The Plowman

The Doctrine of Scripture

Questions for Review
1. What are the differences between a creed and a confession of faith?
2. What does orthodox mean?
3. What is a heretic?
4. What are some reasons for Baptists to have confessions?
5. What are some reasons for Baptists to know and study their confession?
6. What are two hallmarks of Baptists?

Introduction
The world knows Baptists better for what they don’t believe (in) than for what they do believe. “Baptists don’t smoke, drink, or chew, or go out with girls that do.”, is a catchy phrase I hear often at work. Especially, Baptist don’t dance. When the push for the lottery a couple of years ago came to Oklahoma, the Baptists were against it. I can remember as a young adult when liquor-by-the-drink became law, the Baptist opposed it. Now I’m not against Baptists standing up against the moral ills of our society, but one has to ask the question, “Does anybody out there know what we DO believe?” Perhaps an even more important question follows.

Baptist, What Do You Believe?
That is the title of this series. That is my main goal in this study, to make you ask yourself what it is that you believe. In my Sunday school class I periodically grill my students with a series of questions:
“What do you believe about your faith? What does it mean to be a Christian? Does it matter what you believe? Is it important to know why you believe what you believe? Can you explain to a classmate their need for a Savior, and how to repent and believe? As a Christian, where do you go to find out what your faith is all about?” I go on to impress upon them that they are going to be the future pastors, teachers, music directors, deacons, etc., etc. I have noticed, that in the past year, the reality of what kind of shoes they are expected to fill has had an effect. One of the best, most effective, systematic ways to know who you are as a Christian (first) and Baptist (second) is to study the document your Southern Baptist Convention has adopted. In doing this, they have declared “This is what we believe.”

Being Baptist and Being Biblical
Being a Baptist has historically meant being biblical. We are known as a people of the Book. There should be no contradiction here. All of the confessions of faith from the very beginning of Baptist history have had their basis in Holy Scripture, and have dealt with the nature and importance of Scripture as their very first article. The BF&M2000 is no exception.

Why is The Scriptures the First Article of the BF&M2000?
The article on the Scriptures is the foundation of every other article found in this confession. Without a trustworthy source for our beliefs, how can we know that what we believe is true? Without having an authoritative standard to go by, we are reduced to all of the other religions of the world, which is nothing more than the opinions of men. Once we establish the content, quality, and purpose of the Scriptures, then we can go and confidently speak with authority on all of the other articles that follow. Note that after each article there are numerous references to Scripture that back up the statements made.

Changes in the BF&M2000
1. The Holy Bible . . . is God’s revelation of Himself to man. This is a strengthening of the 1963 article on the Holy Scriptures, which stated: The Holy Bible . . . is the record of God’s revelation of Himself to man. The two statements sound alike, but the real difference is substantial. To say that the Bible is a record of God’s revelation is to imply that its authors were nothing more than reporters and historians who chronicled the events as they happened or as they were told to them. This one word lends the idea of a second-hand source to the Bible. It leaves open the option of fallibility and errancy. This stronger statement in the 2000 revision reflects a more conservative leadership in the convention, and reflects more accurately what most SBC congregations have believed all along.

2. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. This sentence was added in the BF&M2000. Again, this addition makes a stronger first article, and reinforces Baptists’ historical belief in inerrancy.

3. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation. This last sentence of the article on the Scriptures replaces a similar sounding last sentence in the 1963 confession: The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ. Again, a stronger statement has replaced a weaker. Among other things, in a very subtle way the 2000 statement comes down solidly against the Scofield style of dispensationalism. From the seed of woman in Genesis 3:15, to the offering of Isaac in Genesis 22, to Moses lifting up the serpent in the wilderness, to Psalm 110, to Isaiah 53, to the Alpha and the Omega of the Revelation of John, to all the others in between that I failed to mention; Christ is the scarlet thread that runs throughout Holy Scriptures.

The Bible is Truth
This does not mean that the Bible is exhaustive truth. God’s word cannot teach us how to repair lawn mowers, or prune apple trees. It doesn’t truthfully tell us everything about everything. But concerning those things it touches it is . . . truth, without any mixture of error.

Article I. The Scriptures (with references interspersed)

• The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God’s revelation of Himself to man. (Exodus 24:4; 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21)
• It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. (Psalm 19:7-10; See especially Psalm 119; Romans 15:4)
• It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. (John 17:17)
• Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. (Psalm 119:160; Hebrews 6:18)
• It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, (Psalm 119:89; Isaiah 40:8; Luke 21:33; 1 Peter 1:25)
• the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. (Acts 17:9; Romans 16:25, 26; 2 Timothy 3:17)
• All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation. (Genesis 3:14,15; Luke 24:25-27, 44-46; John 5:39; Hebrews 1:2)

Previous Lessons:
Baptist, What Do You Believe? #1

Introduction: Creeds and Confessions

Creeds
What is the difference between the two? A creed, such as the Apostles Creed, is usually much shorter than a confession. The main reason this is so is that the primary purpose of a creed is to define the barest minimum requirement for orthodoxy. In other words, anything outside the boundaries of a creed defined non-Christianity. A creed often arose in response to vital disputes in the church. These disputes usually dealt with the nature of Jesus. Was He truly a man? Was He truly God? How do you define the Trinity?

Creeds, like confessions define what one believes. The word Creed comes from the Latin verb credo, which means “I believe”. Creeds, because of their nature, defining essentials, are more binding. To not accept a creed as representative of your beliefs means to not believe in true Christianity. This is called heresy. A person in this position is called a heritic. For instance, if you do not believe that Jesus is God, as the Jehovah’s Witness believe, you are not a Christian.

Confessions
Confessions as a rule are much more detailed than creeds. Whereas creeds usually consist of one paragraph or article, confessions have many articles, with several paragraphs each. Confessions contain the same essentials found in creeds, but they also contain what would be called non-essentials. the essentials are defined in more detail, and the non-essentials are thoroughly defined.

Confessions are not so much a binding statement to insure orthodoxy, but they are more a declaration of what a group of like-minded people believe. In other words: What is it that holds us together? What is it that makes us first Christian, and second Baptist?

Why Do We Have Confessions of Faith and Why Do We Study Them?
Baptists from the begining of their existence have had confessions of faith. There are several reasons for this. The report in the front of the BF&M2000 explains several of these reasons.

• “Baptists are a people of deep beliefs and cherished doctrines.” If you have something you believe deeply and cherish, then you will want to defend what you believe. A confession does this by laying out in logical, systematic order what we believe.
• “Through out history we have . . . [adopted] statements of faith as a witness to our beliefs and a pledge of our faithfulness to the doctrines revealed in Holy Scripture.” This statement shows a two-fold purpose for confessions: a witness to the world, and a pledge to God and each other to be faithful to God’s word.

One of the first Baptist confessions, the First London Confession of 1646 states in it introduction that it was published “for the vindication of the truth and information of the ignorant; likewise for the taking off those aspersions which are frequently, both in pulpit and print, unjustly cast upon them.”

Why Do We Keep Revising our Confession?
Again, to borrow from the preamble to our BFM2000: “New challenges to faith appear in every age.” The preamble goes on to explain the issues of the day that brought about the need for each revision and addition to the previous confession. If nothing else, language changes; words’ meanings change.

Is a Confession on Equal Footing with Scripture?
Baptists have never held their confession up to the standard of Holy Scripture. Note in the preamble statements number two and four:

(2) That we do not regard [confessions] as complete statements of our faith, having any quality of finality or infallibility. As in the past so in the future, Baptists should hold themselves free to revise their statements of faith as may seem to them wise and expedient at any time.
(4) That the sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Confessions are only guides in interpretation, having no authority over the conscience.

Baptist Hallmarks
There have been two hallmarks to Baptist belief from the very begining. They are religious liberty, and the priesthood of believers. They are cherished blessings, and at the same time the source of much dispute among baptists. Again, let’s look at one of the closing paragraphs of the BFM2000 preamble:

“Baptists cherish and defend religious liberty, and deny the right of any secular or religious authority to impose a confession of faith upon a church or body of churches. We honor the principles of soul competency and the priesthood of believers, affirming together both our liberty in Christ and our accountability to each other under the Word of God.”

Religious liberty and the priesthood of believers are not priveledges, they are responsibilities. Many people use these two catch phrases to justify reletavism. Religious liberty or liberty of conscience does not mean that every belief is true and valid, it means that I have the responsibility to respect other’s beliefs, and to know what I believe and why. The priesthood of believers does not mean that I have the right to interpret God’s word any way I see fit. I have a responsibility as an individual to study God’s word, and with the aid of others who have gone on before me, to determine what that Word says.

Long or Short?
The farther you go back the longer the confessions seem to be. Is this a problem? Why is our BFM2000 barely one tenth the length of the 1689? Which is better, and why? Here is a comparason of length among two confessions, one modern and one old, and the Apostles Creed.

The Apostles’ Creed: 110 words
Baptist Faith & Message 2000: 4044 words (3016 without scripture references), with 18 articles, and 78 paragraphs.
1689 confession: 16,806 words, with 32 articles and 707 paragraphs.

One thing that makes our shorter, but not too short, confession better is that it provides breadth for many churches to come together and cooperate on issues such as missions and education. As we cover the various articles in the coming weeks we will look at how the brevity allows latitude on non-essential issues.

Reference material:
Preamble to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000
The 1689 Confession
The Apostles’ Creed

While Tom Ascol was away last week, he had Ken Puls filling in as guest blogger at Founders Ministry Blog. His topic over a four-part series was Finding Our Voices in Worship. In this series Puls guides the reader through three tests to use in selecting music for worship.

• Part one deals with the veracity of music.
• Part two deals with the suitability of music.
• Part three deals with the authenticity of music.
• Part four gives suggestions for ways to help a church find its voice. (not yet posted)

These tests are made up of scriptural as well as pragmatic considerations. To be sure, these tests are very general, leaving a bit of wiggle room for musical style and taste; but if you are honest in your assessment, and truly desire to please God through your church singing, then you will find this series of posts most helpful.

What a whirlwind week this has been for Southern Baptists. If you don’t know what I mean, then you have some considerable reading to get you up to speed. Follow the links in this post, and follow the links found at those web logs, and after about a week of steady reading you will be up to speed.

I am sure that the emotions of countless concerned Christians, Southern Baptist and otherwise, have been on an emotional roller-coaster ride as they waited for news from the International Mission Board meeting this week in Tampa, Florida. One day news was good, then the next it was not so good. Business from one day which looked favorable, on closer scrutiny didn’t look so good the next. New policy papers superseding the “Blue Book” were the end one day, only to reveal glimmers of hope on closer scrutiny the next. And then cries of “Where was the apology?”, and “With this kind of secrecy descending over the IMB, I don’t know if I can give to the Cooperative Program any more.”

Since this issue surfaced shortly before the first of the year (It has really been below the surface since last summer.) I haven’t posted much on it because there were numerous others who, being closer to the situation, have been doing a very fine job of it. As this came to a crisis this week, there were a few things that I feel haven’t been said, or haven’t been adequately emphasized.

• “Where was the apology?” I have yet to hear Wade Burleson complaining with this question, so why should anyone else on his behalf? I have read every post Wade Burleson has posted on Grace and Truth to You, and I have yet to find a harsh or unkind word. He doesn’t take swipes, is not sarcastic, doesn’t gripe. Read his last two posts here and here, and look at how a godly and gracious Christian man responds to great personal upheaval. We all have before us an object lesson of what it means to obey Philippians 2:5. Wade wants Christ to be magnified in his life, as well as in the IMB. He’s a part of the IMB, so it starts with him. He has larger motives than just his own personal reputation.
• “I don’t know if I can give to the Cooperative Program any more.” Cutting off funds is going to help all of those missionaries – uhhh, how? When they all have to come home, the lost are going to be reached – uhhh, how? Sounds to me like cutting your nose off to spite your face. It is way too early to be saying, or even thinking, things like this. A great post that I did read, which emphasized the missionaries, was by Marty Duren, at the SBC Outpost. A better post you will not find to both inspire and convict concerning those laboring in the mission fields.
• The Sovereignty of God: Especially for us in the reformed tradition, where is our confidence in the doctrines of grace? Is our God on his throne, or not? I thought about Wade a couple days ago in light of these events. Is it too dramatic to say he may be the Luther, or Edwards, or Whitfield of our day? What is God doing, or about to do through him? I found this same theme of God’s sovereignty, much more eloquently than I have put it, at CrossConnect, by David Phillips.
• Determined and optimistic: Again, I found one – there may be more – post that wasn’t doom and gloom. Bowden McElroy at Interregnum, who I had the priveledge to meet a couple of weeks ago, had this to say: “I am neither shocked, outraged, depressed, or angry over the recent changes Wade and Marty have written about. Instead, I am determined.” This comes from a man who very likely will see one, if not of his daughters enter the mission field in the not too distant future under the umbrella of the IMB.

Back when I use to blog on a wider range of issues, I always liked to quote something, anything from Douglas Wilson. I try in vain to keep up with what goes on over at Blog and Mablog, since his pen is never idle. When I find the time I can always find something good to read there, even though I don’t agree with much of his ecclesiology. Besides, I enjoy his “serrated” wit. Turns out, even Wilson may be watching the comings and goings over at the IMB. In yesterday’s post he drops a line that indicates he very well may be:
“Keeping track of all the groups that go all the way back is almost as hard as keeping track of all the Presbyterian microbrew continuing church movements that go all the way back to Thomas Chalmers. Oh, and I forgot the Baptists. Their trail of blood goes all the way back.”

You never know who may be watching. That’s something we need to keep in mind too.

My pastor has been on a well-deserved vacation this week. In his place we were blessed to hear Brother Bowden McElroy both this morning and evening. I became acquainted with Brother McElroy a few weeks ago through his web log, Interregnum, only to find out a few days later that my pastor knew him. The next thing I knew he was slated to speak this week to provide much-needed supply for my pastor. The name of his two messages were The Blame Game, from Psalm 3, and Fear, from Psalm 3.

You can also access these two sermons at the podcast site at Bulldogs and Piggies.

Thank you, Brother McElroy.