Friday, December 24, 2010
Responding to Christmas
The true way to respond to God's promises and actions in the birth of Christ is faith, believing what God has said and done. The major characters in the story took God at his word and acted accordingly. Mary believed the angelic message to her and submitted herself to God. Joseph also believed the angelic message to him and took Mary as his wife. The shepherds believed the angelic message and went to Bethlehem, praising God. Believing God is the hallmark of the people of God, beginning with Abraham who believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Time for WTS to write it's own history?
A while back I suggested to Pete Lillback, President of WTS/Philadelphia, that maybe it was time for the seminary to write it's history. George Marsden had written the history of Fuller seminary by then (and Fuller is much younger than WTS) and it seemed that WTS, as the older institution should be the subject of a good, scholarly history, too. Pete had reasons for that not happening, but I think it is time for that to happen. The reason? Everyone else is writing that history. In the recent festschrift for Bob Godfrey, D.G. Hart addresses developments at Westminster in the 1970s that he believes show a weakening of the original resolve at the seminary to stand for the orthodox faith. John Yeo, from Reformed Theological Seminary, has published his doctoral dissertation on the history and trajectory of the OT faculty at Westminster. Mark Karlberg has written on what he believes is the defection of the seminary from teaching justification by faith alone in favor of justification by covenant faithfulness.
With all these critical analyses of the seminary, maybe it is time for Westminster in Philadelphia to tell its own story.
With all these critical analyses of the seminary, maybe it is time for Westminster in Philadelphia to tell its own story.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
TEC A Prophetic Church? No way.
Reading the introduction to the Rev. Dr. Ashley Null's lecture on the 39 Articles and Reformation Anglicanism had me thinking about what it means to be a prophetic church (as the Episcopal Church is trying to be).
According to Scripture, prophets:
According to Scripture, prophets:
- spoke the word of the Lord as it came from God.
- prosecuted God's covenant lawsuit against Israel.
- called the people of God to repentance.
Based on these 3 functions of prophets, the Episcopal Church is in no way acting prophetically when it speaks on matters of sex and morality. The Church rather is a false prophet, because it leads the people of God away from Him. The only biblically prophetic voice in TEC today comes from those who are conservative and traditional in their theology. They hold to a high view of Scripture as the Word of God. They denounce the sins of the Presiding Bishop and the House of Bishops. They call them and the rest of the Church to repentance.
The Daily Office readings from March 26 speak to the hardness of heart of God's people. I believe that the leadership of TEC has hardened their hearts. It is possible that just as God hardened the heart of Pharoah, God has hardened the hearts of the PB and most of the bishops. If so, that could mean that judgment is coming on the Church. Perhaps it has already come in the form of divisions and the scorn of the rest of the Anglican world. Like Pharoah, our leaders are stuck in their sins and there they may die. There is yet time to repent.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Dual Citizens
In his book, Dual Citizens, pastor Jason Stellman attempts to set forth his understanding of how the Bible describes what is known in Reformed and other circles as how believers are to live during the period of the “already/not yet.” This refers to the period between Christ’s first and second comings. Herman Ridderbos is one of the best known presenters of this idea, which he has done in his books The Coming of the Kingdom and Paul: An Outline of his Theology. According to Ridderbos (and others), Jesus’ birth, life, death and resurrection inaugurated the presence of God’s kingdom. Believers in Jesus receive the benefits of that kingdom: forgiveness, release from sin, new life and hope. Beyond that, this concept means that God’s rule has already begun in the life of Jesus. This is the “already.” The “not yet” refers to the future consummation of that kingdom.
Pastor Stellman’s purpose in his book is to develop the implications of the already/not yet for Christian life. This is a worthy task. It deals with the essence of our lives as we await Christ’s return. Having read the book, I have some concerns about his underlying presuppositions and how he constructs his approach. My concerns are with his separation of worship and life (what he calls cult and culture), his understanding of covenant theology and his caricatures of evangelical and Christian spiritual disciplines.
Since his separation of worship and life is based on his understanding of God’s covenant(s), I will begin there. An essential element of a Reformed understanding of God’s covenants is their unity. The various covenants are part of God’s overall covenantal approach and dealing with people in general and his people in particular. O. Palmer Robertson, in his Christ of the Covenants, devotes a whole chapter to the unity of God’s covenants, particularly the covenants with Noah, Abraham, Moses and David. These covenants build on the one before them and culminate in the New Covenant inaugurated by Jesus. This Reformed understanding is contrasted with a dispensational view which does not see the covenants as a unity and posits a difference between Israel and the Church.
Pastor Stellman’s approach to the covenants seems to be more dispensational than Reformed. I say this because he posits the need for a specific geographic location as important to how God’s covenants impact the way God’s people live. Under the covenants with Adam and Moses, God had initiated a theocracy which governed every aspect of life, including cult and culture. In regard to the covenant with Moses, it was especially in effect as long as Israel was in the land given them by God. When Israel was in exile in Babylon, the stipulations of the covenant governing Israel’s relationships with others did not apply. Once Israel returned to the land under Ezra and Nehemiah, all the stipulations of the covenant were once again in effect.
In regard to the conduct of believers during the period between Christ’s first and second comings, Pastor Stellman asserts that the church, like Israel in Babylon, is in exile. In this exilic state, it is possible to separate worship from the rest of life. He specifically rejects John Frame’s assertion that it is “difficult to separate “life” from “worship” in a biblical framework.” As Pastor Stellman writes, when they [God’s people] are exiles and pilgrims, they are called to separate themselves only religiously, not culturally.” This approach seems problematical. It seems to undercut the unity of the covenants. It also seems contrary to the realities of the New Covenant and Christ’s Lordship.
Under the New Covenant, the Church is called “a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God…” (I Peter 2:9 NIV). Paul says in Philippians 4:20, “our citizenship is in heaven…” He also tells us in Romans 12:2 to not be conformed to the world. Peter gives the same advice in I Peter 2:11-12.
The Church’s designation as a holy people and nation relates the Church to Israel. Yet, the Church is not in exile. The Church’s presence in the world is not punishment for disobedience, but for the purpose of declaring the glory of the one who brought them from darkness to life. Under the New Covenant, the church has no specific dedicated piece of land like Israel did in Canaan. All the earth belongs to the Lord (Ps. 24). Under the New Covenant, the possession of a specific piece of geography is not essential to the covenant since all the earth is the Lord’s. Thus, Pastor Stellman’s view of a separation between worship and life is without foundation. Christians are in the world to witness and they are called to be salt and light, separate from and not conforming to the world around them.
In this regard, Christians come in contact with the world around them. Like Israel, there are restrictions on how the Church interacts with the world. Christians are not to marry outside the faith (I Cor. 7:39). Believers are not to be yoked with unbelievers (2 Cor. 8:14-18). Christians are not to take each other to court (I Cor. 6). Christians were to take responsibility for each other, especially widows, orphans and any one else in need.
His book is clear about the differences between the church and the world and he makes some valuable evaluations of how the church operates in American culture. Christians in the United States must be open to suffering, be less demanding of prestige and power. Yet, in his evaluation of American evangelicalism, Pastor Stellman caricatures some spiritual disciplines that many American Christians, including this writer, find meaningful. These disciplines include a daily quiet time, listening to Christian music and retreats. He refers to these as “extra-canonical sacraments,” and hints that they are a gnostic form of spirituality (a charge that Mike Horton makes in Christless Christianity). He also implies that these practices stand in contrast to Reformed confessional understandings of Christian living, though without referring to specific confessional content. This Reformed confessional understanding centers on the local congregation where God’s Word is preached each Sunday.
Here he sets up a false dichotomy, and shows some personal bias toward American evangelicals. According to him (in Chapter 7), American evangelicals would rather practice personal individual piety than attend a local church where the Word of God is preached. Perhaps that is true in some cases, but the reality is that evangelical Christians probably attend church more than they practice individual disciplines. For me (and no doubt for many others) the discipline of a daily quiet time does not rule out attendance at a local congregation. The two practices complement each other. The practice of a daily quiet time is not to receive special revelation (as in Gnosticism) to “read, mark, learn and inwardly digest” the Scriptures, to meditate on them and to engage in daily prayer. Corporate worship is important, but it does not rule out individual worship.
In another area, he is critical of the desire of evangelicals for application in the sermons they hear. This, he says, is a desire for law not gospel. I wonder what he does with the letters of the Apostle Paul. Many of Paul’s letters can be divided into two parts: the indicative (what God has done in Christ) and the imperative (the application of the indicative). Much evangelical preaching probably is more application or “practical” and less oriented toward declaring what God has done in Christ. But the desire for application means that Christians take seriously what it means to be a Christian and how we live out our faith in the world. This would be similar to those aspects of the Law that defined how Israel was to live in a pagan environment. Given the state of American Christianity, as evangelicals like Ron Side and Jim Wallis have pointed out, American Christians need more application to know how to live as God’s holy people in the midst of a pagan society.
American Christians (as do all Christians) live as dual citizens of two worlds. Yet the Head of the Church is the Lord of the nations. Our allegiance is to one Lord. But, as Paul says in Philippians 4:20, our citizenship is in heaven. It is from the consummation of the kingdom that we are exiles and pilgrims. It is the values of God’s kingdom that are to guide us during our pilgrimage.
Pastor Stellman’s purpose in his book is to develop the implications of the already/not yet for Christian life. This is a worthy task. It deals with the essence of our lives as we await Christ’s return. Having read the book, I have some concerns about his underlying presuppositions and how he constructs his approach. My concerns are with his separation of worship and life (what he calls cult and culture), his understanding of covenant theology and his caricatures of evangelical and Christian spiritual disciplines.
Since his separation of worship and life is based on his understanding of God’s covenant(s), I will begin there. An essential element of a Reformed understanding of God’s covenants is their unity. The various covenants are part of God’s overall covenantal approach and dealing with people in general and his people in particular. O. Palmer Robertson, in his Christ of the Covenants, devotes a whole chapter to the unity of God’s covenants, particularly the covenants with Noah, Abraham, Moses and David. These covenants build on the one before them and culminate in the New Covenant inaugurated by Jesus. This Reformed understanding is contrasted with a dispensational view which does not see the covenants as a unity and posits a difference between Israel and the Church.
Pastor Stellman’s approach to the covenants seems to be more dispensational than Reformed. I say this because he posits the need for a specific geographic location as important to how God’s covenants impact the way God’s people live. Under the covenants with Adam and Moses, God had initiated a theocracy which governed every aspect of life, including cult and culture. In regard to the covenant with Moses, it was especially in effect as long as Israel was in the land given them by God. When Israel was in exile in Babylon, the stipulations of the covenant governing Israel’s relationships with others did not apply. Once Israel returned to the land under Ezra and Nehemiah, all the stipulations of the covenant were once again in effect.
In regard to the conduct of believers during the period between Christ’s first and second comings, Pastor Stellman asserts that the church, like Israel in Babylon, is in exile. In this exilic state, it is possible to separate worship from the rest of life. He specifically rejects John Frame’s assertion that it is “difficult to separate “life” from “worship” in a biblical framework.” As Pastor Stellman writes, when they [God’s people] are exiles and pilgrims, they are called to separate themselves only religiously, not culturally.” This approach seems problematical. It seems to undercut the unity of the covenants. It also seems contrary to the realities of the New Covenant and Christ’s Lordship.
Under the New Covenant, the Church is called “a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God…” (I Peter 2:9 NIV). Paul says in Philippians 4:20, “our citizenship is in heaven…” He also tells us in Romans 12:2 to not be conformed to the world. Peter gives the same advice in I Peter 2:11-12.
The Church’s designation as a holy people and nation relates the Church to Israel. Yet, the Church is not in exile. The Church’s presence in the world is not punishment for disobedience, but for the purpose of declaring the glory of the one who brought them from darkness to life. Under the New Covenant, the church has no specific dedicated piece of land like Israel did in Canaan. All the earth belongs to the Lord (Ps. 24). Under the New Covenant, the possession of a specific piece of geography is not essential to the covenant since all the earth is the Lord’s. Thus, Pastor Stellman’s view of a separation between worship and life is without foundation. Christians are in the world to witness and they are called to be salt and light, separate from and not conforming to the world around them.
In this regard, Christians come in contact with the world around them. Like Israel, there are restrictions on how the Church interacts with the world. Christians are not to marry outside the faith (I Cor. 7:39). Believers are not to be yoked with unbelievers (2 Cor. 8:14-18). Christians are not to take each other to court (I Cor. 6). Christians were to take responsibility for each other, especially widows, orphans and any one else in need.
His book is clear about the differences between the church and the world and he makes some valuable evaluations of how the church operates in American culture. Christians in the United States must be open to suffering, be less demanding of prestige and power. Yet, in his evaluation of American evangelicalism, Pastor Stellman caricatures some spiritual disciplines that many American Christians, including this writer, find meaningful. These disciplines include a daily quiet time, listening to Christian music and retreats. He refers to these as “extra-canonical sacraments,” and hints that they are a gnostic form of spirituality (a charge that Mike Horton makes in Christless Christianity). He also implies that these practices stand in contrast to Reformed confessional understandings of Christian living, though without referring to specific confessional content. This Reformed confessional understanding centers on the local congregation where God’s Word is preached each Sunday.
Here he sets up a false dichotomy, and shows some personal bias toward American evangelicals. According to him (in Chapter 7), American evangelicals would rather practice personal individual piety than attend a local church where the Word of God is preached. Perhaps that is true in some cases, but the reality is that evangelical Christians probably attend church more than they practice individual disciplines. For me (and no doubt for many others) the discipline of a daily quiet time does not rule out attendance at a local congregation. The two practices complement each other. The practice of a daily quiet time is not to receive special revelation (as in Gnosticism) to “read, mark, learn and inwardly digest” the Scriptures, to meditate on them and to engage in daily prayer. Corporate worship is important, but it does not rule out individual worship.
In another area, he is critical of the desire of evangelicals for application in the sermons they hear. This, he says, is a desire for law not gospel. I wonder what he does with the letters of the Apostle Paul. Many of Paul’s letters can be divided into two parts: the indicative (what God has done in Christ) and the imperative (the application of the indicative). Much evangelical preaching probably is more application or “practical” and less oriented toward declaring what God has done in Christ. But the desire for application means that Christians take seriously what it means to be a Christian and how we live out our faith in the world. This would be similar to those aspects of the Law that defined how Israel was to live in a pagan environment. Given the state of American Christianity, as evangelicals like Ron Side and Jim Wallis have pointed out, American Christians need more application to know how to live as God’s holy people in the midst of a pagan society.
American Christians (as do all Christians) live as dual citizens of two worlds. Yet the Head of the Church is the Lord of the nations. Our allegiance is to one Lord. But, as Paul says in Philippians 4:20, our citizenship is in heaven. It is from the consummation of the kingdom that we are exiles and pilgrims. It is the values of God’s kingdom that are to guide us during our pilgrimage.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Scripture in the Second London Confession
Some have asked about access to my Th.M. thesis from Westminster Theological Seminary on the Second London Confession of Faith. While the thesis has not been published, I am posting an essay I wrote about the doctrine of Scripture in the confession.
Baptists believe that the Bible is supreme in all matters of faith and life. For this reason they have been among the strongest defenders of the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible. They did this first in 1677 in the opening words of the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith: “The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving Knowledge, Faith, and Obedience…”[1] This statement is notable for two reasons. It is the first confessional statement of the infallibility of the Bible; and it is an addition to what is otherwise the nearly identical text of the same chapter in the Westminster Confession of Faith upon which the Second London Confession is based. Why did the Baptists address the infallibility of the Bible?
Certainly it is not because the Westminster Divines or the Puritans believed the Bible to be fallible. Leland Ryken points to the views of William Ames and John Owen (among others) who believed in the infallibility of the Bible.[2] The statement probably shows the influence of Benjamin Keach (1640-1704), a Particular Baptist pastor in London, who claimed infallibility for Scripture. “That the scripture, or book called the Bible, is of divine original, inspired by the Spirit of God, and therefore of infallible truth and authority appears.”[3] Again, “…this God, out of his great love and goodness, hath given us one sure, and infallible rule of faith and practice, viz. the Holy Scriptures. The reason for addressing the infallibility of the Bible is more likely due to changes in attitudes toward the Bible in the later half of the 1600s. This essay will identify three such changes presented by radical religious groups, Rationalism and biblical criticism. The radical groups generally denied the divine origin of Scripture and denied its truthfulness. Rationalism superseded the content of Scripture. Biblical criticism questioned the nature and teaching of Scripture. All denied the infallibility of Holy Scripture.
The Bible in Seventeenth Century England
The Bible was popular in England in the early 1600s. It was “omnipresent in houses,” e.g., in homes and alehouses, where biblical texts and stories adorned the walls. People opened the Bible at random for divine guidance. All the parties to political discussions used the Bible to justify their positions. Copies of the Scriptures in the Authorized Version and the Geneva Bible were bought and read. As a result, “almost everybody in the sixteenth century and most in the seventeenth accepted that the Bible was the authoritative source of all wisdom…”[4] C. John Sommerville found that Scripture was an often mentioned source of religious authority.[5]
The situation changed in the latter years of the seventeenth century. David Katz wrote, “If it is true that the first half of the seventeenth century was the high-water mark of bibliolatry in England, it follows that from that point on the waters had to recede…The most ardent supporters of sola scriptura were so convinced of the impregnability of biblical authority that they fearlessly investigated every conceivable aspect of Scripture, and were amazed to discover that their examinations…caused irreparable cracks in the entire edifice.”[6] One of the “irreparable cracks” was doubts about the infallibility of Scripture.
Challenges to Holy Scripture
Radical Religion
Radical religious groups viewed the Bible as a human work and thus not trustworthy in religious matters and set up a dichotomy between the Spirit and Scripture. Gerrard Winstanley (1609?-1660?), a Digger, believed that the Virgin Birth, the resurrection of Jesus, and the story of the Fall were allegories.[7] He held that the "Law and Testimony to which I must have recourse for my comfort, is not the words or writings of other men without me; But the spirit of the Father in me, teaching me to know him by experience…this is the Law and the Testimony.”[8] The Scriptures “were not his own words [God’s] but those of men with similar experience.”[9]
Samuel Fisher (1605-1665), a Presbyterian turned Baptist turned Quaker, offered similar arguments. In his analysis of Scripture, The Rustics Alarm to the Rabbies, Fisher challenged the reliability of the text of Scripture, questioned the source of divine authority of the present canon because the transcribers made errors in their work, and believed that Scripture is “a bulk of heterogeneous writings, compiled together by men taking what they could find of the several sorts of writings that are therein, and…crowding them into a canon, or standard for the trial of all spirits, doctrines, truth; and by them alone.”[10]
In 1675, Robert Barclay, a Quaker, published and presented to King Charles II, An Apology for the True Christian Divinity, written to “present the world with a brief, but true account of this people's principles [the Quakers], in short some theological propositions.”[11] Proposition III explains the Quaker understanding of Scripture. Scripture proceeds from “the revelations of the Spirit of God to the saints” and contains
“1. A faithful historical account of the actings of
God’s people in divers ages….
2. A prophetical account of several things, whereof
some are already past, and some yet to come.
3. A full and ample account of all the chief principles
of the doctrine of Christ….”[12]
Moreover, Scripture is not the chief rule of faith and practice for two reasons. First, it is “only a declaration of the fountain, and not the fountain itself.” It is “a secondary rule, subordinate to the Spirit.”[13] Because the Spirit is the only way that we can know God and be led into all truth, it is the primary rule of faith and life. Second, it is not complete and does not address every conceivable situation. Barclay wrote,
That which is given to Christians for a rule and
guide, must needs be so full, that it may clearly
and distinctly guide and order them in all things
and occurrences that may fall out. But, in that
there are numberless things, with regard to
their circumstances, which particular Christians
may be concerned in, for which there can be no
particular rule had in the scriptures. Therefore,
the scriptures cannot be a rule to them.[14]
The radical challenge to Scripture reduced it to a “mirror” for living saints to learn from the experiences of past saints, as well as an incomplete and textually untrustworthy collection of writings.
Rationalism
An Anglican cleric declared in 1667 “the universal disposition of this Age is bent upon a rational religion,” meant “to replace the weight of dusty authorities with the simple process, accessible to all, of logical argument from clear and distinct ideas to the most complex and yet certain knowledge.”[15] Reason was "the means by which certainty is attained, through the assent of the mind to evidence proposed to it."[16] It referred to "the use of rational processes in perceiving facts and evaluating arguments."[17] Richard Hooker wrote, "Those Laws [of nature] are investigable by Reason, without the help of Revelation supernatural and divine."[18]
Reason had three roles in seventeenth century English theology. First, it guarded against religious anarchy brought on by “enthusiasm” and individual interpretation of Scripture.[19] The Anglican theologian William Chillingworth argued that reason was the guide to understanding the elements of Christianity that are essential for salvation.[20] Thomas Hobbes wrote, "God declareth his laws...by the dictates of natural reason...."[21]
Second, reason made logical arguments for God’s existence and the truthfulness of Christian belief to demonstrate Christianity’s rationality, reasonableness and believability. Edward Fowler, Bishop of Gloucester, claimed that we believe the Bible because it is God’s word, but we believe God “upon the proposition of reason that ‘God cannot lie.” Joseph Glanville held that reason “proves some main and fundamental articles of faith, and defends all, by proving the authority of Holy Scripture.”[22]
Third, reason judged the content of Scripture and the truthfulness of Christian belief on the grounds that “reason has jurisdiction over faith, that it has the power to examine it, to reject or accept it strictly according to evidence.”[23] The Anglican minister Robert South argued in a sermon, "My reason must prove to me that it [something supposedly revealed by God] is revealed." For South, this means "Reason is that into which all Religion is at last resolved.”[24] Frederick Beiser has concluded that this use of reason transformed Protestantism, for it made reason the “ultimate, if unconfessed and implicit, rule of faith.”[25]
The rationalists believed that Scripture could not stand by itself. The idea of Scripture as the self-verifying rule of faith was not able to “convince the skeptic, the enthusiast, and the Roman Catholic, who denied the ultimate authority of Scripture.”[26] As an example of this view, Hooker wrote
But it is not the word of God which doth or
possibly can assure us, that we do well to
think it his word. For if any one book of
Scripture did give testimony to all, yet still
that Scripture which giveth credit to the rest
would require another Scripture to give credit
unto it…[27]
If radical religion replaced Scripture with the Spirit, rational religion replaced Scripture with the authority of human reason.
Biblical Criticism
Another challenge came from the rising field of biblical criticism as represented by Benedict Spinoza. Spinoza criticized those who "by their laying down beforehand as a foundation for the study and true interpretation of Scripture, the principle that it is in every passage true and divine."[28] In his view, such a position should only be reached after careful "scrutiny and thorough comprehension of the Sacred Books."[29] Spinoza claims to have done that, concluding, "The authority of the prophets has weight only in matters of morality, and that their speculative doctrines affect us little."[30]
Spinoza also criticized those who paid "homage to the Books of the Bible, rather than to the Word of God," which has not been revealed as a certain number of books. The Word of God is more than the written works of the Bible, though they, too, may be called the Word of God. They are God's Word only as they affect religion, and to that extent they are not "faulty, tampered with, nor corrupt."[31] Yet, the Bible is fallible because "God adapted revelations to the understanding and opinions of the prophets...It therefore follows that we must by no means go to the prophets for knowledge, either of natural or spiritual phenomena."[32] He concludes that we are only bound to believe "the object and substance of the revelation" in the writings of the prophets, and believe whatever we want regarding the details. Regarding the details, Spinoza cataloged all the errors in the genealogies, the history, and even the prophecies. All the believer must do is to believe the pure and uncorrupted Word of God ("obedience to God in singleness of heart, and in the practice of justice and charity..."). Spinoza argues, though, that Scripture is "sacred and Divine," as he defines such terms. "A thing is called sacred and Divine when it is designed for promoting piety, and continues sacred so long as it is religiously used: if the users cease to be pious, the thing ceases to be sacred...."[33] Sacredness is only a relative state. "Thus Scripture is sacred, and its words Divine so long as it stirs mankind to devotion toward God: but if it be utterly neglected, as it formerly was by the Jews, it becomes nothing but paper and ink, and is left to be desecrated or corrupted...."[34]
Questions of Authority
At the heart of these challenges was the question of authority. As Beiser notes, “The central concern of the infallibility controversy…was epistemological. What justifies the authority of the Church? What is the final rule of faith: Scripture, tradition, reason, or the pope?”[35] Radicals and rationalists believed that Scripture could be inspired of God, but was not infallible. Roman Catholics agreed with them about the inspiration of Scripture, but held that the pope, as an interpreter of Scripture, was infallible. Roman Catholic apologists argued against Scripture as a sufficient rule of faith on the basis of obscure passages in Scripture and contradictory interpretations of Scripture.[36] Radicals and rationalists made this objection, too. For radicals, this is made the Spirit supreme. For rationalists, only Reason could overcome such contradictory interpretations. For the Roman Catholics, only the pope can be an infallible interpreter of Scripture.[37]
The Anglicans, for their part, questioned the very notion of infallibility in religious matters, partly to rebut Catholic claims of infallibility, and partly because infallibility was not considered possible. Jeremy Taylor, for example, held "that there could be no infallible guide in religious matters."[38] William Chillingworth argued in The Religion of Protestants a Safe Way to Salvation that infallible knowledge in religion was unnecessary since knowledge in that arena was based on our senses and reliable witnesses. Therefore, we already have "moral certainty" that was at the level of conviction. Certain knowledge was only possible in mathematics and metaphysics, which were different from religion.[39] Only mathematical proofs could lead to absolute or infallible certainty. The testimony of other people had only a moral certainty. Scripture only had moral certainty since our evidence of its truth depends on the testimony of others.[40]
At the heart of this skepticism was the questioning of authority based on the Protestant idea of the liberty of the individual conscience. Infallibility was irrelevant since the "final source of intellectual authority is only the fallible judgment of individual reason," and dogmatism was to be avoided.[41]
The Confession Affirms Infallibility
It is in the contexts of radical religion, skepticism, and discussions of infallibility that we may begin to understand why the drafters of the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith addressed the sufficiency, certainty and infallibility of Scripture. Against the subjectivity of reason or the Inner Light or the Holy Spirit as the primary religious authority, the Baptist confession asserts that Holy Scripture is the infallible rule of "saving Knowledge, Faith, and Obedience". Against views that reduced Scripture to "an historical account" (Barclay and the Quakers) or a repository of rational religion, the opening sentence of the 1677 confession asserts "Holy Scripture is the only...rule of all Saving Knowledge, Faith, and Obedience." Against charges that Scripture is insufficient as an authoritative religious resource, the confession asserts the sufficiency and infallibility of Scripture for the life of the church and the Christian.
Having asserted the sufficiency of Scripture, the Confession explained the basis for the assertion: “The Authority of the Holy Scripture for which it ought to be believed dependeth…wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the Author thereof; therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God” (S.L.C. I.4). Moreover, “our full persuasion, and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our Hearts” (S.L.C. I.5).
In the context of the various sources of knowing God's will, the confession's position on the sufficiency, certainty and infallibility of Scripture is an act of faith (and not the result of reason) as defined in Chapter XIV.1-2 of the confession. Saving faith "is the work of the Spirit of Christ" in the hearts of the Elect, enabling them to believe to be true "whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the Authority of God himself."
In Chapter 1.10, the drafters of the Second London Baptist Confession declared that "the supreme[e] judge" of all religious controversies "can be no other but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved." Because Holy Scripture has been inspired by the Holy Spirit, the Scriptures alone are the infallible judge of all controversies. For the Baptists, Scripture is the final word.
In the seventeenth century discussions of religious authority, there were several options: Scripture and reason; Scripture and natural theology; the Inner Light; reason alone; Scripture and papal authority; and Scripture alone. While recognizing the place of natural revelation in revealing God's attributes, the London Baptists recognized the insufficiency of natural revelation and acknowledged "the Holy Scripture to be most necessary" (I.1). By implication in I.4-5 (essentially copied from the Westminster Confession), the Baptists repudiated the role of reason as a means to undergird the authority of Scripture. "The Authority of the Holy Scripture for which it ought to be believed dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church, but wholly upon God." "...our full persuasion, and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit...." In I.6 the confession rejects any extra-biblical sources (the Inner Light, reason, nature) for the "whole Councel of God." The confession recognizes the need for the work of the Holy Spirit to enable anyone to understand Scripture. It even recognizes the "light of nature" to order life in the Church, though the confession does not explain how this is so. Further, the confession recognizes that not all things in Scripture are plain and understandable. The only infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.
While repudiating reason, nature and the Spirit as adjuncts to, or replacements of, Scripture as a source of religious authority, the confession offers a mediating way among all these options. By placing Scripture at the center, the confession seeks to avoid the subjectivity of Reason or the Inner Light. Putting Scripture in the center allows the confession to recognize the roles of the Holy Spirit and the light of nature in the life of the church. The Spirit gives the believer confidence in Scripture and its contents, as well as "saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word" (I.6). On the other hand, the "light of nature" and "Christian prudence" may be used to order some circumstances. However, neither the Spirit nor the "light of nature" nor prudence operate independently of Scripture. Scripture is the context in which both operate.
Finally, the Second London Confession recognizes that some passages and doctrines are not easy to understand. Yet, "those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for Salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other" that anyone "in a due use of ordinary means" may reach an understanding of them. The "ordinary means" may include reason as well as common sense. What ever they are, the confession affirms the perspicuity of Scripture. Scripture remains at the center, "the sufficient, certain, and infallible rule."
The Legacy of the Confession
The confession’s use of “infallible” to describe Holy Scripture was a tiny voice in the midst of much larger discussions and had no discernable impact on the direction of those discussions. Indeed, no subsequent Baptist confession (aside from the Philadelphia Confession of 1742 which was essentially the 1677 confession with two additional chapters) described Scripture as infallible until the early 1800s.[42] The New Hampshire Confession of 1833 did not use the term infallible, but noted “the Holy Bible…has God for its author…and truth without any mixture of error, for its matter.”[43] Free Will Baptists, The American Baptist Association, and the North American Baptist Association all have confessed the infallibility of Scripture.[44]
In the twentieth century, “the infallible rule of faith and practice” became a common phrase in statements of faith adopted by evangelical congregations, seminaries, and other Christian organizations.[45] Belief in the infallibility of Scripture (and the inerrancy of Scripture) became an evangelical distinction. Though there is no causal relationship between the Second London Confession and these confessions of faith, many of the same issues that led the Particular Baptists in 1677 to describe the Bible as infallible still exist in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Biblical criticism, in the form of the Jesus Seminar, presents new challenges to the integrity of the texts of Scripture.[46] Inter-religious dialogue and religious pluralism challenges the authority of Scripture alone for the life of the church and for its message.[47]
Conclusion
In the absence of any explicit statements by the writers of the Second London Confessionregarding the infallibility of Scripture, this essay has tried to place its use in the context of discussions about Scripture in seventeenth century English church life. By ascribing infallibility to Holy Scripture, the Baptists disassociated themselves from the Catholic view that the pope is infallible, and as well as those who placed the Spirit or their own judgment over the authority of Holy Scripture. Where the truthfulness of Scripture was challenged, the Baptists asserted the certainty and infallibility of Scripture. Scripture was the basis for understanding God’s will and God’s world.
[1] Second London Confession of Faith (hereinafter S.L.C.) I.1. The text of the Confession used here is found in William L. Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, Rev. ed. (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1969), 235-295.
[2] Leland Ryken, Worldly Saints: The Puritans as they Really Were (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 141.
[3] Benjamin Keach, Tropologia: A Key to Open Scripture Metaphors (London: William Hill Collingridge City Press, 1858), ix.
[4] Christopher Hill, “The Bible in Seventeenth-Century English Politics,” The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, 90, (18 December 2005).
[5] C. John Sommerville, Popular Religion in Restoration England (Gainesville, Flor.: University Presses of Florida, 1977), 62.
[6] David S. Katz, God’s Last Words: Reading the English Bible from the Reformation to Fundamentalism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), 74..
[7] Christopher Hill, The World Turned Upside Down (Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1975), 142-145.
[8] Gerrard Winstanley, “Saints Paradice,” quoted in Donald R. Sutherland, “The Religion of Gerrard Winstanley and Digger Communism,” Essays in History 33 (1991), <http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/journals/EH/EH33/suther33.html> (15 March 2005).
[9] Sutherland, “The Religion of Gerrard Winstanley and Digger Communism.”
[10] Samuel Fisher, quoted in Christopher Hill, The World Turned Upside Down, 266-267.
[11] Robert Barclay, An Apology for a True Christian Divinity, 6th ed. (London: T. Sowle Raylton, 1736), [7].
[12] Barclay, 67.
[13] Barclay, 71.
[14] Barclay, 74.
[15] John Spurr, “’Rational Religion’ in Restoration England,” Journal of the History of Ideas 49, no. 4 (October-December 1988): 563.
[16] Martin I.J. Griffin, Richard Henry Popkin, and Lila Freeman, Latitudinarianism in the Seventeenth-Century Church of England (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992), 61.
[17] Alan C. Clifford, Atonement and Justification: English Evangelical Theology, 1640-1790 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), 43; quoted in W. M. Spellman, The Latitudinarians in the Church of England, 1660-1700 (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press), 4.
[18] Richard Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity I.8.8., (22 July 2005).
[19] Spurr, “Rational Religion”, p. 568. Enthusiast was a term applied to the Puritans as well as Quakers, Ranters and similar groups.
[20] Spellman, 21.
[21] Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, ed. and with introduction and notes by Edwin Curley (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 1994), II.xxxi.[3]. Divine revelation and the voice of man were two other ways God communicated his laws.
[22] Griffin, 38.
[23] Frederick C. Beiser, The Sovereignty of Reason: the Defense of Rationality in the Early English Enlightenment (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), 15.
[24] Robert South, Sermons, quoted in Spurr, "Rational Religion," 576.
[25] Beiser, 11.
[26] Beiser, 11.
[27] Hooker, II.4.2.
[28] Benedict de Spinoza, A Theologico-Politico Treatise, trans. R.H.M. Elwes (New York: Dover Publications, 1951), 8.
[29] Spinoza, 8.
[30] Spinoza, 8.
[31] Spinoza, 9, 172.
[32] Spinoza, 40.
[33] Spinoza, 167.
[34] Spinoza, 168.
[35] Beiser, 105.
[36] Griffin, 55-56.
[37] Griffin, 109-110.
[38] Jeremy Taylor, A Discourse of the Liberty of Prophecying quoted in Spellman, 24.
[39] Spellman, 21.
[40] Spurr, 575-576.
[41] Beiser, 111.
[42] Lumpkin, “Terms of Union Between the Elkhorn and South Kentucky, or Separate, Associations,” 359.
[43] Lumpkin, 362.
[44] Lumpkin, 369, 378, 380.
[45] Examples are Latin America Mission, “Statement of Faith,” <http://www.lam.org/about/statement_of_faith.php?> (12 July 2006); The Lausanne Covenant <http://www.lausane.org> (12 July 2006); Asbury Theological Seminary, “Statement of Faith,” <http://www.ats.wilmore.ky.us/about/faith.htm> (12 July 2006).
[46] The Jesus Seminar <http://www.westarinstitute.org/Jesus_Seminar/jesus_seminar.html> (13 July 2006).
[47] An example of this trend may be seen in Sarah J. Melcher, “’Genuine Pluralism’ and Reformed Christology,” CrossCurrents 54, no. 4 (Winter 2005): 6-17.
Baptists believe that the Bible is supreme in all matters of faith and life. For this reason they have been among the strongest defenders of the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible. They did this first in 1677 in the opening words of the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith: “The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving Knowledge, Faith, and Obedience…”[1] This statement is notable for two reasons. It is the first confessional statement of the infallibility of the Bible; and it is an addition to what is otherwise the nearly identical text of the same chapter in the Westminster Confession of Faith upon which the Second London Confession is based. Why did the Baptists address the infallibility of the Bible?
Certainly it is not because the Westminster Divines or the Puritans believed the Bible to be fallible. Leland Ryken points to the views of William Ames and John Owen (among others) who believed in the infallibility of the Bible.[2] The statement probably shows the influence of Benjamin Keach (1640-1704), a Particular Baptist pastor in London, who claimed infallibility for Scripture. “That the scripture, or book called the Bible, is of divine original, inspired by the Spirit of God, and therefore of infallible truth and authority appears.”[3] Again, “…this God, out of his great love and goodness, hath given us one sure, and infallible rule of faith and practice, viz. the Holy Scriptures. The reason for addressing the infallibility of the Bible is more likely due to changes in attitudes toward the Bible in the later half of the 1600s. This essay will identify three such changes presented by radical religious groups, Rationalism and biblical criticism. The radical groups generally denied the divine origin of Scripture and denied its truthfulness. Rationalism superseded the content of Scripture. Biblical criticism questioned the nature and teaching of Scripture. All denied the infallibility of Holy Scripture.
The Bible in Seventeenth Century England
The Bible was popular in England in the early 1600s. It was “omnipresent in houses,” e.g., in homes and alehouses, where biblical texts and stories adorned the walls. People opened the Bible at random for divine guidance. All the parties to political discussions used the Bible to justify their positions. Copies of the Scriptures in the Authorized Version and the Geneva Bible were bought and read. As a result, “almost everybody in the sixteenth century and most in the seventeenth accepted that the Bible was the authoritative source of all wisdom…”[4] C. John Sommerville found that Scripture was an often mentioned source of religious authority.[5]
The situation changed in the latter years of the seventeenth century. David Katz wrote, “If it is true that the first half of the seventeenth century was the high-water mark of bibliolatry in England, it follows that from that point on the waters had to recede…The most ardent supporters of sola scriptura were so convinced of the impregnability of biblical authority that they fearlessly investigated every conceivable aspect of Scripture, and were amazed to discover that their examinations…caused irreparable cracks in the entire edifice.”[6] One of the “irreparable cracks” was doubts about the infallibility of Scripture.
Challenges to Holy Scripture
Radical Religion
Radical religious groups viewed the Bible as a human work and thus not trustworthy in religious matters and set up a dichotomy between the Spirit and Scripture. Gerrard Winstanley (1609?-1660?), a Digger, believed that the Virgin Birth, the resurrection of Jesus, and the story of the Fall were allegories.[7] He held that the "Law and Testimony to which I must have recourse for my comfort, is not the words or writings of other men without me; But the spirit of the Father in me, teaching me to know him by experience…this is the Law and the Testimony.”[8] The Scriptures “were not his own words [God’s] but those of men with similar experience.”[9]
Samuel Fisher (1605-1665), a Presbyterian turned Baptist turned Quaker, offered similar arguments. In his analysis of Scripture, The Rustics Alarm to the Rabbies, Fisher challenged the reliability of the text of Scripture, questioned the source of divine authority of the present canon because the transcribers made errors in their work, and believed that Scripture is “a bulk of heterogeneous writings, compiled together by men taking what they could find of the several sorts of writings that are therein, and…crowding them into a canon, or standard for the trial of all spirits, doctrines, truth; and by them alone.”[10]
In 1675, Robert Barclay, a Quaker, published and presented to King Charles II, An Apology for the True Christian Divinity, written to “present the world with a brief, but true account of this people's principles [the Quakers], in short some theological propositions.”[11] Proposition III explains the Quaker understanding of Scripture. Scripture proceeds from “the revelations of the Spirit of God to the saints” and contains
“1. A faithful historical account of the actings of
God’s people in divers ages….
2. A prophetical account of several things, whereof
some are already past, and some yet to come.
3. A full and ample account of all the chief principles
of the doctrine of Christ….”[12]
Moreover, Scripture is not the chief rule of faith and practice for two reasons. First, it is “only a declaration of the fountain, and not the fountain itself.” It is “a secondary rule, subordinate to the Spirit.”[13] Because the Spirit is the only way that we can know God and be led into all truth, it is the primary rule of faith and life. Second, it is not complete and does not address every conceivable situation. Barclay wrote,
That which is given to Christians for a rule and
guide, must needs be so full, that it may clearly
and distinctly guide and order them in all things
and occurrences that may fall out. But, in that
there are numberless things, with regard to
their circumstances, which particular Christians
may be concerned in, for which there can be no
particular rule had in the scriptures. Therefore,
the scriptures cannot be a rule to them.[14]
The radical challenge to Scripture reduced it to a “mirror” for living saints to learn from the experiences of past saints, as well as an incomplete and textually untrustworthy collection of writings.
Rationalism
An Anglican cleric declared in 1667 “the universal disposition of this Age is bent upon a rational religion,” meant “to replace the weight of dusty authorities with the simple process, accessible to all, of logical argument from clear and distinct ideas to the most complex and yet certain knowledge.”[15] Reason was "the means by which certainty is attained, through the assent of the mind to evidence proposed to it."[16] It referred to "the use of rational processes in perceiving facts and evaluating arguments."[17] Richard Hooker wrote, "Those Laws [of nature] are investigable by Reason, without the help of Revelation supernatural and divine."[18]
Reason had three roles in seventeenth century English theology. First, it guarded against religious anarchy brought on by “enthusiasm” and individual interpretation of Scripture.[19] The Anglican theologian William Chillingworth argued that reason was the guide to understanding the elements of Christianity that are essential for salvation.[20] Thomas Hobbes wrote, "God declareth his laws...by the dictates of natural reason...."[21]
Second, reason made logical arguments for God’s existence and the truthfulness of Christian belief to demonstrate Christianity’s rationality, reasonableness and believability. Edward Fowler, Bishop of Gloucester, claimed that we believe the Bible because it is God’s word, but we believe God “upon the proposition of reason that ‘God cannot lie.” Joseph Glanville held that reason “proves some main and fundamental articles of faith, and defends all, by proving the authority of Holy Scripture.”[22]
Third, reason judged the content of Scripture and the truthfulness of Christian belief on the grounds that “reason has jurisdiction over faith, that it has the power to examine it, to reject or accept it strictly according to evidence.”[23] The Anglican minister Robert South argued in a sermon, "My reason must prove to me that it [something supposedly revealed by God] is revealed." For South, this means "Reason is that into which all Religion is at last resolved.”[24] Frederick Beiser has concluded that this use of reason transformed Protestantism, for it made reason the “ultimate, if unconfessed and implicit, rule of faith.”[25]
The rationalists believed that Scripture could not stand by itself. The idea of Scripture as the self-verifying rule of faith was not able to “convince the skeptic, the enthusiast, and the Roman Catholic, who denied the ultimate authority of Scripture.”[26] As an example of this view, Hooker wrote
But it is not the word of God which doth or
possibly can assure us, that we do well to
think it his word. For if any one book of
Scripture did give testimony to all, yet still
that Scripture which giveth credit to the rest
would require another Scripture to give credit
unto it…[27]
If radical religion replaced Scripture with the Spirit, rational religion replaced Scripture with the authority of human reason.
Biblical Criticism
Another challenge came from the rising field of biblical criticism as represented by Benedict Spinoza. Spinoza criticized those who "by their laying down beforehand as a foundation for the study and true interpretation of Scripture, the principle that it is in every passage true and divine."[28] In his view, such a position should only be reached after careful "scrutiny and thorough comprehension of the Sacred Books."[29] Spinoza claims to have done that, concluding, "The authority of the prophets has weight only in matters of morality, and that their speculative doctrines affect us little."[30]
Spinoza also criticized those who paid "homage to the Books of the Bible, rather than to the Word of God," which has not been revealed as a certain number of books. The Word of God is more than the written works of the Bible, though they, too, may be called the Word of God. They are God's Word only as they affect religion, and to that extent they are not "faulty, tampered with, nor corrupt."[31] Yet, the Bible is fallible because "God adapted revelations to the understanding and opinions of the prophets...It therefore follows that we must by no means go to the prophets for knowledge, either of natural or spiritual phenomena."[32] He concludes that we are only bound to believe "the object and substance of the revelation" in the writings of the prophets, and believe whatever we want regarding the details. Regarding the details, Spinoza cataloged all the errors in the genealogies, the history, and even the prophecies. All the believer must do is to believe the pure and uncorrupted Word of God ("obedience to God in singleness of heart, and in the practice of justice and charity..."). Spinoza argues, though, that Scripture is "sacred and Divine," as he defines such terms. "A thing is called sacred and Divine when it is designed for promoting piety, and continues sacred so long as it is religiously used: if the users cease to be pious, the thing ceases to be sacred...."[33] Sacredness is only a relative state. "Thus Scripture is sacred, and its words Divine so long as it stirs mankind to devotion toward God: but if it be utterly neglected, as it formerly was by the Jews, it becomes nothing but paper and ink, and is left to be desecrated or corrupted...."[34]
Questions of Authority
At the heart of these challenges was the question of authority. As Beiser notes, “The central concern of the infallibility controversy…was epistemological. What justifies the authority of the Church? What is the final rule of faith: Scripture, tradition, reason, or the pope?”[35] Radicals and rationalists believed that Scripture could be inspired of God, but was not infallible. Roman Catholics agreed with them about the inspiration of Scripture, but held that the pope, as an interpreter of Scripture, was infallible. Roman Catholic apologists argued against Scripture as a sufficient rule of faith on the basis of obscure passages in Scripture and contradictory interpretations of Scripture.[36] Radicals and rationalists made this objection, too. For radicals, this is made the Spirit supreme. For rationalists, only Reason could overcome such contradictory interpretations. For the Roman Catholics, only the pope can be an infallible interpreter of Scripture.[37]
The Anglicans, for their part, questioned the very notion of infallibility in religious matters, partly to rebut Catholic claims of infallibility, and partly because infallibility was not considered possible. Jeremy Taylor, for example, held "that there could be no infallible guide in religious matters."[38] William Chillingworth argued in The Religion of Protestants a Safe Way to Salvation that infallible knowledge in religion was unnecessary since knowledge in that arena was based on our senses and reliable witnesses. Therefore, we already have "moral certainty" that was at the level of conviction. Certain knowledge was only possible in mathematics and metaphysics, which were different from religion.[39] Only mathematical proofs could lead to absolute or infallible certainty. The testimony of other people had only a moral certainty. Scripture only had moral certainty since our evidence of its truth depends on the testimony of others.[40]
At the heart of this skepticism was the questioning of authority based on the Protestant idea of the liberty of the individual conscience. Infallibility was irrelevant since the "final source of intellectual authority is only the fallible judgment of individual reason," and dogmatism was to be avoided.[41]
The Confession Affirms Infallibility
It is in the contexts of radical religion, skepticism, and discussions of infallibility that we may begin to understand why the drafters of the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith addressed the sufficiency, certainty and infallibility of Scripture. Against the subjectivity of reason or the Inner Light or the Holy Spirit as the primary religious authority, the Baptist confession asserts that Holy Scripture is the infallible rule of "saving Knowledge, Faith, and Obedience". Against views that reduced Scripture to "an historical account" (Barclay and the Quakers) or a repository of rational religion, the opening sentence of the 1677 confession asserts "Holy Scripture is the only...rule of all Saving Knowledge, Faith, and Obedience." Against charges that Scripture is insufficient as an authoritative religious resource, the confession asserts the sufficiency and infallibility of Scripture for the life of the church and the Christian.
Having asserted the sufficiency of Scripture, the Confession explained the basis for the assertion: “The Authority of the Holy Scripture for which it ought to be believed dependeth…wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the Author thereof; therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God” (S.L.C. I.4). Moreover, “our full persuasion, and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our Hearts” (S.L.C. I.5).
In the context of the various sources of knowing God's will, the confession's position on the sufficiency, certainty and infallibility of Scripture is an act of faith (and not the result of reason) as defined in Chapter XIV.1-2 of the confession. Saving faith "is the work of the Spirit of Christ" in the hearts of the Elect, enabling them to believe to be true "whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the Authority of God himself."
In Chapter 1.10, the drafters of the Second London Baptist Confession declared that "the supreme[e] judge" of all religious controversies "can be no other but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved." Because Holy Scripture has been inspired by the Holy Spirit, the Scriptures alone are the infallible judge of all controversies. For the Baptists, Scripture is the final word.
In the seventeenth century discussions of religious authority, there were several options: Scripture and reason; Scripture and natural theology; the Inner Light; reason alone; Scripture and papal authority; and Scripture alone. While recognizing the place of natural revelation in revealing God's attributes, the London Baptists recognized the insufficiency of natural revelation and acknowledged "the Holy Scripture to be most necessary" (I.1). By implication in I.4-5 (essentially copied from the Westminster Confession), the Baptists repudiated the role of reason as a means to undergird the authority of Scripture. "The Authority of the Holy Scripture for which it ought to be believed dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church, but wholly upon God." "...our full persuasion, and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit...." In I.6 the confession rejects any extra-biblical sources (the Inner Light, reason, nature) for the "whole Councel of God." The confession recognizes the need for the work of the Holy Spirit to enable anyone to understand Scripture. It even recognizes the "light of nature" to order life in the Church, though the confession does not explain how this is so. Further, the confession recognizes that not all things in Scripture are plain and understandable. The only infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.
While repudiating reason, nature and the Spirit as adjuncts to, or replacements of, Scripture as a source of religious authority, the confession offers a mediating way among all these options. By placing Scripture at the center, the confession seeks to avoid the subjectivity of Reason or the Inner Light. Putting Scripture in the center allows the confession to recognize the roles of the Holy Spirit and the light of nature in the life of the church. The Spirit gives the believer confidence in Scripture and its contents, as well as "saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word" (I.6). On the other hand, the "light of nature" and "Christian prudence" may be used to order some circumstances. However, neither the Spirit nor the "light of nature" nor prudence operate independently of Scripture. Scripture is the context in which both operate.
Finally, the Second London Confession recognizes that some passages and doctrines are not easy to understand. Yet, "those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for Salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other" that anyone "in a due use of ordinary means" may reach an understanding of them. The "ordinary means" may include reason as well as common sense. What ever they are, the confession affirms the perspicuity of Scripture. Scripture remains at the center, "the sufficient, certain, and infallible rule."
The Legacy of the Confession
The confession’s use of “infallible” to describe Holy Scripture was a tiny voice in the midst of much larger discussions and had no discernable impact on the direction of those discussions. Indeed, no subsequent Baptist confession (aside from the Philadelphia Confession of 1742 which was essentially the 1677 confession with two additional chapters) described Scripture as infallible until the early 1800s.[42] The New Hampshire Confession of 1833 did not use the term infallible, but noted “the Holy Bible…has God for its author…and truth without any mixture of error, for its matter.”[43] Free Will Baptists, The American Baptist Association, and the North American Baptist Association all have confessed the infallibility of Scripture.[44]
In the twentieth century, “the infallible rule of faith and practice” became a common phrase in statements of faith adopted by evangelical congregations, seminaries, and other Christian organizations.[45] Belief in the infallibility of Scripture (and the inerrancy of Scripture) became an evangelical distinction. Though there is no causal relationship between the Second London Confession and these confessions of faith, many of the same issues that led the Particular Baptists in 1677 to describe the Bible as infallible still exist in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Biblical criticism, in the form of the Jesus Seminar, presents new challenges to the integrity of the texts of Scripture.[46] Inter-religious dialogue and religious pluralism challenges the authority of Scripture alone for the life of the church and for its message.[47]
Conclusion
In the absence of any explicit statements by the writers of the Second London Confessionregarding the infallibility of Scripture, this essay has tried to place its use in the context of discussions about Scripture in seventeenth century English church life. By ascribing infallibility to Holy Scripture, the Baptists disassociated themselves from the Catholic view that the pope is infallible, and as well as those who placed the Spirit or their own judgment over the authority of Holy Scripture. Where the truthfulness of Scripture was challenged, the Baptists asserted the certainty and infallibility of Scripture. Scripture was the basis for understanding God’s will and God’s world.
[1] Second London Confession of Faith (hereinafter S.L.C.) I.1. The text of the Confession used here is found in William L. Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, Rev. ed. (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1969), 235-295.
[2] Leland Ryken, Worldly Saints: The Puritans as they Really Were (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 141.
[3] Benjamin Keach, Tropologia: A Key to Open Scripture Metaphors (London: William Hill Collingridge City Press, 1858), ix.
[4] Christopher Hill, “The Bible in Seventeenth-Century English Politics,” The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, 90,
[5] C. John Sommerville, Popular Religion in Restoration England (Gainesville, Flor.: University Presses of Florida, 1977), 62.
[6] David S. Katz, God’s Last Words: Reading the English Bible from the Reformation to Fundamentalism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), 74..
[7] Christopher Hill, The World Turned Upside Down (Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1975), 142-145.
[8] Gerrard Winstanley, “Saints Paradice,” quoted in Donald R. Sutherland, “The Religion of Gerrard Winstanley and Digger Communism,” Essays in History 33 (1991), <http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/journals/EH/EH33/suther33.html> (15 March 2005).
[9] Sutherland, “The Religion of Gerrard Winstanley and Digger Communism.”
[10] Samuel Fisher, quoted in Christopher Hill, The World Turned Upside Down, 266-267.
[11] Robert Barclay, An Apology for a True Christian Divinity, 6th ed. (London: T. Sowle Raylton, 1736), [7].
[12] Barclay, 67.
[13] Barclay, 71.
[14] Barclay, 74.
[15] John Spurr, “’Rational Religion’ in Restoration England,” Journal of the History of Ideas 49, no. 4 (October-December 1988): 563.
[16] Martin I.J. Griffin, Richard Henry Popkin, and Lila Freeman, Latitudinarianism in the Seventeenth-Century Church of England (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992), 61.
[17] Alan C. Clifford, Atonement and Justification: English Evangelical Theology, 1640-1790 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), 43; quoted in W. M. Spellman, The Latitudinarians in the Church of England, 1660-1700 (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press), 4.
[18] Richard Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity I.8.8.,
[19] Spurr, “Rational Religion”, p. 568. Enthusiast was a term applied to the Puritans as well as Quakers, Ranters and similar groups.
[20] Spellman, 21.
[21] Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, ed. and with introduction and notes by Edwin Curley (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 1994), II.xxxi.[3]. Divine revelation and the voice of man were two other ways God communicated his laws.
[22] Griffin, 38.
[23] Frederick C. Beiser, The Sovereignty of Reason: the Defense of Rationality in the Early English Enlightenment (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), 15.
[24] Robert South, Sermons, quoted in Spurr, "Rational Religion," 576.
[25] Beiser, 11.
[26] Beiser, 11.
[27] Hooker, II.4.2.
[28] Benedict de Spinoza, A Theologico-Politico Treatise, trans. R.H.M. Elwes (New York: Dover Publications, 1951), 8.
[29] Spinoza, 8.
[30] Spinoza, 8.
[31] Spinoza, 9, 172.
[32] Spinoza, 40.
[33] Spinoza, 167.
[34] Spinoza, 168.
[35] Beiser, 105.
[36] Griffin, 55-56.
[37] Griffin, 109-110.
[38] Jeremy Taylor, A Discourse of the Liberty of Prophecying quoted in Spellman, 24.
[39] Spellman, 21.
[40] Spurr, 575-576.
[41] Beiser, 111.
[42] Lumpkin, “Terms of Union Between the Elkhorn and South Kentucky, or Separate, Associations,” 359.
[43] Lumpkin, 362.
[44] Lumpkin, 369, 378, 380.
[45] Examples are Latin America Mission, “Statement of Faith,” <http://www.lam.org/about/statement_of_faith.php?> (12 July 2006); The Lausanne Covenant <http://www.lausane.org> (12 July 2006); Asbury Theological Seminary, “Statement of Faith,” <http://www.ats.wilmore.ky.us/about/faith.htm> (12 July 2006).
[46] The Jesus Seminar <http://www.westarinstitute.org/Jesus_Seminar/jesus_seminar.html> (13 July 2006).
[47] An example of this trend may be seen in Sarah J. Melcher, “’Genuine Pluralism’ and Reformed Christology,” CrossCurrents 54, no. 4 (Winter 2005): 6-17.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)