Petty France
Puritan Board Freshman
Moderators, if you think this should be moved elsewhere, that's fine. Just seemed unnecessary to start a thread to reply to one point at hand.
Thanks for saying that, brother Andrew. This change has been noted rather negatively in J.V. Fesko's "Word, Water, and Spirit" as well as "A Puritan Theology." Ryan McGraw in his booklet, "By Good and Necessary Consequences" comments positively, "This statement may not necessarily be corrective. It may have been changed to strengthen the assertion that the doctrines and practices that are deduced properly from scripture possess full divine authority because they are 'necessarily contained' in Scripture....In light of the fact that rejecting necessary consequence in the seventeenth century was ordinarily associated with heresy, it seems unlikely that the Baptists would have desired such an association."
What is rejected is the distinction between good consequences and necessary consequences. Gillespie argued that necessary consequences are "strong and certain." Good consequences "prove a suitableness or agreeableness of this or that to Scripture..." For Gillespie, the first are binding, the latter are not. A consequence may be good or necessary. Of course, the necessary consequence would also be good, but a good consequence is not necessarily necessary. For Baptists, it's all or nothing. Either it's necessarily contained in Scripture and thus binding or it isn't. Where the rubber hits the road, of course, is in positively instituted worship where positive revelation is required for our practice.
Benjamin Keach said, (And by quoting this I'm not trying to revive the debate, just putting this question of consequences in context) "What commission our brethren have got, who sprinkle their children, I know not. Let them fetch a thousand consequences, and unwarrantable suppositions for their practice, it signifies nothing if Christ has given them no authority or rule to do what they do in his name. Natural consequences from Scripture we allow, but such which flow not naturally from any Scripture we deny..." He goes on, "We affirm that in all positive or instituted worship (such as baptism is) which wholly depends upon the mere will and pleasure of the law-giver, it is absolutely necessary there should be an express command, or plain and clear examples, though in other respects we allow of natural deductions and consequences from Scripture for the confirming and enforcing of duties...But as there is neither express command nor example for infant-baptism; so it can't be proved by any consequence or inference, that naturally or genuously rises from any Scripture."
Taken rigidly, by confessing that "good" consequences are valid material from which to derive knowledge of "all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life," non-binding matters and conclusions are included within that which is never to be added unto. The Baptist confession says, "If it's good, it's necessary. If it's necessary, then it's good. If it isn't good, it isn't necessary. And if it isn't necessary, it isn't good."
The Baptist confession is more narrow than the WCF on this point, not more open. So there is a difference, but only a slight one.
For a more comprehensive explanation of this small difference with further research and documentation from paedobaptist and baptist sources, see Dr. James Renihan's essay in the Southern California Reformed Baptist Pastors' Conference Papers, here: SGCB | Book Search
WCF 1.4 The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.
LBC 1.6: The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture, to which nothing is to be added at any time, either by new revelation of the Spirit, or by the traditions of men.
Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word.
There are some circumstances concerning the worship of God and church government which are common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word which are always to be observed.
I think the WCF and LBC are essentially stating the same thing here, just in different terms. Both are acknowledging that there are two ways to learn something from Scripture: 1) expressly set down in scripture 2) or necessarily deduced from scripture.
The only difference is whereas the WCF states "by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture" the LBC reads "necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture". They mean the same thing.
If you are going to argue that everything we know about the bible can only come from that expressly, or definitely, stated in scripture, then what do you do about the doctrine of the Trinity?
Thanks for saying that, brother Andrew. This change has been noted rather negatively in J.V. Fesko's "Word, Water, and Spirit" as well as "A Puritan Theology." Ryan McGraw in his booklet, "By Good and Necessary Consequences" comments positively, "This statement may not necessarily be corrective. It may have been changed to strengthen the assertion that the doctrines and practices that are deduced properly from scripture possess full divine authority because they are 'necessarily contained' in Scripture....In light of the fact that rejecting necessary consequence in the seventeenth century was ordinarily associated with heresy, it seems unlikely that the Baptists would have desired such an association."
What is rejected is the distinction between good consequences and necessary consequences. Gillespie argued that necessary consequences are "strong and certain." Good consequences "prove a suitableness or agreeableness of this or that to Scripture..." For Gillespie, the first are binding, the latter are not. A consequence may be good or necessary. Of course, the necessary consequence would also be good, but a good consequence is not necessarily necessary. For Baptists, it's all or nothing. Either it's necessarily contained in Scripture and thus binding or it isn't. Where the rubber hits the road, of course, is in positively instituted worship where positive revelation is required for our practice.
Benjamin Keach said, (And by quoting this I'm not trying to revive the debate, just putting this question of consequences in context) "What commission our brethren have got, who sprinkle their children, I know not. Let them fetch a thousand consequences, and unwarrantable suppositions for their practice, it signifies nothing if Christ has given them no authority or rule to do what they do in his name. Natural consequences from Scripture we allow, but such which flow not naturally from any Scripture we deny..." He goes on, "We affirm that in all positive or instituted worship (such as baptism is) which wholly depends upon the mere will and pleasure of the law-giver, it is absolutely necessary there should be an express command, or plain and clear examples, though in other respects we allow of natural deductions and consequences from Scripture for the confirming and enforcing of duties...But as there is neither express command nor example for infant-baptism; so it can't be proved by any consequence or inference, that naturally or genuously rises from any Scripture."
Taken rigidly, by confessing that "good" consequences are valid material from which to derive knowledge of "all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life," non-binding matters and conclusions are included within that which is never to be added unto. The Baptist confession says, "If it's good, it's necessary. If it's necessary, then it's good. If it isn't good, it isn't necessary. And if it isn't necessary, it isn't good."
The Baptist confession is more narrow than the WCF on this point, not more open. So there is a difference, but only a slight one.
For a more comprehensive explanation of this small difference with further research and documentation from paedobaptist and baptist sources, see Dr. James Renihan's essay in the Southern California Reformed Baptist Pastors' Conference Papers, here: SGCB | Book Search