A New Assembly of Confessional Baptists.... Updating the Confession

C. M. Sheffield · #41 (**permalink**) 10-05-2009, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herald

Traditionalism is a constant threat to the Reformed faith. It must be guarded against at all costs.

Herald,

If by "Traditionalism" you mean what I think you mean (i.e. elevating it above Scripture), then I'm in full agreement. However, in many ways traditionalism is inevitable. Those who say they have no tradition are just not being honest. The key is to keep our traditions founded in and subordinate to Holy Scripture. In this way, I have no problem identifying myself as a "traditionalist."

Quote:

2 Thessalonians 2:15 - "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."

**Herald** · #42 (**permalink**) 10-05-2009, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C. M. Sheffield

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herald

Traditionalism is a constant threat to the Reformed faith. It must be guarded against at all costs.

Herald,

If by "Traditionalism" you mean what I think you mean (i.e. elevating it above Scripture), then I'm in full agreement. However, in many ways traditionalism is inevitable. Those who say they have no tradition are just not being honest. The key is to keep our traditions founded in and subordinate to Holy Scripture. In this way, I have no problem identifying myself as a "traditionalist."

Quote:

2 Thessalonians 2:15 - "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."

Yes, I am referring to traditions that elevate themselves above scripture i.e. Roman Catholicism.

**PuritanCovenanter** · #43 (**permalink**) 10-06-2009, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herald

The more I think about the suggestion made in the OP the more I am resistant to revising the Confession. I would have to be shown where it is lacking. I have a hard time believing the framers of the Confession viewed it as the final word on any and all doctrinal disputes. The 1689 was a statement of what Baptists believed. It was assumed, as it is today, that ministers of the gospel are capable of defending the faith. By publishing a definitive statement of belief it is easier to spot error.

There are many issues facing the church today. Reformed Baptist churches seem to be doing a good job confronting them. The Confession provides a solid basis for instruction on those things that are true. For instance, I can expose the error of the New Perspective by teaching chapter 11 of the 1689 LBC. Verbal plenary inspiration? Chapter 1. I can go on.

One thing I am in favor of is addressing specific issues for the edification of my church and like-minded brethren. My church has discussed publishing "position papers" on doctrinal and polity issues. These papers would not circumvent or add to the Confession, rather they would provide clarity on contemporary issues facing the church by making these papers available to all churches of like faith (and vice versa) for the edification of all.

I am also discussing this issue on my facebook. Concerning updating.... Someone made a comment about not reinventing the wheel. I then made the comment, "I am not suggesting a reinventing of the wheel. I am suggesting that there might be a better rubber compound."

My father in the faith Joe Gwynn made some uplifting comments to me and I responded to him this way.

Quote:

I am not capable of the indepth knowledge that would be required, historically nor linguistically. For example, a simple word such as passion had a different meaning in our Confession than it does now days. I learned that the word passion related to ill desires in the old English language of the mid 1600's. I learned that because Dr. Gonzales's refered to Dr. Renihan's discussion about God not having passions in Chapter 2 paragraph 1. The Carey modernization of the 1689 does a bad job IMHO on that part specifically by rendering passions as, "changable human feelings of men." Especailly in light of Dr. Renihan's historical and linguistic understanding of the Confession as he spells it out on this topic.

See Dr. Renihan's blog on the subject here. Are you passionate? Submitted by Prof. Renihan

As a side note, I do believe in God's impassibility and that God doesn't have conflicting desires as some of the people I look up to might.

I also would like to make mention that my cradle church in Virginia Beach did to a confession of faith based off of the 1689.

Here is what my Pastor Joe Gwynn said concerning it.

Quote:

Thanks Randy. Our Church's exercise in trying to update the LBC back in 1983-84 was something we found very profitable. As you wrote we called it the Hampton Roads Confession of Faith. We changed only the grammar in the existing chapters, and added three new ones: (1) "Women and Their God", (2) the Charismatic Movement, and (3) "Israel" to clarify issues that were plaguing the churches back in the 70's and 80's. And I would do it again. I just question the practicality of confession-writing over great distances. It requires a LOT of work, a LOT of debating, and a LOT of editing. But I know there are men out there with greater capabilities than mine (including yourself) who could certainly do it. I call to your attention the "Foreword" to our Confession.

Hampton Roads Confession of Faith

So in effect back in the 80's Kempsville Chapel (now Reformed Baptist Church of Virginia Beach) updated the 1689 with a few additional ones that made statements on issues that were needful for their time.

Anyways let me read on through the thread and see what everyone else is saying... I am catching up.

One more thing... Concerning position papers... Who is going to be responsible for them? Who should be the ones to recognize their truth and Pastoral authority? What Church is going to sanction them in dealing with modern day issues. I believe a closer knit tied RB group could be more effective in this kind of endeavor. The Southern Baptist Church has a better grounding in this area than the Reformed Baptist Churches have. I think it is time the Reformed Baptists get a grip on this and start binding themselves together for a better work. Sure you can't reinvent the tire but you can find better compounds to make the rubber do better on the road durability wise and gripping wise.

The body of Christ is bigger than just the local congregation. If you make a position paper in your local church what ecclesiasatical body is going to put its stamp on it as a postion paper? Can a person be a homosexual and be a minister in a Southern Baptist Church? I would say no and that there would be some problems in the Southern Baptist Denomination if that happened. Even if it was just one congregation, wouldn't it effect more than that one church? Well, it does and the Southern Baptist Church probably does have something to say about it. There is much more connectedness in that than in the way most of our Independent Churches operate.

**PuritanCovenanter** · #44 (**permalink**) 10-06-2009, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C. M. Sheffield

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

It must be understood, however, that the representatives assembled are not entrusted with any church power properly so called, nor have they any jurisdiction over the churches themselves to exercise discipline upon any churches or persons, or to impose their conclusions on the churches or their officers.
Act_15:2-6; Act_22:1-25; 2Co_1:24; 1Jn_4:1.

Quote:

Denominationally I am not sure the last statement can fly. Not even in the Southern Baptist Church. Can the Southern Baptist disassociate a church if they have a woman Pastor? I think they can. Maybe not. If a Church in the ARBCA denomination forsakes the grounding of its Confessional standing does the ARBCA just let them hang on or do they make the necessary adjustments to disassociate? I don't know. I am just wondering. I think this needs to be addressed differently. Aren't the other Churches suppose to be Responsible to and for each other as in the case of Matthew 18? Can one Church assembly sin against another and need to be held accountable? Yes, I see problems in the Presbyterian system concerning this also. There is no perfect system.

PuritanCovenanter,

For clarity: Are you advocating presbyterian polity for RB churches?

As it stands, your comments thus far constitute a redefinition of historic Baptist ecclesiology and its commitment to the autonomy of the local church.

As I stated in a thread above that I am congregationalist. But there does have to be some sort of understanding that the churches are also responsible to each other in more than one way. At least that seems to be the fabric of the New Covenant Church as I see it through the New Testament.

I stated...

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

...I do not believe that Acts 15 is a Presbyterian model that is set up for us as they imply. I have noted that many times. I do believe that there is a model here though that leads to responsibility, responsible communication, and submitting ourselves to one another that is very important....

I do believe there has to be a reasonable understanding and attachment to each other that this passage bears out. I don't believe our modern day Baptists see this. We are too independent of each other.

I am not for revision for the sake of revision. I am for revision for sake of clarity and a binding of our hearts together in a biblical sense. After all the letters that Paul sent to the churches were to be sent and read in all the churches. They had authority over all the churches. The churches were responsible to communicate with each other in this endeavor. I am not saying the confession is on the same level as Paul's letters. I am saying that we lack a union and that we ought to have a responsibility to each other that is lacking.

Where are the checks and balances of local congregations? Where is the oneness that Christ said he sought for. How can Matthew 18 be played out in situations between churches? There is too much disjointedness for proper discipline to be real in my opinion. There is too much disjointedness for proper sharing of blessings maybe. Of course I can be way off course here. I do know many good churches that are functioning rightly because they have Godly leadership. I have also experienced the opposite in my 28 years of being a participant in local congregations. Both Presbyterian and Baptists.

I like the idea of a denomination that a group of Churches pull together to form a union to support and be responsible to and for each other. I am not sure that is necessarily Presbyterianism even though it might be a step closer to it.

If a congregation is going to claim to be confessional and join hands in such an endeavor but then they renig on it, shouldn't there be some decision made to help them along their struggle or to help them along in their new endeavor outside of the family. I have seen a few Church splits. I have seen many good churches endure for years. But shouldn't there be a system where we are responsible for each other, one way or the other.

Denominationally we would also be more capable to build a ministerial school more in focus of raising up churches denominationally. I just think that the other denominations have some strengths we Reformed Baptists don't have because of their ties to their congregations. They have more than a unity. They are tied to the schools and each other even though they are separate congregations with their own various personalities.

**Herald** · #45 (**permalink**) 10-06-2009, 01:35 AM

Quote:

I like the idea of a denomination that a group of Churches pull together to form a union to support and be responsible to and for each other. I am not sure that is necessarily Presbyterianism even though it might be a step closer to it.

Randy, if your idea of a denomination cedes autonomy away from the local church and to the denomination, you have crossed over into a form of hierarchical polity.

In the Reformed Baptist world we are best served having voluntary cooperation between churches. This cooperation can be had in or out of a formal association, just so long as the association cannot impose it's will on any local church. It's not a matter of throwing off our fetters so that we may be free to do whatever we wish. It's a matter of having our conscience bound to scripture and resisting anyone or anything that stands in opposition.

One of the reasons why our church is considering joining ARBCA is because it will align us with a group of churches that share the same commitment to confessionalism and the Reformed faith. Our membership will be completely voluntary, and ARBCA will have no ecclesiastical authority over us. That's not to say that relationships built on mutual respect and displaying the love of Christ will not yield accountability, just as one friend is accountable to another. Any accountability should be built on relationship, not formality.

Another reason for maintaining the integrity of the 1689 LBC is to keep us from straying into theological liberalism. I've already proven that a church can add clarity beyond the Confession without changing the Confession (i.e. position papers). Imagine if there are 500 Reformed Baptist churches in the United States and 400 of them are split between competing versions other than the original 1689. It doesn't necessarily follow that these churches are in error, but it does throw confessionalism into confusion. When the majority of these churches subscribe to the 1689, it makes it easier for brethren to find a like-minded church in the event they relocate or are traveling.

**PuritanCovenanter** · #46 (**permalink**) 10-06-2009, 01:59 AM

I am not necessarily taking away autonomy. Being in an association and submitting to it is voluntary. But violating the beliefs of the confession would be cause for removal, or discipline, or for a try at recovery and restoration. A local congregation could also opt out voluntarily if they feel the need to pull away for consciences sake. Especially if they no longer agree with the Confession. If that would be the case at least there could be a chance from other Elders to try to help and restore a brother congregation if it is possible. I just think there is too much looseness in the RB ranks. Our confession is a great place to rally around and make ourselves stronger. I am personally content with the Confession as it stands. I do believe it wouldn't hurt anything to rework it. There have been many reformed confessions and they do not necessarily divide. As I noted the Westminster did a revision on the American side. It didn't seem to hurt the Presbyterian Church. Many on this board choose between one or the other. But they still mostly agree. When you think of an educational shool for Baptists, what comes to your mind? Southern comes to mine. It is a denomination that seeks to hold itself together even with revisions of their statements. The most resent being the BFM. I think that is the most recent one. Sometimes these things rekindle.

I am tired. GN

rbcbob · #47 (**permalink**) 10-06-2009, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Where are the checks and balances of local congregations? Where is the oneness that Christ said he sought for. How can Matthew 18 be played out in situations between churches? There is too much disjointedness for proper discipline to be real in my opinion.

The Paedobaptist’s argument against the supposed weakness of the Baptist position of local church autonomy stated thus: “To whom could I appeal, then, if justice was not met in their ruling (which it would have been, but we can't know the hearts of every LOCAL SESSION throughout the world). Due to pervasive forms of autonomy, ultimately a LOCAL CHURCH may do what it likes, without fear of any permanent reprisal. Why? Because it has no higher accountability. If a LOCAL SESSION wants to conspire against a family or an individual member not for any biblical reason, but because of some other reason, to whom may the family or individual go? It just breaks down. All the "ASSOCIATIONS" in the world do not equal an ECCLESIASTICAL COURT BODY that can handle appeals and matters of the church at large.”

The Paedobaptist’s argument against the supposed weakness of the Baptist position of local church autonomy reworded to highlight the fallacy: “To whom could I appeal, then, if justice was not met in their ruling (which it would have been, but we can't know the hearts of every PRESBYTERY throughout the world). Due to pervasive forms of autonomy, ultimately a PRESBYTERY may do what it likes, without fear of any permanent reprisal. Why? Because it has no higher accountability. If a PRESBYTERY wants to conspire against a family or an individual member not for any biblical reason, but because of some other reason, to whom may the family or individual go? It just breaks down. All the PRESBYTERIES in the world do not equal an COLLEGE OF CARDINALS or THE POPE that can handle appeals and matters of the church at large.”

Quote:

When you think of an educational school for Baptists, what comes to your mind?

Local churches. 2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

**Herald** · #48 (**permalink**) 10-06-2009, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Being in an association and submitting to it is voluntary. But violating the beliefs of the confession would be cause for removal, or discipline, or for a try at recovery and restoration.

Some of this already exists within ARBCA. Membership is voluntary, based on subscription to the 1689 LBC. If a member church repudiates the 1689 it is subject to dismissal. Discipline is another matter. Discipline is reserved for individuals within a local church. Discipline is never to be directed from one church towards another unless it comes directly from God. If a voluntary association attempted to employ discipline, it would cease to be voluntary. It would cease to be Baptist.

C. M. Sheffield · #49 (**permalink**) 10-06-2009, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

I am not necessarily taking away autonomy. Being in an association and submitting to it is voluntary. But violating the beliefs of the confession would be cause for removal, or discipline, or for a try at recovery and restoration.

That takes away autonomy!

A higher ecclesiastical court imposing discipline (for who knows what?!) on a local church is an out-n-out abrogation of a church's autonomy - An usurpation of its divine right of governance!

**Herald** · #50 (**permalink**) 10-06-2009, 11:46 AM

Randy,

I understand where you're coming from. I sense a conflict between wanting to remain fundamentally Baptist, while establishing some sort of accountability/cooperation/unity among like-minded churches. I see the good in what you are sharing, but am cautioned by the fact that it presents systemic obstacles for Baptist churches.

nasa30 · #51 (**permalink**) 10-06-2009, 01:03 PM

Just catching up on this thread but it looks like there does need to be a distinction to what the true purpose of revising the 1689 is? Is it for clarity on issues that some think the original wording lacks? Or do some think that if we revised it, we could move to more unity as a Baptist body?

I do agree that we RBs lack the same unity that our Presby friends have, but is that a bad thing? I think not. I would suggest that if we want to "unify" as baptists, there are better ways than to revise the 1689. A "fellowship" could be a way. We actually have a group trying to form a "Reformed Baptist" fellowship in our area. There has been only one meeting so far, but it was great to get together with other confessional baptists from all around our area. (By area, I mean a 3-4 hour drive radius)

C. M. Sheffield · #52 (**permalink**) 10-06-2009, 02:44 PM

An objection I have that I've yet to voice is to the idea that "unity" is accomplished by external organization. This simply isn't so. Unity for Reformed Baptists is found not in an ecclesiastical bureaucracy but in our mutual faith in the Gospel, chiefly summarized in the Baptist Confession of Faith, and our cooperation with one another through ARBCA (which is a fairly new assembly of Confessional Baptists).

Though I would support changing ARBCA's name to something shorter and more user friendly. Five words is a mouth full. Four maybe. Three's a charm (e.g. Reformed Baptist Association - RBA). Just my

This has some relevance to our conversation:

Quote:

Various schemes have been proposed by the wisdom of men for amalgamating the different Christian denominations. All these originate in the erroneous conception that the unity of the universal church must be found in external organization. To effect the union sought for, compromises are required of the several parties, and the individual conscience must yield to the judgment of the many. All these schemes of amalgamation are inconsistent with the Baptist faith. We seek spiritual unity. We would have every individual to stand on Bible ground, and to take his position there, in the unbiassed exercise of his own judgment and conscience. There we strive to take our position; and there, and there only, we invite our brethren of all denominations to meet us.

J. L. Dagg
Manual of Church Order (pp. 303-304)