Category Archives: Confessionalism

A Case for Robust Confessions of Faith in the Churches

Posted on by
Reply

Article: A Case for Robust Confessions of Faith in the Churches by Tom Hicks, Senior Pastor of First Baptist Church of Clinton, LA. (original source here)

A question often arises as to whether the church should have a minimal confession of faith or a robust and encyclopedic confession of faith. Some argue that a church’s formal confession should be short so that Christians with a variety of views on secondary doctrines may all join the church, while the pastor is free to teach anything he believes the Bible means. But I submit that it is the biblical responsibility of the church as a whole, not just the pastor, to confess its understanding of the meaning of the whole Bible, and that the pastor is to submit to the confession of the church. The Bible says that “the church” is “a pillar and buttress of the truth” (1 Tim 3:12). Some worry that subscribing to a robust confession of faith is unworkable in a local church, but I disagree.

Historically in America, most early Baptist churches had comprehensive confessions of faith, two of the most influential of which were the Philadelphia Confession among Baptists in the North and the Charleston Confession among Baptists in the South. Both of those confessions are based on the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith. Practically speaking, in our day, the churches need a robust confession in order to promote greater health and to remain faithful to Christ amidst the rising tide of secularism and individual autonomy. But most importantly, the Bible indicates that the church should confess its understanding of the Bible as a whole and therefore, the church’s confession ought to be robust.

1. The Basic Biblical Requirement of Confession

The Scriptures teach that Christians are to confess their faith. In the Old Testament, a basic confession of faith is found in the Shema. Deuteronomy 6:4 says, “Hear O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.”

In the New Testament, we see the content of a basic confession in Romans 10:9-10, which says, “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.”

So, at a very basic level, a confession of faith in Christ as Lord and Savior is required for salvation. But this basic confession will expand as Christians grow in their understanding of Scripture and as they disclaim doctrinal errors.

2. The Expanding Nature of Confessions in the Bible

When we study the confessions found in the Bible, one of the things we find is that as the church encounters new errors, it confesses more and more doctrine in order to confront those errors.

A Confession Against Judaism. 1 Corinthians 8:6 combines the confession that there is one God with the confession that there is one Lord Jesus Christ. It says, “There is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” In this confession, the basic Jewish affirmation of monotheism is affirmed. But in order to distinguish themselves clearly from the Jews who denied the deity of Christ, the church also affirmed Christ as Lord and Creator of all things.

A Confession Against Division. Some professing Christians in the early church would have divided the church between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. But the Apostle Paul confessed in Ephesians 4:4-5, “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” This confession affirms the oneness of all who are united to Christ.

A Confession Against Gnosticism, Asceticism and Paganism. We see a further expansion of the church’s confession in 1 Timothy 3:15, in which Paul writes so that “Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by the angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.” This confession was written as the church faced a number of additional heresies, including Gnosticism, Asceticism and Paganism. It confronted these newer heresies even as it also confronted the older errors of Judaism. We learn from this that the older errors don’t go away, which is why the church must keep adding to its confession. The church needed to confess that Christ is Lord, contrary to Judaism. It needed to declare the full humanity of Christ over and against Gnosticism. It needed to affirm the sufficiency of Christ’s work to save, contrary to Asceticism. And it needed to confess that God is one, over and against the polytheism of Paganism. Continue reading →

Creeds, Confessions, Catechisms, and Covenants in Corporate Worship

Posted on by
Reply

Article by Jake Stone (original source here)

In his instructions to Titus, Paul writes that ministers are to “teach what accords with sound doctrine” (Titus 2:1). The pulpit ministry that upholds and follows biblical exposition heeds these words of Paul. The pastor preaching the Scriptures verse-by-verse by using the historical-grammatical-theological/redemptive hermeneutic feeds his congregation. Theologically-rich, biblically based hymns are also a means by which the congregation is taught sound doctrine.

I would like to recommend a further means why which the preaching of sound doctrine can be faithfully taught in the corporate gathering of the saints each Lord’s Day. The 4 “Cs” are a way in which the congregation celebrates biblical truths, theology, and ecclesiastical bonds with the past. These four “Cs” are: creeds, confessions, catechisms, and covenants. Each of these is rooted in the Scripture: 1. an expression of doctrinal beliefs, 2. a reminder of the importance of church membership, and 3. a guide believers in the instruction of the faith.

Creeds

Perhaps you have heard that Baptists have “No creed but Christ” or “No creed but the Bible.” Some have boldly asserted these phrases to celebrate what they perceive as a Baptist distinctive: anti-creedalism. But Baptists are not anti-creedalists. While it is true that Baptists rejected creeds as a litmus test for citizenship, since Baptists abhor a state church, Baptists never disowned creeds as though they had no importance in the life of the church. Baptists have always held to Christian orthodoxy as expressed in the Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed. Both Particular and General Baptists affirmed the use of creeds. The Baptist Orthodox Catechism, edited by the Particular Baptist, Hercules Collins, says the Nicene Creed and Athanasian Creed ought to be taught. In The Orthodox Creed, the General Baptists affirm and encourage Baptists to learn and teach the aforementioned creeds. The early Southern Baptist theologian, B.H. Carrol, affirmed the importance of creeds, when he wrote: “The modern cry: ‘Less creed and more liberty,’ is a, degeneration from the vertebrate to the jellyfish, and means less unity and less morality, and it means more heresy.”

Why should Baptist churches use the historic, ecumenical, orthodox creeds in corporate worship? These creeds provide biblically faithful and understandable defenses and explanations of the Trinity, the hypostatic union of Christ, and other central tenets of the Christian faith. Continue reading →

Five Reasons for Considering the 1689 Confession of Faith

Posted on by
Reply

Article: Five Reasons for Considering the 1689 Confession of Faith by Ryan Davidson (original source here)

Huddled together in 1644, representatives of 7 churches gathered to summarize their common confession, and to distinguish themselves from the Anabaptists and the Arminians. It was a time of turmoil, and the river of the Reformation had swept across the shores of England. This was one of the first of several non-Anglican groups in that century to put pen to paper and confess their faith. Two years later, the Westminster Assembly would produce its own confession (WCF), and then in 1658, the Congregationalists would follow suit (Savoy Declaration). That original group of 7 churches was the Particular Baptists. Amid threats of persecution, and to show their solidarity and theological agreement in many ways with the Presbyterians and Congregationalists that had since written their own confessions, a larger crop of Baptists would draft the 1677 Baptist Confession with great reliance on the WCF and Savoy, however, this confession would be put forth by a General Assembly of Particular Baptists ultimately in 1689, giving it the name that it is known by today: “The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith”, often called the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith. This Confession was classically theist in its view of God, covenantal in its view of Biblical Theology, “Calvinist” in its soteriology, and would show alignment with the Westminster Confession of Faith on the Ordinary Means of Grace and the Law. I grew up Baptist, became Calvinistic in my soteriology in my teen years, and have found a wonderful home in the confessional roots of Baptist theology as a pastor in my mid-thirties. To me, this Historic Confession, similar to the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Savoy Declaration, is worth considering for at least five reasons:

1. For Baptists influenced by the ‘New Calvinism,’ it is helpful to see that for Baptists, Calvinism is not “new.” Many Baptists, myself included, embraced Calvinism and became ravenous for the writings of the Reformed tradition. We discovered that past the “5 points”, a covenant theology existed, but we assumed it really belonged to the Presbyterians. Yet, if we study our own history, we would see that the large, world-wide Baptist movement across the globe today really came out of a group of solidly Calvinistic, and even covenant theology-holding Particular Baptists. But from the 1800’s until the mid 1900’s, we lost our Confession. Baptists have a strong, soteriologically rich heritage. If you read the original forward to the confession, the heart of the signatories is brimming with a desire to find common ground with their Presbyterian and Congregationalist brethren. They write in their original letter to the reader, “…contention is most remote from our design in all that we have done in this matter.” A helpful history is found here.

2. There is value in saying more sometimes. In a day when statements of faith in many churches can be a minimalist endeavor, it is good to have a comprehensive summarized Systematic Theology. I once heard a dear brother say that the Confession is like a wonderful English garden, where Calvinism is only one set of beautiful flowers contained therein. The early Baptists were not content to have a Calvinistic soteriology alone. They viewed the pieces of systematic theology as fitting together–rising and falling together. If we adopt an historic confession, will this increase our need to teach new believers, or spend ‘extra’ time with new church members unfamiliar with a lengthier confession? Yes, but isn’t this ultimately a fruitful fulfillment of our commission to make disciples?

3. Historic confessions ground us. What would Biblical or Systematic or Exegetical Theology be without the aid of Historical Theology? While not inspired Scripture, historic confessions help us to work through doctrine in connection with saints who have gone before us. For Baptists particularly, we have vacillated across a wide expanse of theological understanding since the days of the late 1600’s, even since the days of Spurgeon, and this expanse includes several movements that had no real historic connection prior to their sudden development. Historic Confessions serve as a guide rail against much post-enlightenment theological novelty that has swept Evangelical Protestantism. What if a renewed interest in our own confessional heritage is what we need as we continue to grow and minister for and towards the glory of God?

4. Believer’s Baptism has much of its roots in a Covenant Theology. My many Presbyterian friends may wince, laugh or want to take me to task on that statement. However, for early Baptists coming out of the Church of England, two things drove their view of Baptism in my opinion (and it was not to be ignorantly petty, pesky, or contrarian, nor was it alignment with the Anabaptists from whom they had already expressed distinction). Continue reading →