A Modest Proposal or a Grand Dream? A Brand New Baptist Confession

Yesterday, I posted over at Wade Burleson's blog . The response has been, how shall we say, interesting. Some agree. One argued that since 99.9 percent of Southern Baptists don't know what I was talking about or care (ditto for unbelievers), the Convention didn't need a new confession, and it only needed a confession that covered essentials. In a response, I reminded "anonymous" that if that was the case, we could basically quote the gospel from 1 Corinthians, toss in an article on the Trinity, one on inspiration, an anathema of Roman Catholic views on Scripture, an affirmation of justification by faith and be done. We should disinclude the ordinances, polity, family, religious liberty, the attributes of God, providence, etc. since they are not really "essential" for salvation itself, and the others guarded against the most common errors in history. I then reminded "anonymous' that by disincluding articles like a statement on God's Providence, we should just call Greg Boyd and ask him and his buddies to join, since we'd be allowing for Open Theism. I'm still unsure how glorying in ignorance is a justification for a bad confession. Maybe anonymous was mad because I used big words in the proposed outline. For the record, I assume some level of competence from blog readers. If you can use the internet, you can look up the big words on Google.

Anyway, here's what I posted. I offer this to generate discussion, nothing more nothing less.

Wade said:

However, we get into trouble when we began to either place in our confessions specific interpretations of doctrines not essential for salvation, or when we demand as a convention conformity in the interpretation of doctrines that are not addressed by our Baptist confessions of faith.

Now, before I post what I said in reply, I want to be clear. I think the SBC is so large now that a confession like the BFM, which functions rather like the 39 Articles in that a Calvinistic Anglican and an Anglo-Catholic can read their own doctrines into it is not really useful. As long as there is a confession in the SBC that is worded vaguely, unclearly, or imprecisely, people will dispute over the interpretation; especially if they are as ignorant as many of them are about what it means anyway. The BFM's are all iterations of the New Hampshire Confession. So, what we're dealing with is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy that has been changed slightly each time. A confession like this does not alleviate the problem Wade has described. If people can't agree over the meaning of, say, the soteriological articles, what makes anybody think they will not abuse the confession on issues not in it? If you want examples, head to www.baptistboard.com and ask questions about the different articles of the BFM and watch the feeding frenzy. Likewise, as I said above, if we place only articles "essential for salvation" in the BFM, then we may as well call Greg Boyd and ask him to join.

Here is my proposal:

Historically, Baptists in general did quite well when the FWB's had their own confessions and the rest used the 1689, Charleston, or Philadelphia Confession. They were often quite specific and elaborate, but folks knew their confessions and what was meant. They also had some give in the Associations as to who they would allow to join if they didn't use that precise language but got the gist of the matter correct. The churches that formed the SBC in 1845 all held to the Philadelphia or Charleston Confessions (which were basically identical). The Abstract of Principles is fairly simple, but the explanation (Boyce's Abstract of Systematic Theology) explains the Abstract of Principles in detail for us. The SBC functioned quite well on these confessions.

The problem, in my opinion, is not really in placing specific interpretations of doctrrnes not essential for salvation into a confession. I think that's the immediate , but not the long term cause. The latter problem is using confessional language that is intentionally vague in the hopes it will be "inclusive." While that is a nice sentiment, I think it creates more problems than it solves, because two groups see different doctrines in one statement. Take monergistic regeneration. That alone assumes a particular ordu salutis that is not at all compatible with synergistic regeneration. These two sides are thus mutually exclusive at the conceptual level. They can't therefore, really coexist in a single propositional statement on paper. If they do, people read their conceptual scheme into the document. Currently, with both sides appealing to the BFM, we have a growing controversy brewing in the Convention.

Allow me to explain and illustrate:

The purpose of human language is, first and foremost, to communicate truth about God and His truth. This includes confessional documents. Our confessions should not be so broad that two different groups can come to one or more sections and both see their own doctrines in them. They should be clear and articulate the boundaries of what is acceptable and unacceptable. This is the way to write an inclusive confession. On the controversial portions, if the SBC wishes to be a big tent, spell out x,y, and z in no uncertain terms. I've said it once, I'll say it again, I believe the SBC needs to revisit the BFM and come up with a better, more clear confession. For example something like:

On Salvation: Southern Baptists affirm that all people must believe on Jesus Christ to be saved, repenting from their sins and turning to Christ alone by faith alone for their salvation, to receive forgiveness of sins and obtain a righteous standing before God. This is a standard affirmation of Sola Fide, justification by faith, and, by implication, imputation.

Spell out the classic definitions of Justification, sanctification. glorification, and regeneration with no mention of the place of election, calling, and regeneration in the ordu salutis or their definitions.

Then say something like:

Southern Baptists recognize there to be a diversity of opinions regarding the ordu salutis and, at the conceptual level, the soteriological framework within the greater body of Southern Baptists, we affirm the following to be wholly acceptable within the confessional structure of the Convention and its member bodies:

Monergist (define monergism)

1. Spell out the Calvinist doctrine, any historic clearly Calvinist Baptist confession will do for the words; I knowTom Nettles could write this section anew to make the old confessions more concise but more precise than the NHC and BFM's.

2. Spell out the Amyraldian doctrine, identical to the above with atonement excepted (if a mention of the atonement is in a separate header in the confession, see below. If atonement is not placed here, then, because the Amyraldian and Calvinist agree on the state of man, election, effacious grace, and perseverance of the saints, one need not include this as a section).

Synergist (define synergism)

3. Spell out the Arminian doctrine, emphasizing penal substitution, not the moral govt' theory.

4. Spell out what the current BFM says and be sure it is couched in clearly synergistic terms.

--Here is where you discuss calling, election, regeneration and/or perseverance of the saints/eternal security, maybe the sinful condition of man and its effects on the will, if that is part of the framework presented.

Each of these is acceptable in the SBC now, except perhaps the Arminian scheme, since it denies eternal security. If 3 is thus eliminated, then graft the first 4 articles of that scheme unto the doctrine of eternal security (since that is the gist of the scheme most prevalent in the SBC) and then eliminate the last header based on the current BFM, though redefined and have either two, three or four division headers with the requiste number of sections and paragraph headers as needed for each one. One could even include a statement that allows for diversity among these points, e.g. "or any combination of the above positions" as long as it is supportable from Scripture. IMO, in the SBC, when it comes to election, regeneration, and effacious grace we are really only dealing with 2 positions anyway, 3 if you count the real Amyraldians, and they agree with the Calvinists on these 3 points, only differing over the atonement.

You could also spell out what is "disorderly'" in a final section that denies particular doctrines, though it is rare to find confessions that anathematize doctrines in Protestantism. One could say something like:

Errors and Excesses to be Avoided.

1. Spell out clearly the definiton of hyper-Calvinism and its differentiation from traditional 5 Point Calvinism and Amyraldianism.

2. Define the moral government theory of atonement and other theories deemed dubious.

3. If classic Arminianism is left out, define the denial of eternal security as an error to make this rejection certain.

4. Works salvation (any position which makes salvation a work). If this article appears, it should define what it means by "works" (baptism, good works, circumcision, etc.)

For Spiritual Gifts- Affirm the current BFM's statement. Add: Southern Baptists recognize there to be a diversity of opinions regarding the distribution of spiritual gifts within the greater body of Southern Baptists, we affirm the following to be wholly acceptable within the confessional structure of the Convention and its member bodies:

1. Spell out the cessationist doctrine.

2. Spell out the semi-cessationist doctrine and its bounds.

3. Spell out the charismatic doctrine and its bounds.

4. Spell out what is "disorderly" (a, b, c. etc.)

For the Atonement. Clearly state the doctrine of penal substitution. Then: Add: Southern Baptists recognize there to be a diversity of opinions regarding the scope of the atonement, within the greater body of Southern Baptists, we affirm the following to be wholly acceptable within the confessional structure of the Convention and its member bodies:

1. Spell out the Calvinist doctrine (particular atonement).
2. Spell out the non-Calvinist doctrine (general atonement)

--The language should be clear and non-polemic and can even simply refer to other works on the atonement for further study.

This pattern would be repeated in the confession over other articles where there is recognized diversity in the SBC as it exists today. Notice that this isn't suggested simply because the SBC is diverse and we need to include anybody and everybody. On the contrary, certain views can be listed as errors. Rather it is suggested because these are all orthodox positions to hold and the already exist in the SBC as it is now. In our own church's confession, we have a * by articles that we consider non-negotiables. The new confession could * those statements or include: This is non-negotiable. For example, the doctrine of God, the Trinity, Scripture, Sola Fide, the plain defintions of justification, sanctification, and glorification, a repudiation of Open Theism. Either * them, or for clarity say: Unless otherwise noted these are not negotiable items. Items where we accept and affirm diversity are clealy delineated. It's long and elaborate, but note that this structure is actually clearer and still more forgiving than, say, the 1689.

Yes, this makes for some very hard work.

Yes, this makes for a long confession.

It surely would give the churches in the Convention teaching material for years to come, and the Convention would certainly, if the confession was taught well, have a better educated membership.

No, nobody as ever made such an attempt.

But...nobody else attempted a program like the CP, and look at the horsepower it has provided our missions work!

But...it would do the job and eliminate some of the tension in the SBC over these issues. The problem is in getting people to pass it.

The SBC would very likely be the first group to attempt such a confession, but somebody has to go first. The last really elaborate Baptist Confession was written in the 18th century. It modified the one in 1689, so it wasn't very original. It's about time to draft another. There hasn't been a really good new confession in a few centuries now.

Southern Baptists have some of the best theological minds in the world in teaching at the seminaries and, in my opinion, its pulpits. God's people have gotten lazy when it comes to confessions and stating them well. We should repent and draw up a new one, a truly excellent one that is clear and not to be misconstrued but presents an acceptable range of beliefs in no uncertain terms.