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



## PuritanCovenanter

I just sent part of this message to a few guys. What do you Baptist guys think?

I really believe that revising the Confession would be a great endeavor and it would be a unifying one. That is something that lacks between our fellowships, associations, and the one denomination called the ARBCA. We are lacking a Union. We have a lot of unity even though it is sporadic in my estimation. One thing the Presbyterian's have over us is a general attachment that we do not have. I am sold on congregationalism but find it lacks in that it only promotes a unity more than a union. Of course we have union in Christ as head but even our associations don't bind us together enough in my estimation. 

I say all that to emphasize that a coming together of an assembly of Reformed Baptists for this purpose would bring a more solid unity in our confessionalism and it would provide an avenue for a better union and attachment to each other. I long for this endeavor but am not sure how to try to advance such an adventure being only a layman. It would also allow our confessionalism to be emphasized more clearly and draw attention to the great historical doctrines of Christ's church. Such an endeavor would also allow us to clearly debate and clarify some things that need to be cleared up. It would allow us to promote the things that don't need to be cleared up also. I believe it could only strengthen what we have as Confessional Baptists. I am going to drop this in the ears of my friends when ever I have the opportunity. Maybe someone who is gifted and has the authority to gather and promote such a thing will hear me and take off with this idea. I know Elder Stan Reeves has worked updating the 1689 himself. He moderates the RBLIST.ORG.

I believe that we as Reformed Baptists do need to revise our Confession. I would hope that our RB schools of higher learning could come together and sponsor such an endeavor. The American Presbyterian Church did this so why couldn't the Reformed Baptists. There are parts that need to be stated a bit better. The Anti-Christ portion would be good to revise marking the ecclesiology of popery as being Anti Christian or possibly the Anti-Christ system. There really isn't a lot I would change about it but think the endeavor would benefit our fellowships and associations. It would also pull us closer together in my opinion.

I would help in anyway that I could to help this idea gain ground. Obviously prayer is a good place to start. And I am already guessing someone has already been praying. 

May the Lord cause us to grow in grace toward him and each other. 

R. Martin Snyder


----------



## KMK

Maybe we could come to a conclusion on which Bible version to use as well. That, to me, would be an even greater unifying force.


----------



## Herald

Updating the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith should be considered with great care and trepidation. The 1689 is a historically Reformed and Puritan document. I am sure I am not alone in voicing the concern over theological liberalism, in all it's different forms, influencing any updating of the Confession. Any such endeavor should proceed in much prayer.

I understand the desire for unity among like-minded brethren. But should unity be the catalyst for revising our Confession? Unity is an ambiguous term, and can mean different things to different people. Reformed Baptist churches have unity theologically, but do not necessarily have unity between congregations. You mentioned ARBCA as a denomination. Whether ARBCA is a denomination is debatable. As an association it certainly has created a partnership among it's member churches. This partnership is seen in missions, seminary education (Westminster, California), an annual association meeting, and various other avenues of cooperation. There are Reformed Baptist churches that consider associations a threat to congregationalism and, therefore, will not consider aligning themselves with such. All this to say that unity is often found in the eye of the beholder. 

A possible initial step would be to hold a general assembly of all confessional Baptist churches. Invitees would be the pastors and elders of such churches. The purpose of such an assembly might possibly be to affirm what we do believe regarding the 1689 LBC. How much are we truly in agreement? In other words, what is our confessional temperature? Knowing where we stand would seem a reasonable precursor to any attempt at revising the 1689. If we do not have theological unity it would be a fools errand to examine and revise the Confession. Also, there is a difference between putting the Confession into modern vernacular and revising it's content. I would be willing to attend an assembly that took these initial steps _before _attempting a total revision of the Confession.


----------



## Wanderer

*In this Day And Age*

I'm not too hopeful of any good that can come of updating their Confession. This is indeed the age of compromise, and Denominations are routinely abandoning doctrines that come from the plain reading of scripture.

However with that said, a church's Confession is to reflect what is taught and believed by that particular church. So if they do not believe in their own confession, they should update it so that when people become members, they have a clear understanding on what kind of church that they are joining themselves too..


----------



## SolaScriptura

Randy - 

I hope that the RBs have success in that endeavor!


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Randy,
This would take many years of assemblies I should think and probably many many years to gain support and organize to get the first meeting. The very nature of congregationlism makes such a plan even more difficult. The first thing would be to spend the time to get a very good committee for planning etc. The 1990 Psalmody conference took 4 years to plan and pull off, and there the committee at least was corresponding with denominations. The conference was actually first proposed in 1972. I pick that as a comparison because it was undertaken by a small group initially and to indicate that this is no small under taking; and as I say, I think it would have to be multiple conferences. Or alternatively there would need to be a huge amount of committee work on various subjects done via correspondence or amongst local pastors that can meet to cut down on the work that would be done. 
This would need considerable planning and possibly many years or decades even to carry off.


----------



## timmopussycat

Anything wrong with the following attempt? 

A Faith to Confess: The Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689: S. M. Houghton - AbeBooks - 9780854799404: Winter Ventures


----------



## Herald

Randy,

I am trying to get my head around this idea of a union between RB churches. What exactly is a union? Can union be had while maintaining the autonomy of the local church? If so, then we're suggesting that union is without ecclesiastical authority. That's fine. After all, we're not Presbyterians; we're not seeking ecclesiastical authority outside of the local church. But that brings me back to the question of what unity looks like. I think it would be worth unpacking the idea of unity. A proper definition of terms is important when getting various people together.


----------



## lynnie

I think all the confessions could use an update. Theye were made in the days when the Reformation was reacting to the works based, papal authority, Catholic Church.

They predate Darwin and say nothing to theistic evolution. They were written in the day when male leadership was presumed and you would not even have a debate over female deacons. They were written in a culture before modern psycho drugs existed and sin was not blamed on malfunctioning brains, and there was no self esteen psychobabble gospel.

What's there is so good I'd leave it there, but I'd love to see some important additions. I don't expect that to happen though, as there is just too much division on these issues.


----------



## Mark Hettler

lynnie said:


> What's there is so good I'd leave it there, but I'd love to see some important additions.



Well said.


----------



## Rich Koster

I don't believe a Bible translation will be agreed upon. The KJV only crowd will battle the ESV*crowd & NASB crowd and vice-versa (couldn't resist the pun) and that would kill the project before it got started.

I could see updating any antiquated language and adding a few statements similar to what the Baptist Faith & Message did. I agree with you Lynnie on not changing the good stuff that already exists.

-----Added 9/26/2009 at 01:19:03 EST-----



timmopussycat said:


> Anything wrong with the following attempt?
> 
> A Faith to Confess: The Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689: S. M. Houghton - AbeBooks - 9780854799404: Winter Ventures



I have read it. I also downloaded a shareware version from another site. This is part of what I'm talking about...the language update.


----------



## KMK

Rich Koster said:


> I don't believe a Bible translation will be agreed upon. The KJV only crowd will battle the ESV*crowd & NASB crowd and vice-versa (couldn't resist the pun) and that would kill the project before it got started.



I am not sure this issue is as sharply divided among 'Reformed' Baptists as you think.


----------



## Rich Koster

KMK said:


> Rich Koster said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe a Bible translation will be agreed upon. The KJV only crowd will battle the ESV*crowd & NASB crowd and vice-versa (couldn't resist the pun) and that would kill the project before it got started.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure this issue is as sharply divided among 'Reformed' Baptists as you think.
Click to expand...


I don't think it _IS_ , but if we demanded only 1 version be used to be confessional, that may create a problem.


----------



## rbcbob

*Proverbs 15:28 The heart of the righteous studies how to answer ...*

Randy,
This is huge!  I will try to have some thoughtful input by the middle of next week ; right now I am swamped.


----------



## Herald

Rich Koster said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich Koster said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe a Bible translation will be agreed upon. The KJV only crowd will battle the ESV*crowd & NASB crowd and vice-versa (couldn't resist the pun) and that would kill the project before it got started.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure this issue is as sharply divided among 'Reformed' Baptists as you think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think it _IS_ , but if we demanded only 1 version be used to be confessional, that may create a problem.
Click to expand...


I agree. I would viscerally resist any such attempt.


----------



## KMK

Herald said:


> Rich Koster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure this issue is as sharply divided among 'Reformed' Baptists as you think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it _IS_ , but if we demanded only 1 version be used to be confessional, that may create a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. I would viscerally resist any such attempt.
Click to expand...


Even if that 1 version was the NASB?


----------



## Herald

KMK said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich Koster said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it _IS_ , but if we demanded only 1 version be used to be confessional, that may create a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. I would viscerally resist any such attempt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if that 1 version was the NASB?
Click to expand...


Yes. I do not hold to CT or TR only. While I do not divide over the issue now, I _would _divide over attempts at advocating one translation among confessional Baptists.


----------



## Mark Hettler

Specifying a single Bible translation as the only acceptable translation might not be a good idea, but there may be some value in articulating some standards as to what makes a translation acceptable or unacceptable. Maybe some observations about formal vs. dynamic equivalency and acceptable uses of each, and some criteria for acceptable vs. unacceptable dyanamic equivalency. And maybe take some stands regarding some of the hot-button translation issues like gender neutrality.


----------



## Rich Koster

Mark Hettler said:


> Specifying a single Bible translation as the only acceptable translation might not be a good idea, but there may be some value in articulating some standards as to what makes a translation acceptable or unacceptable. Maybe some observations about formal vs. dynamic equivalency and acceptable uses of each, and some criteria for acceptable vs. unacceptable dyanamic equivalency. And maybe take some stands regarding some of the hot-button translation issues like gender equivalency.



This sounds great, but the statement may end up being as long as the original confession to make it understandable to the layman....like me.


----------



## rbcbob

Revising the 1689 LBC is a monumental proposal. This beloved Confession is now 320 years old and I suggest that there are weighty reasons why it is still the preferred expression of the faith even though several subsequent Confessions (e.g. _Philadelphia_ [1742], _New Hampshire_ [1833]) are available..

*This is not to say that a revision ought not be considered*; merely that such consideration should be prayerfully and soberly weighed. In the 1980’s an attempt by at least three Reformed Baptist Churches was begun to revise the 1689 LBCF and although considerable progress was made I am not aware that it was ever finalized.

Be that as it may it should be evident that embracing a revision of the 1689 LBCF would, of necessity, mean that we no longer hold to the 1689. Whatever the revision would be named there would undoubtedly be those who continue to hold to that Second London Confession that was published 320 years ago which would remain that which came forth from our brethren in the 17th century and rightly retain the designation _the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith._

On the matter of recommending an English Translation we should be mindful that if a revision to the 1689 enjoyed even half the lifespan as its predecessor it is unlikely that any translation today would be widely accepted in the year 2170!

With regard to _“We are lacking a Union”_ , _“congregationalism … lacks in that it only promotes a unity more than a union”_ , and _“an assembly of Reformed Baptists for this purpose would *bring a more solid unity* in our confessionalism and it would provide an avenue for a *better union and attachment* to each other”_ I would need to have those thoughts fleshed out a bit more in order to interact with them.

Looking forward to the insights of others.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I just finisthed updating my computer after another crash this past weekend. I will comment more later. Sorry for just dropping off the face of the internet. I have been reloading.... again.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

KMK said:


> Maybe we could come to a conclusion on which Bible version to use as well. That, to me, would be an even greater unifying force.



I am not sure that is true. I have many friends who like the CT over the MT. I am MT. I don't really see that there are major differences in doctrine between themselves and myself.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Herald said:


> Randy,
> 
> I am trying to get my head around this idea of a union between RB churches. What exactly is a union? Can union be had while maintaining the autonomy of the local church? If so, then we're suggesting that union is without ecclesiastical authority. That's fine. After all, we're not Presbyterians; we're not seeking ecclesiastical authority outside of the local church. But that brings me back to the question of what unity looks like. I think it would be worth unpacking the idea of unity. A proper definition of terms is important when getting various people together.



Bill,

I believe having some ownership in something can be uniting. I do believe we do need to have an ecclesiology that does tie us closer together. I do believe that one could be congregational and yet also be bound to follow a tie that unites in a union. I am thinking that Unity only means to go along side of. Union implies a tying together a binding together that is more than just walking in unity. There is also an accountability in a union the way I am thinking about it. Denominationally when one joins a group or forms an association there is responsibility to follow certain paths to be in the union. I believe the Southern Baptist Church is to loose in its denomination concerning this. 

I do believe that if a group of guys got together to affirm or bind themselves together that it ought to be done confessionally. It matters not what group they are. If they don't speak the same thing there is definitely going to be trouble and a tossing to and fro. That is why the Southern Baptist Convention has had so many problems. 

Whether it be a revision or a reaffirming of the 1689 in a situation that is binding and responsible as a group of Churches I am convinced that one or the other will be beneficial if there is a tying together. There are a lot of 1689er Churches out there that are not associated with each other. They are responsible to no one outside of their Church walls, local body, or even the rest of the body of Christ. I believe this stunts growth, is unsafe, and can lead to other problems. 

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. 

If a group of guys decided to get together and revise the 1689 I don't see why it would have to change the name. I do understand that the KJV is still the KJV even though there are some who would scream 1611. But I digress. If a group came together and decided to affirm, revise the English, and Bind themselves together ecclesiatically to each other in this endeavor I think it would shed some light on the Confession. I would also try to find a more binding statement concerning our ecclesiology maybe in a denominationally motivated venture. I like the ARBCA. I wish there was one closer to home. 




PuritanCovenanter said:


> Here is a good little piece that I would recommend. I edited it a bit.
> 
> http://www.reformedbaptist.co.uk/What%20Council%20of%20Jerusalem.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What Council of Jerusalem?* (Acts 15)
> 
> The purpose of the two articles on this page is to illustrate why Reformed Baptists are not Presbyterian in their church government..... Establishing Presbyterianism from scripture is most often attempted by citing Acts 15. I hope to indicate with the following articles how weak this argument is.
> 
> *What Council of Jerusalem?
> *
> 
> Suppose the visit of Paul, Barnabas and the others from the church at Antioch to the church at Jerusalem was not a Council. Suppose rather it was a representation and complaint from one local church to another whose members were behaving erroneously and opposing Christian doctrine through mistaken zeal (for superseded Jewish tradition). The account in Acts 15 can be read perfectly logically with no inference of authority, delegation or council. To read in the idea of appeal to the “authority” of the Jerusalem church is bad exegesis.
> 
> 
> *First we have the cause for complaint from Antioch.*
> 
> Acts 15.1,2 “And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
> 
> 
> *Then the appropriate** response from the Antioch church to the Jerusalem church.*
> 
> 15:2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.”
> 
> 
> 
> Suppose the Apostle Paul made the journey to Jerusalem to inform James (the Pastor of the Jerusalem Church – not James the Apostle) and have the problem dealt with at source. The Apostle Paul (and witnesses) took the problem to the responsible Pastor. **This, of course, is precisely how the Lord Jesus Christ teaches us to deal with brethren (fellow believers) when we have issues with them (in Matthew 18: 15-17.)
> 
> 
> 
> 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
> 
> 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more,
> 
> that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
> 
> 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
> 
> *The meeting of the church at Jerusalem.*
> 
> There were still Apostles in the Jerusalem church (including Peter) -Acts 8:14; 15:4 et sec.
> 
> And there were erring members -with the same Judaising attitudes as caused the problem in Antioch. -Acts 15:5 “But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses” –and there was the Pastor, James.
> 
> 
> Now read the account of the elders’ meeting (one church, remember) in which the elders and Paul’s came together to consider this matter and to reason. The verb translated “disputation” is suzhthsis, from suzhtev; mutual questioning, i.e. discussion: disputation, reasoning.
> 
> 
> 15:6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter
> 
> 
> Note the Apostle Peter’s contribution vv 7-11.
> 
> 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
> 
> 15:8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
> 
> 15:9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
> 
> 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
> 
> 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the LORD Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
> 
> Next read Barnabas and the Apostle Paul’s contribution.
> 
> Acts 15:12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
> 
> 
> Finally the Pastor’s resolution.
> 
> When all had said there piece (note the absence of debate or “dispute” in the negative sense), the Pastor makes his response TO HIS OWN CHURCH, where he is the governmental authority under Christ, even though Apostles are present. His ruling on this issue is:
> 
> 
> 
> 15:19 “Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.”
> 
> The Apostles endorse the decision of the church leadership and send men and encouraging letters to Antioch. The tone is apologetic and the Jerusalem church acts on the resolution to put right the wrong done in Antioch.
> 
> 
> 15:22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
> 
> 15:23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.
> 
> 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
> 
> 15:25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
> 
> 15:26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
> 
> 15:27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
> 
> 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
> 
> 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
> 
> 15:30 So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle:
> 
> The reaction of the Antioch Church
> 
> 15:31 Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.
> 
> 
> A longer presentation of this argument follows, taken from “The Battle For the Church 1577-1644” by David Gay, pub. Barchus.
> 
> 
> “As for the Presbyterian's second claim ‑ that churches should be organised into groups, and ruled by a series of ecclesiastical courts ‑‑ they offer but one attempted scriptural proof ‑ namely Acts 15, which they call a record of the Council of Jerusalem. They say that several churches sent delegates to a Council in Jerusalern to debate a doctrinal issue and formulate bind ing decrees for all the churches which were represented, and this is the standing pattern for all churches for all time.
> 
> But this is wrong. Acts 15 does not speak of a synod or Council. What happened is this. Some teachers, who were members of the church in Jerusalem, came to the church in Antioch, where they began to teach error. The church at Antioch was troubled and disturbed, to the extent that some believers were even made to stumble by these false teachers (Acts 15:24). After Paul and Barnabas had disputed with the men concerned, the Anti*och church decided to send Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem 'about this question' (Acts 152). What if these teachers from Jerusalem, or their friends, went to other churches ‑ Lystra, Derbe, Iconium and the rest? What harm might they do? Would there be men of the calibre of Paul and Barnabas in those churches, men who could silence the false teachers? This would be essential (Tit. 1: 5‑11). And what about Jerusalem itself? Did they realise what their members were teaching, and the damage they were doing? Should they not be told, and thus be able to discipline their mem*bers? Consequently the saints at Antioch decided to send Paul and Barna*bas to Jerusalem to put the matter before the Jerusalem church. The Anti*och believers 'determined' to take this step (Acts 15:2) ‑ it was entirely voluntary on their part, there was no structure or organisation of superior courts in place which made it compulsory. Jerusalem was not the head church. There was no idea of a Council. Paul and Barnabas had already sorted the question out at Antioch. The man of Galatians 1: 12 and 11‑21 did not need to be helped by the counsel of others on the subject! If Paul was prepared to resist Peter, confront him face to face and put the matter right, it is foolish to think that he needed Peter's guidance over the very same issue. Paul and Barnabas did not go to Jerusalem to get a ruling on the question itself. It was the practical responsibility of the Jerusalem church which had to be sorted out. And Jerusalem had to do something to stop the trouble reaching other churches in the Gentile world. There were no 'delegates', not even from Antioch, let alone any other church.
> 
> When Paul and Barnabas reached Jerusalem, it was the church they tackled (Acts 15:4); the apostles and elders considered the matter (Acts 15:6). Quite right. Some teachers had gone from the Jerusalem church over which they were responsible and were causing trouble elsewhere by their false doctrine. Paul and Barnabas were taking the issue back to where it belonged ‑ the church at Jerusalem. It was necessary for the elders at Jeru*salem to sort out their local problem, whilst the apostles had to deal with the world‑wide aspects of it. The elders took care of the church members who were under their discipline; the apostles defined the true doctrine. Discussion took place within the church ‑ not at a Council ‑ and a decision was duly arrived at. The false teachers were simply wrong. A letter was composed by the church in Jerusalem, and sent to all the other churches so that no other church would he molested by these false teachers and their arguments (Acts 15:23). The tone of the letter was rightly apologetic (Acts 15:24). It was then delivered with apostolic authority to the churches (Acts 16:4).
> 
> *Not a Council*
> 
> There was no gathering of representatives from various churches at Jerusalem, no Council called to decide a common policy. To say there was is unwarranted. It was simply a case of one church holding brotherly contact with another over an issue which affected them both. Jerusalem needed to put its house in order, and that is what the church at Antioch helped it to do. There was no 'appeal' to the Jerusalem church. Far from being a synod or Council, Acts 15 records the transactions at a church meeting ‑ the church in Jerusalem.
> 
> As for the letter which conveyed the decision, it must be remembered that the apostles were still alive and resident in Jerusalem (Acts 15:2,4,6,22,23). In order that the infection of false teaching which had come out of Jerusalem should go no further, the apostles joined with the elders at Jerusalem to send out this letter to all the churches. But none of this supports the Presbyterian idea of separate congregations forming one church, following which the churches in a region submit to Councils, Synods and General Assemblies. In Acts 15 no disciplinary action by a legislative Council was threatened against 'dependent' churches. There were no dependent churches. No one church was dominant over another. There was no higher‑court mentality. Interestingly, in passages such as Romans 14 and 15, and 1 Corinthians 8, there is no appeal to this letter. Why not, if the Presbyterians are right? To read into Acts 15 the concept of a law‑making Council with powers over churches through their dele*gates, is a travesty of exposition.
> 
> Of course, Acts 15 shows that whilst churches are independent, they are not isolated or insular. On the particular issue of the day, Antioch was right and Jerusalem needed to reform itself. But the church at Antioch, in brotherly love, took the necessary steps to inform Jerusalem of the prob*lem in order to give it the opportunity to do that very thing. The issue concerned both churches. And both churches concerned themselves over each other's welfare. They also thought of other churches. Therefore, even though Acts 15 gives no support to the idea of Councils, it does teach the need for brotherly cooperation between churches wherever possible and whenever it is needed.
> 
> Despite this clear teaching in Acts 15, Bannerman, however, asserted that besides the churches of Antioch and Jerusalem, 'there were also repre*sentatives from the churches of Syria and Cilicia, commissioned to go up to Jerusalem on the same errand'. Where did he find any evidence for that statement? What other churches? What commissioned representatives? A few sentences later Bannerman drew back somewhat. Instead of being certain that these representatives were present lie wrote, 'We have deputies ... it would seem, from Syria and Cilicia'. Ah! It would seem! Even so - despite the inference and speculation method once again ‑ Bannerman was prepared to argue, 'Now, in this narrative we have all the elements necessary to make up the idea of a supreme ecclesiastical court, with authority over not only the members and office bearers within the local bounds of the congregations represented, but also the presbyteries or inferior church courts included in the same limits'. With respect, I submit the Presbyterian case is far from being ratified!
> 
> In any case Bannerman proved too much by his speculations. If he was right, and the churches he mentioned were represented at Jerusalem, they did not come merely from a district or locality. They came from different countries. And the letter was sent to all churches, even those which had no ‘representative' at Jerusalem. In the light of this, are Presbyterians pre*pared to assert the need, the scriptural warrant, for world‑wide Councils with binding authority over all the churches? If so, they are getting very close to the Papist system, developed from the Fathers.
> 
> Berkhof, once again, was much more restrained, and rightly so. He said, 'Scripture does not contain an explicit command to the effect that the local churches of a district must form an organic union. Neither does it furnish us with an example of such a union. In fact, it represents the local churches as individual entities without any external bond of union'. Exact*ly so. Why could the case not rest there? But even Berkhof could not resist the temptation to go on to speculate. He said that it 'would seem ... it is but natural that this inner unity should express itself in some visible man*iier, and should even, as much as possible ... seek expression in some corresponding external organisation ... Every one of these terms points to a visible unity ... Certain passages of Scripture which seem to indicate ... Moreover, there are reasons for thinking that the church at Jerusalem and at Antioch consisted of several separate groups, which together formed a sort of unity'. Pretty vague stuff this! But, even though there is no scriptural example nor any scriptural command for these courts, Pres*byterians think they are the standing order for church life!
> 
> On Acts 15, Berkhof frankly and honestly admitted, 'This ... did not constitute a proper example and pattern of a classis or synod in the mod*ern sense of the word'. Why go on with it, in that case? But he did. He then developed the 'modern sense of the word' in three paragraphs. He spoke of the representative nature of synods, the way they should be organized, wliat they deal with, their power and authority, and similar matters. What biblical texts did he supply to support his case? None whatsoever! Not one! Even so ‑ and without a shred of scriptural warrant ‑ Berkhof was pre*pared to conclude that the highest ecclesiastical courts have authority over all the churches, they carry great weight and must not be set aside except on the rnost telling of grounds. 'They are binding on the churches as the sound interpretation and application of the law,' he said. What a stagger*ing claim!
> 
> 
> This is not a theoretical debate. The outcome of setting up non scriptural bodies and organizations to govern the churches is always diabolical. Presbyterians of the 16th and 17th centuries believed that the decisions of ecclesiastical courts were binding on all the churches, their members and their officers. The consequences would be far‑reaching as we shall see. There are Presbyterians who continue to believe the same today.
> 
> Those who hold to this notion of federations and a system of formal connections between churches argue that separate, independent churches are weak. Nothing could be further from the truth. In time of persecution or apostasy, the enemy ‑ Satan ‑ needs only to attack the central authority, the central theological seminary, or the highest ecclesiastical court of the federated Church, and he has captured the entire set‑up. He only needs to poison the central spring, and all the waters will be lethal. At any rate that is what has happened down the centuries. History is littered with the ruins of apostate federations. In a barrel, one rotten apple will corrupt the lot by contact! However, if the adversary has to try to grapple with a host of scattered, unknown, unlinked churches, he has a real fight on his hands. He has got to find them all first! Of course, independent churches can be guilty of apostasy, but at least they have the power in their own hands to resist, they have not delegated it to a higher court. And if other churches should fall, that has no automatic effect on the next. But whatever else is said about it, the separation of the churches is the scriptural way. And that should be the end of the matter.
> 
> In this connection, a highly significant and relevant passage is Revelation 2 and 3, concerning 'the seven churches' (Rev. 1:20). By this late stage of the canon of Scripture, the New Testament system of church order was well established. What do we find? Whilst it is always dangerous to argue from silence ‑ though Presbyterians are fond of it, as we shall see ‑ certain points stand out. The seven churches were located close together in one region, yet they are called seven churches, not seven congregations which form one church. Furthermore, there is no hint whatsoever of any organization linking them together. There is not a vestige of support for the idea of one common government over the seven, separate churches. There is no association spoken of. On the contrary, each church is commended for any good within it, each church is responsible for its own faults, accountable for its own failures, and responsible to reform itself under Christ ‑ all without any outside interference whatsoever. What is more, each church is autonomous. It has the full powers necessary to reform itself.
> 
> Reader, you will see that the attempted scriptural defence of the Presbyterian system in these matters is largely drawn from the early chapters of Acts. These chapters, as noted earlier, deal with extraordinary apostolic circumstances which had an overwhelming effect on church organization and government in those days. But the ordinary New Testament church order is made very clear in the later books. There (he proper administration of the Lord's supper, the recognition of elders and deacons, and all other church matters, are dealt with in plain instructions. Why is it not possible for the Presbyterians to establish their system from the letters to Timothy and Titus? Why are there no plain passages dealing with synods, church courts, congregations and all the rest of it? We are not left to establish the principles of eldership by inference, are we? Therefore why should we have to do it in the case of synods? The truth is, whilst there is a large amount of New Testament material dealing with the rule, order and practice of local, separate, independent churches ‑ there is nothing whatsoever which deals with the government of several churches that are combined into one church. What is more, though Bannerman might speak of the 'simplicity' of the Presbyterian system, it is evident that it is extremely complicated, and largely speculative. Oh! for the simplicity of the New Testament.
> 
> Is there any significance in the unforced admission by Berkhof, 'It seems rather peculiar that practically all the outstanding Presbyterian dogmaticians of our country, such as the two Hodges, H.B. Smith, Shedd, and Dabney, have no separate locus on the church in their dogmatical works and, in fact, devote very little attention to it'? Presbyterians ought to think about that!
> 
> To sum up: The introduction of Presbyterianism, whilst it was a huge improvement upon the Papal system did not get as close to the New Testament as mainstream Congregationalism did.”
> 
> 
> 
> From David Gay “Battle For the Church 1577-1644” pp54-59.
> 
> Published in the UK by Brachus, ISBN-0 9529982 0 3.
> 
> 
> 
> Further Reading:
> 
> Edward T Hiscox “Principles and Practices for Baptist Churches.” Pub Kregel
> 
> Poh Boon Sing “The Keys of the Kingdom”
> 
> John Owen, “Nonconformity Vindicated” in Works Vol 13 “Ministry and Fellowship”. pub Banner of Truth
Click to expand...


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 our 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. 

I am just a simple layman who may not see beyond his nose. And that is apparent much of the time. I do believe that I do see some things and press some issues knowing that there is a lot of blood sweat and tears that would be involved in performing what I see as important. This would be one of those. As Iron sharpens Iron and as we have an enemy, so we would have great difficulty but I don't see it to be as difficult as much as during the Killing Times when our Confession was born from blood, sweat, and tears. 

Jesus said, "I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work." Is it light enough for us to do such a thing? Can we promote a union between ourselves that is more binding between our Covenantal Baptist Churches? Maybe not. MAYBE!


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

*If it aint broke, fix it till it is!*

This sounds like another case of _"If it aint broke, fix it till it is!"_

I see no reason to fix what isn't broken. A number a folks have agreed with the idea of revising the confession without anyone really articulating what's wrong with it. I see really nothing wrong with the confession. And as far as the pope goes, if he isn't _the_ Antichrist than he's certainly _one_ of them. 

As far as a Baptist _"Assembly"_ goes, I'm not sure exactly what you're suggesting, but it sounds like a hybrid denomination affirming regenerate church membership (Baptist), and presbyterian polity. Whether or not that's biblical is debatable, however, it certainly isn't historically Baptist.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Cf. _The Divine Right of Church Government_ (by some of the Westminster Divines acting as and with sundry ministers of London).


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Presbyterian polity is inconsistent with the Baptist Confession of Faith. 



> *The Baptist Confession of Faith XXVI.5 & 7*
> 
> V. In the execution of this power wherewith He is so entrusted, the Lord Jesus calleth out of the world unto Himself, through the ministry of His Word, by His Spirit, those that are given unto Him by His Father,[9] that they may walk before Him in all the ways of obedience, which He prescribeth to them in His Word.[10] Those thus called, He commandeth to walk together in particular societies, or churches, for their mutual edification, and the due performance of that public worship, which He requireth of them in the world.[11]
> 
> 9. John 10:16; 12:32
> 10. Matt. 28:20
> 11. Matt. 18:15-20
> 
> VII. To each of these churches thus gathered, according to His mind declared in His Word, He hath given all that power and authority, which is in any way needful for their carrying on that order in worship and discipline, which He hath instituted for them to observe; with commands and rules for the due and right exerting, and executing of that power.[14]
> 
> 14. Matt. 18:17-18; I Cor. 5:4-5; 5:13; II Cor. 2:6-8


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I would just like to post something here from the LBCF chapter 26.



> 15.When difficulties or differences occur in respect of doctrine or church government, and peace, unity and edification are at risk, one church only may be involved, or the churches in general may be concerned. Again, a member or members of a church may be injured by disciplinary proceedings not agreeable to truth and church order. In such cases as these it is according to the mind of Christ that many churches in fellowship together should meet and confer together through their chosen representatives, who are able to give their advice on the matters in dispute to all the churches concerned. *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.



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.


----------



## Pastork

Randy,

I have offered a couple of suggestions for changes to chapter one of the 1689 Confession here:

Reformed Baptist Blog: Suggested Changes to the Baptist Confession of 1689 - Chapter One

Basically, I suggest adding a clear statement on inerrancy and reverting back the the WCF language regarding paragraph 6.

I plan to offer further suggestions for other chapters in the future.

Obviously, I agree that we should consider updating and changing some things in the 1689.

Keith


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Pastor Keith. 

Thanks for your blog. It is good to read. I really liked this one by Richard Belcher. 
Reformed Baptist Blog: An Historical Examination of the Doctrine of the Church Among Baptists With Special Reference to Southern Baptists and Church Purity - Chapter 2

Thanks for the encouragement also. 


I agree that to put something about the verbal plenary inspiration of the originals would be very important now days. I also like your recommendations on paragraph 6 and 10. The Westminster is better in some places in my opinion. You point that out well concerning paragraph 6. And in Paragraph 10 of our confession the term 'private spirits' needs to be defined for the modern reader. I would also note that in Chapter 2 paragraph 1 when it speaks of Passions (which are not the 'feelings of men' as the modern Carey revision states in place of the word passions) that Dr. Renihan does a good job of defining what the term passions means historically. Had I not read Dr. Renihan on it I would have come away with a different understanding. 

There is room for improvement in my estimation.


----------



## Jesus is my friend

timmopussycat said:


> Anything wrong with the following attempt?
> 
> A Faith to Confess: The Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689: S. M. Houghton - AbeBooks - 9780854799404: Winter Ventures



No it's a great one,and one that I use the most


----------



## Pastork

> I would also note that in Chapter 2 paragraph 1 when it speaks of Passions (which are not the 'feelings of men' as the modern Carey revision states in place of the word passions) that Dr. Renihan does a good job of defining what the term passions means historically. Had I not read Dr. Renihan on it I would have come away with a different understanding.



Yes, Randy, I am aware of the discussion between Renihan and Gonzales on this matter and do plan to make some suggestions about it as well.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

PuritanCovenanter said:


> *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.





> 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.


----------



## Herald

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I would just like to post something here from the LBCF chapter 26.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 15.When difficulties or differences occur in respect of doctrine or church government, and peace, unity and edification are at risk, one church only may be involved, or the churches in general may be concerned. Again, a member or members of a church may be injured by disciplinary proceedings not agreeable to truth and church order. In such cases as these it is according to the mind of Christ that many churches in fellowship together should meet and confer together through their chosen representatives, who are able to give their advice on the matters in dispute to all the churches concerned. *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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


Randy, I'm out of town, so I don't have the time to respond as fully as I would like. I want to point out that ARBCA is not a denomination. It is a voluntary association that has no ecclesiastical authority over member churches. The ecclesiastical authority issue is a big one for me.


----------



## 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.


----------



## Pastork

> 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.



Actually, one of the changes I have suggested for the 1689 Confession has to do with inspiration and inerrancy. I think we need a more clear statement on the issue. Here is my suggestion:



> First, beginning in paragraph 1, I would suggest an assertion making explicit the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture. The suggested language appears in bold type:
> 
> "1. The Holy Scripture, *fully and verbally inspired and inerrant in the original manuscripts*, is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience ...."



You can read more about it and about my other suggestions for chapter one of the confession here:

Reformed Baptist Blog: Suggested Changes to the Baptist Confession of 1689 - Chapter One

I will be offering suggestions for changes to other chapters of the Confession in the future.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Pastork said:


> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, one of the changes I have suggested for the 1689 Confession has to do with inspiration and inerrancy. I think we need a more clear statement on the issue. Here is my suggestion:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, beginning in paragraph 1, I would suggest an assertion making explicit the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture. The suggested language appears in bold type:
> 
> "1. The Holy Scripture, *fully and verbally inspired and inerrant in the original manuscripts*, is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience ...."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can read more about it and about my other suggestions for chapter one of the confession here:
> 
> Reformed Baptist Blog: Suggested Changes to the Baptist Confession of 1689 - Chapter One
> 
> I will be offering suggestions for changes to other chapters of the Confession in the future.
Click to expand...


Pastork,

I think Herald had the right idea with publishing position papers. This leaves the Confession intact while providing clarity on contemporary issues.


----------



## Pastork

C.M., 

I definitely think that position papers will always be helpful and necessary, especially in explaining the historical, theological, and exegetical basis and meaning of the language of the Confession. But I must say that I don't quite understand the reasoning for wanting to leave the Confession "intact," if by this it is meant that we should not want to make changes to it that will make it a stronger and clearer statement of our doctrine in our current cultural, linguistic, and theological milieu.

I agree more with the sentiments of Bob Gonzales, about which I have reported here: Reformed Baptist Blog: Robert Gonzales on the Danger of Reformed Traditionalism

At any rate, I will continue to offer my suggestions in this regard. If nothing else, perhaps it will help foster the kind of discussion both Gonzales and Martin Snyder (in this thread) are seeking to foster.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Pastork said:


> C.M.,
> 
> I definitely think that position papers will always be helpful and necessary, especially in explaining the historical, theological, and exegetical basis and meaning of the language of the Confession. But I must say that I don't quite understand the reasoning for wanting to leave the Confession "intact," if by this it is meant that we should not want to make changes to it that will make it a stronger and clearer statement of our doctrine in our current cultural, linguistic, and theological milieu.
> 
> I agree more with the sentiments of Bob Gonzales, about which I have reported here: Reformed Baptist Blog: Robert Gonzales on the Danger of Reformed Traditionalism
> 
> At any rate, I will continue to offer my suggestions in this regard. If nothing else, perhaps it will help foster the kind of discussion both Gonzales and Martin Snyder (in this thread) are seeking to foster.



Pastork,

You'll have to forgive me but I think position papers would work just fine. I simply don't see these changes to the confession as necessary.


----------



## Herald

Traditionalism is a constant threat to the Reformed faith. It must be guarded against at all costs. But throwing the term out as a criticism for maintaining the integrity of the 1689 LBC is misplaced. The 1689 is a sound summary of our faith. If we revise it now we will have to revise it again, and again, and again. The arguments I am reading in support of revising the Confession seem to hinge on contemporary doctrinal and polity issues that face the modern church. I concur that threats such as the New Perspective, emergent theology, and inerrancy need to be addressed strongly and in unison. The question is whether our Confession is the proper vehicle in which to do this. Our nation has a Constitution by which we interpret the validity of laws and legislation. While the Constitution addresses many issues, it does not deal with the minutiae of lesser, but not unimportant, laws. This is how I view our Confession. It is the detailed, yet big picture, summary of our faith. If it can be proven to be in error it should be changed. Based on the opinions expressed by most RB's I know they would concur that the Confession is accurate. Why not let it stand and allow the more finer points of theology and polity to other venues and mediums? The U.S. Constitution takes 3/4ths of all 50 states to pass an Amendment, and the Constitution is a secular document!


----------



## Pastork

C.M., nothing to forgive. We can agree to disagree on the matter.

-----Added 10/5/2009 at 07:13:53 EST-----

Hello Herald, I will try to keep my response brief.



> Traditionalism is a constant threat to the Reformed faith. It must be guarded against at all costs. But throwing the term out as a criticism for maintaining the integrity of the 1689 LBC is misplaced. The 1689 is a sound summary of our faith. If we revise it now we will have to revise it again, and again, and again.



Of course there is the possibility that accepting that we may revise the Confession once will mean that we could also do it twice, etc. But I doubt that it would be necessary that often, given that language doesn't really change as much as some people think over time and given that most errors are not all that new and have therefore already been substantially addressed. But the language has changed in _some_ ways that make the Confession difficult to understand for many today. For example, the meaning of the term _private spirits_ in chapter 1, paragraph 10, is pretty much unintelligible today for those who are not thoroughly acquainted with the history of the English language in the 17th century. And there have been _some_ errors asserted since the the Confession was written that were not really contemplated at the time. For example, I doubt that the writers of the Confession ever thought anyone would deny inerrancy the way it has been denied.

So, no, I don't think that making some changes after a little over 300 years will necessarily lead to rampant and unnecessary changes, if that is your concern.



> The arguments I am reading in support of revising the Confession seem to hinge on contemporary doctrinal and polity issues that face the modern church. I concur that threats such as the New Perspective, emergent theology, and inerrancy need to be addressed strongly and in unison. The question is whether our Confession is the proper vehicle in which to do this.



Isn't this precisely what confessions are for? Isn't it part of the reason why the various Reformed confessions were written in the first place?



> Our nation has a Constitution by which we interpret the validity of laws and legislation. While the Constitution addresses many issues, it does not deal with the minutiae of lesser, but not unimportant, laws. This is how I view our Confession. It is the detailed, yet big picture, summary of our faith. If it can be proven to be in error it should be changed. Based on the opinions expressed by most RB's I know they would concur that the Confession is accurate. Why not let it stand and address more finer points of theology and polity to other venues and mediums? The U.S. Constitution takes 3/4ths of all 50 states to pass an Amendment, and the Constitution is a secular document!



I can't say that I track with the comparison to the Constitution, but I think I do get your point. I would agree that there are some lesser issues that need not necessarily be addressed in the Confession, but inerrancy, for example, is not such an issue. And, to my mind, any Confession should be as understandable as we can make it for those reading it today (the _private spirits_ example again comes to mind).

At any rate, I understand that we will not all agree about the matter. But I am glad we share the same theological commitments and the same concern for truth.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

*Biblical Traditionalism*



Herald said:


> 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."



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


----------



## Herald

C. M. Sheffield said:


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


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


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Herald said:


> 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. 



> 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 In my humble opinion on that part specifically by rendering passions as, "changeable 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. 


> 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

C. M. Sheffield said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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...


PuritanCovenanter said:


> ...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

> 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

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

> 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.”



> 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

> 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

PuritanCovenanter said:


> 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

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

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 Presbyterian 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

*Unity: Spiritual not Orginizational*

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:


> 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)_​


----------

