which day we celebrate as the Sabbath.

2. If Calvin is correct, and there is a moral requirement in the Sabbath that we are still bound to, then at some level Christians are responsible for respecting a Sabbath rest.

3. If Calvin is correct, and corporate worship is a key component of the Sabbath, then our choosing of a time to have our Sabbath rest should be done in concert with our brothers and sisters in Christ.

4. This implies that our Sabbath rest should be taken in a way that encourages fellowship between those who are in Christ.

"The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord."

If these three things are true, then some consideration should be made by those of us who do not care how we celebrate the Sabbath should be considerate of the convictions of those who feel it should be a specific day. The Sabbath is a key component of the fellowship we have in Christ, and, while the brief arguments considered do not seem to be successful in coercing all Christians to celebrate a particular Sabbath day, they certainly represent a perspective that is "fully convinced in [their] own mind" and that needs to be respected.

On the other hand, we, as those who do not feel compelled to honor a specific day, yet still recognize the morally required Sabbath rest deserve the respect from our brothers who respect the day to not be considered antinomian simply because we understand the nature of the current application of the fourth commandment in a different way.

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. 

Arguments that Young Earth Creationists should avoid.

The other day I posted about arguments against Young Earth Creationism that just do not work. You can find that post here. I got two primary complaints, first that I had not shown proper nuanced forms of the arguments I had issue with. This is a fair point, and I am happy to admit that the arguments I discussed are invalid in the form I presented them, but arguments of that type are not necessarily invalid. My complaints in the other post were about the tokens represented, all of which I have heard. Every argument needs to be evaluated on its own merit.

The other complaint I encountered was that I said nothing negative about arguments used by Young Earth Creationists. After all, when I talked about Baptism I took issue with both the side I disagreed with and also those who I did agree with. (You can see that, here.) Why did I not do the same with Creationism? Well,  my policy on blog posts is that I do not want to write a post longer than what I would want to read if I were clicking on the link. I personally do not prefer long blogs, if I want the full scale arguments I will buy and read the book. So, in order to write a blog post that addresses both sides of the Creationism argument, I would have to break that rule. However, I am happy to write on both sides, and had actually already started this post when I published its cousin the other day. So, here it is: Arguments that Young Earth Creationists should avoid.

Exact dating of the earth using OT genealogies

I really appreciate everything Answers in Genesis does. I support their ministry and I look forward to getting out to the Creation Museum once their Ark Encounter project is complete. However, they use one argument, extensively, that just is not conclusive as they would like it to be. An example of this argument can be found here. The issue here is not that the majority of modern Biblical scholars think these genealogies are not exact, it's that the text never claims that the list is exhaustive. Before we start to worry that this leads us down some slippery slope, consider the genealogies we have in the New Testament. We know that they are not. Now, I understand that the Genesis account is a different language in a different time, but let's keep in mind that we still have a framework here for an divinely inspired genealogy that doesn't  include every single name.

So, here's the rub, if it is possible that a Biblical genealogy can be less than exhaustive, then it is illogical to argue that the earth must have a certain age because a genealogy in the Bible includes names and ages that add up to that age. The information available does not give us the deductive conclusion that this argument is attempting to give. The AIG article above would have been completely fine if it had gotten to the end and said: "Thus, based on the evidence available, we think that a no gap genealogy is the best conclusion" there would be no issue. However, too often this argument gets tossed out by Young Earth Creationists as an indisputable proof, and this is not a rational conclusion. 

Yom

In the Baptism post, linked above, we have a discussion on the use of the word baptizo in the New Testament, and the logical fallacy of assuming that a word has the same meaning every single time. (We cited D.A. Carson's work on exegetical fallacies.) Too often YEC adherents do the same thing with yom, insisting that it means a 24 hour day. I think that it does mean a 24 hour day, here, and I quite like arguments that try to show that grouping the word 'day' with qualifiers about evening and morning indicates that 24 hours is the time period being described. But, again, this is not a deductive argument, so using this argument as a indisputable proof is logically invalid. 

Don't argue that Young Earth Creationists have science figured out!

We don't, and that's perfectly okay. If we as Creationists have scientific theories that do not work, we should be honest and reasonable enough to admit it. There's nothing wrong with seeing a scientific question that has not been answered yet and saying: "This topic needs more scientific research." Science has been done by Christians for centuries, and they never had all the answers. There's no reason to think that we suddenly have it all figured out now. If we want to reproach Old Earth adherents for acting as those their science doesn't have serious gaps we absolutely cannot do any differently for our own theories. That would be a special pleading fallacy, and I've seen it happen way too often. I am not a scientist, but I've seen enough science that comes to Young Earth conclusions to be satisfied, as a Philosopher and Theologian, intellectually in being a Young Earth Creationist. 

Conclusion

Being correct does not give you the right to use invalid arguments. In fact, I often tell my students that those with the correct conclusions bear a greater responsibility in their argumentation, because bad arguments tarnish the reputation of the truth. It is the same reason why I get infuriated when I see people claim the Bible is the Word of God and then try to prove it by KJV Onlyism (here). Defend the truth, but do so in a way that has integrity.