Truth in Labeling: Reformed Baptist RBTR 2006

Truth in Labeling: “Reformed Baptist,” 

or

A Rational Apology and Historical Mandate for Strict Confessionalism

Michael T. Renihan

Theological erudition is not the basis of Church membership. Room for growth in grace and the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ is always present in those to whom pastors minister. On the other hand, precise theological understanding is absolutely necessary for those who lead God’s people. This article is directed at those who lead. I trust it also has much relevance for the churches they serve and the people who follow them.

As I ponder the emerging differences and historical tensions among those who call themselves Reformed Baptists, I believe there are key issues that must be faced, i.e., matters of import with significant consequences.

The Reformed Baptist Continuum

The first and greatest problem has to do with the moniker, “Reformed Baptist.” It has become too broad a term. At least in its common usage this is true. There is a continuum of folk who denominate themselves in this way. It is not always clear what those using the term mean. Therefore, confusion reigns.

The question of one’s Reformed Baptist identity usually starts with the “doctrines of grace.” The continuum on one side contains anyone with the basics of a Calvinistic soteriology who is antipaedobaptistic. These folk often view themselves as Reformed, with a lower case “r.”  In this group are also hybrids like Calvinistic Dispensationalists and academics who hold to what I call, borrowing an adjective from C.S. Lewis, “Mere” Reformed Theology.

Moving to the right on the continuum we find those who have been reading good Reformed literature for years. By virtue of this influence, areas other than soteriology have been reformed to varying degrees. Yet, inconsistencies remain in their overall system of theological thought. This is really a problem of methodology in hermeneutics and theology. For instance, some are stuck in the mud of American Rugged Individualism, and therefore mired in all sorts of individualistic thinking. The private means of grace, especially when discipleship is in view, are preferred over the corporate. From my limited observations over the last decade, I have concluded that this is a watershed issue. The preferred perspective among many seems to be a personalized or therapeutic model of ministry. I know that these men and churches value preaching. My concern is about the primary means of discipleship and ministry. The Confession, along with our heritage and Scripture, identifies the prime means of salvation and edification to be preaching and teaching corporately.

Elsewhere on the continuum, there are men and churches that embrace a Calvinistic soteriology and perhaps some other reformed principles; yet there is no allegiance to Covenant Theology and Federalism as an organizing and summarizing principle. Everybody, of course, has at least one organizing principle, whether they know it or not. Among this folk, ecclesiology is often the last item for change, if at all, and then it is often a shift to elder rule on paper.

Further to the right are varying degrees of Reformed Baptists who know something of the lineage and heritage of the movement. To one extent or another, the initials TR often are used to define their degrees of commitment to Reformed Theology and its historic systemization as expressed in the Second London Baptist Confession. On a few occasions I have been asked if the “TR” at the end of my email address stands for “Truly Reformed.” I smile and answer, “No, its my middle and last initial.” The label TR means different things to different people. To some it has a pejorative sense, while to others it is a badge of honor. TRs, of course, come in varying degrees of TR-ness, i.e., “truly reformed,” “thoroughly reformed,” and “turbo-reformed.”

The first degree of TR-ness (“truly reformed”) involves a self-awareness of being Reformed and using Reformed authors and perspectives as the essential core of Christian doctrine. Men at this stage often are open (albeit usually to an ever-shrinking degree) to outside influences as they are found to “have merit” or “are useful.”

The second degree of TR-ness (“thoroughly reformed”) includes those who do not regard the first degree as reformed enough. These men are aware of Reformed authors, confessions and perspectives in an historical sense and use a systematic understanding of history, theology, and methodology within the heritage as guiding principles for ministry today. They often believe the Confession of Faith to be a systematic summary of Scripture according to the first use of the God-breathed Word in 2 Tim. 3:16. Yet, they often have a late 20^th Century grid of understanding that interprets the Confessions with a “new” and often skewed set of concerns. They draw from the resurgence of “particular Baptist thought,” not from its source. “Thoroughly” modifies what they think of their own system. In some cases matters of Christian liberty are elevated to what ought to be done, aesthetics become their ethic, and preference their principle.

The “thoroughly reformed” think that their peculiarities are historical when they are not. Thus, if a “new” understanding of the Confession is used as a point of intimacy in fellowship, what they desire to preserve is actually undermined–strict adherence to a set of ancient orthodox standards. Others of the “thoroughly reformed” are simply anachronistic, i.e., modern men sounding and doing things that seem out of place. These men are unlikely to be changed or provoked to thought by an article like this.

The final category of TR-ness (the far right wing) is the “turbo-reformed.” Everything must conform to a rigid standard defined by a few vocal men. Conformity is the mark of orthodoxy or the basis of intimate fellowship whether or not it is historically, theologically, and exegetically informed. Often things from the Reformed Baptist tradition are given a new twist as if the belief or practice had been around for 350 years, if not forever. Obscure passages are used to teach or undergird what they were never intended to teach. Inferences are drawn with a view to propping up what they believe to be true. An example of this is an appeal to the regulative principle from 1 Cor. 14:26. There are many others.

Hermeneutics and Confessions

Amid these functional distinctions there are a number of underlying problems. The first concerns the use of historical documents like the Bible and the Confession of Faith.

American constitutional history is the struggle of two competing hermeneutical principles. It is a battle between strict constructionism and loose constructionism. The strict see the constitution as basically static, i.e., they view it as an unchanging document. To know what it says and therefore means, strict constructionists often appeal to “original intent,” i.e., as much as it can be discerned from the document itself and from other ex officio writings of the men who framed the Constitution. Loose constructionists believe that the Constitution is a dynamic or living document whose real meaning can be reinterpreted and therefore change over time, i.e., that its meaning is culturally and personally relative.

Some religious orbits in particular, and the RB movement in general, have these same hermeneutical battles raging under the surface. Though they are often unperceived, they are present in baseline pre-commitments. Actually, this hermeneutical problem is on two different fronts: (1) how we view and use the Confession, and (2) how we understand and use the Scriptures. Add to this the apparent multiplicity of definition in what makes a man or a church “Reformed Baptist” and the situation is compounded greatly. There are no easy answers. This is a complex problem.

Let me address these two battlefronts. Many of us were taught to read and comprehend documents according to a self-centered methodology that assumed that all literature is dynamic. We were taught to ask questions like, “What’s in this for me?” or “How am I to understand this in the present?” or “What is useful for me and what should be overlooked?” This is a reader-response method of reading and studying. With its roots in existentialism, this method implicitly believes that writings are there for the reader’s use. Written words are not understood as conveying truths according to the author’s intent. Therefore, many readers take their 21^st-century understanding of the meaning of words and use ancient texts uncritically, waiting to be “hit” by some experience of understanding. Because of that experience-driven and subjective approach to texts, readers believe that they are free to understand and use ancient texts in new and “more meaningful” ways. They do not question this methodology because they see it as sacrosanct, i.e., as part of how they have been taught, or, in reality, mis-taught, to read.

Therefore, through inductive means readers come up with alternative plausible explanations and then confuse plausibility with the document’s meaning. The alternative understanding may seem to make sense out of selective data, but it may not be correct or orthodox. It may in fact only show the reader’s creativity.

Texts, however, have intended meaning. When we come to the Scripture, we should not be seeking some existential “aha” experience in which something jumps out at us–something never before seen. The reader should be seeking the meaning that God has assigned to the words–the Divine intent in revealing those things through the Spirit. The question in the back of the reader’s mind is not “what’s in this for me?” but “what hath God said?” and “how is this rightly understood and applied in the present?” Men get the wrong answers because they ask the wrong questions.

This same quest to discover what a text means apart from authorial intent is a significant part of how many misuse the Confession. They view it as just another work of literature that is to be read like all the others–asking the same wrong questions from the individual’s perspective. It is simply illegitimate to take an ancient document and remold it as a wax nose to fit the face of what we want to say.

The men who framed the Confession as their own summary expression of what the Scriptures systematically teach have many other published works to help the modern reader discover what they meant and what they intended to promote. They believed not only that “to be confessional about the Confession is to place the Confession under the scrutiny and authority of the Bible” but also that the Confession was a document that taught what the Scriptures systematically express. It was biblical to believe the Bible’s own system of doctrine and to convey it to the world by means of a confession. Chapter 1.1 is first, because it is the apology for what they did. It was the framers’ methodology. They compared Scripture with Scripture to paint a mural of what those Scriptures systematically taught. People might quibble about their presuppositions (e.g., Historicist view of Revelation or natural law) or their exegetical method, or their use of scholastic categories, but their confession is their attempt to present what the Scriptures taught. This is different from the methodology that seeks to affirm one’s beliefs inductively. The framers deduced from the Scriptures a systematic theology and presented that scripturally-based system in a confession. They saw the Bible and their summary of it in doctrinal form as two sides of the same coin minted by the work of the Spirit. The Bible was the source of doctrine and the Confession was a summary of that source.

The Confession was self-consciously published in its first edition to show theological unanimity with the Reformed theology of the day, especially as it had been codified in the Westminster Confession and the Savoy Declaration. Or, in the framers’ words, touching the Confession’s biblical character:

There is one thing more which we sincerely professed, and earnestly desire credence in, viz. That contention is most remote from our design in all that we have done in this matter: and we hope the liberty of an ingenious unfolding our principles, and opening our hearts unto our Brethren, with the Scripture grounds on which our faith and practice leans, will by none of them be either denyed to us, or taken ill from us. Our whole design is accomplished, if we may obtain that Justice, as to be measured in our principles, and practice, and the judgement of both by others, according to what we have now published (1677 Facsimile edition. To the Reader, pp 5f.).

These sentiments were expressed directly after the writer of To the Reader alluded to the Berean spirit that all who read the Confession should have. The framers were not embarrassed to ask others to search the written Word to prove the words written in the Confession. The early Particular Baptists saw an objective body of doctrine in the Scriptures and in the three confessions already existing (1^st LCF, WC, Savoy). They published another confession to demonstrate to the world that they were in step with the march of the Reformation in their time and in their land. The Confession was not a tool to obfuscate theological discussion through subjectivity; it was an objective summary of what was commonly believed and practiced. They published it openly.

These questions remain: Is the Confession a dynamic or static document? Should we conduct ourselves as strict or loose constructionists when we read and interpret it? Does the meaning of the Confession continue to evolve? Or, does it contain a set of objective doctrines that stand or fall together? Is the Confession one homogeneous entity like the Scriptures? If you are taking the quiz for credit, the correct answers are: Static, Strict, No, Yes, and Yes! If we take this position as the baseline definition of what a Reformed Baptist is, together we could maintain a coherent and consistent definition of our own denominator. We cannot superintend all who use the title Reformed Baptist but we can be circumspect ourselves.

I propose that the Confession’s own propositions have set meaning. They are intended to convey biblical truth. The paragraphs are expressions of thoughts on a subset of a subject and its chapters cover all the subjects that they believed were necessary in order to demonstrate agreement with the Reformed movement. The Confession should not be taken uncritically into our age, but with discernment and a proper understanding of the context in which it was given. The Confession was a summary, not an exhaustive attempt to state all that the framers believed. Beyond the original biblical ideas in the Confession, grace ought to be given as charity rules among men.

Does one have to be an expert in the 17^th Century to understand the document? No! But it doesn’t hurt to know something about the lives and times and additional writings of the men who penned all three of the confessions in the Westminster family.

The Confession and the Scriptures from which they are extracted are historical documents that deserve careful and honest scrutiny. They work together as standard and subordinate standard–as source of doctrine and summary. The Confession expressed systematically and objectively what is deduced from the Bible. When we talk of one we need the other.

Men do not understand the Bible innately. They need tools. There are very few innate ideas. Perhaps a case can be made for only two Christian notions: (1) the righteous requirements of the Law written upon the heart and (2) that the Law must have a Lawgiver who wrote the righteous requirements upon the heart. Beyond that, all of our learning is a combination of rationality and empirical experiences. Exegesis is needed to take out from Holy passages what the writers and Divine author intended; theologizing is necessary to coordinate the bits and pieces into a systematic and coherent entity. Practical theology then instructs how these objective realities are to be translated into practice. Historical theology then functions as a standard by which private or corporate interpretations of the Bible and theology may be judged. We need them all. Together they are the theological encyclopedia.

The right method is not exegesis over systematic theology checked by historical theology. It is exegesis with systematics and historical theology–each informing the other; one to test the content and cohesion of the truths asserted, the other to test their orthodoxy as compared to the work of the Spirit in the Churches. Therefore, a strict constructional understanding of the Confession and of the Scriptures is needed before we come to either text. There is meaning to be discovered.

To this is added the problem of subscription to these documents. I doubt that any in our circles would argue against a strict or full subscription to the Scriptures. Yet, in reality many argue against it by how they use the Word of God according to the reader-response model.

In many sound Reformed churches, a view of personal devotions is present that continues to promote this poor methodology. A word, a fragment of a verse, a single verse, or even more taken out of context and divorced from its intended meaning constitutes a pretext for all sorts of things. Cults, Mormons, Socinians, and Open Theists all believe themselves to have biblically-based arguments for what they hold to tenaciously. That does not make them right. They take what they want and have a blind eye to the rest. God’s truth is not to be taken in the “Burger King” manner where every one can “have it their way.” The Reformed movement has always insisted that the whole of Scripture is inspired and normative for Christian faith and practice. It is to be strictly followed in all of its parts. Verbal-plenary inspiration entails that each and every part of the Word is God-breathed. Each and every part must inform all the other parts. The parts together must be pondered so that right doctrine may emerge. Orthodoxy is straight teaching. Heterodoxy is to “crook God’s words where they are straight.” A doctrine that is true is also timeless. Truths do not change. We need to recover the sufficiency and efficiency of Scripture as part of the foundation for our dialogue. These things are utterly fundamental.

Full subscription (I prefer the term strict) to the Confession of Faith is likewise important. Anything less than actual full subscription for pastors and elders in churches who have professed and published the Confession as their standard is problematic. The differences often entail some degree of perceived error in form or content in the Confession, or at least perceived disagreement with the doctrines or ways that the teachings are conveyed. The Confession in all of its parts rests upon the Scriptures and all of its parts. There can be areas of concern with how the Confession expresses an item here and there. But, to fully subscribe to a confession of faith is to hold to what it represents and teaches in its original context (read strict construction) as it presents a summary of the Bible’s own doctrines understood in its original context. Both are then made relevant or understandable for the modern world. The summary of objective truths has not changed. The objective truths they are built with and upon have not changed. The preacher and theologian need to mine the depths of the Word in order to lay the beautiful gems before God’s people. If the worker settles for pyrite instead of gold, the congregation will be fooled. The preacher then does not build up; instead, he contributes to the spiritual delinquency of the remaining miners.

Because one comes up with a new way to express fresh thoughts using old words packed with new meaning, it does not follow that they are right. It does not even follow that the ideas are plausible–though they may have the appearance of being believable. The test of any truth is “What saith the Lord?” and “Is it consistent with the system of thought that naturally rises from the text of Scripture understood in its context and applied in the present?” The question of relevancy is important, but it should not drive hermeneutics or theological methodology.

There is also another problem that comes from the prevailing theological methodology of the 20^th Century. It is the fallacy of turning one-time particular truths or generalizations into universals. A universal truth is absolutely true. It is true all the time in every place. A generalization is only generally true and not necessarily true in any particular place and time. A particular truth asserted is linked to a particular circumstance. Particulars are put together to make theological statements. Until one is absolutely sure the statement extracted or inferred is universally true, it should be held only as a general truth.

The proof-texting (or “spoof-texting”) methodology often takes a verse out of its context in order to make it a pretext for what one wants to make it say. And, when said, it is to be taken absolutely. This is not proper exegesis, nor systematic theology. It is eisogesis–putting into the text what the reader wants to be there.

Needed Application

So, what does this mean? I believe these issues demonstrate the need for definition. What do we mean when we say “Reformed Baptist”? And, what does that position entail? Are we strict constructionists in the way we handle ancient texts like the Scriptures and our Confession? Or are we loose constructionists? Will we take the time to show men how they are influenced by other “isms” foreign to Christianity, like the subjective reader-response method? Or, will we set an example of judicious scriptural use in order to get our folk to wrestle with what the text says?

What do we need as men in the ministry? We need to be challenged about these things by those who understand them. We must be utterly honest in stating where we are in the continuum of Reformed Baptists. Once a position of orthodoxy or adherence is defined, the only movement possible is drift. It is called “ecclesiastical entropy.” Institutions among men tend towards randomness and decay. It may be a slow process with multiple slight turns. In time, or in number, the accumulated twist can put an organization at an acute angle from where it so admirably began. The danger is: the shift has gone unnoticed.

There is an identifiable process to all this entropy. Institutions form for noble reasons. They are exposed to varied influences over time. Then they experience small changes. Over time, they live with the accumulated effects of many minor changes. Institutions start to devolve through this randomness and decay. By then it is too late. Many, even most, will accept the status quo. Small changes do not have immediate big effects. Some lone voice crying in the wilderness will take up the need to inform the institution of its noble reasons for forming. Then what is needed is reformation. The alternative is ecclesiastical entropy. In many ways, the decay is already present. The proverbial wire-brush needs to be applied to the rust on our Reformed Baptist corpus. We need each other in order to see our blind-spots and to come back to the basics of our heritage that reflect the Word of God.

Reformed Baptists are cooperating better than in the past. This is an encouragement for the likes of this writer with dear friends in many orbits. The entire movement has the opportunity to look deep within and define what it really is. That definition should have nothing to do with convenience, status quo, my feelings or yours or even the impossible task of making everyone happy. Our ultimate goal should be to glorify God and to know his approval and presence. A proximate goal should be “truth-in-labeling.” Like the term “Evangelical” in the last generation, the moniker “Reformed Baptist” is being diluted by the very people that the movement has influenced in the past twenty-five years.

A definition of Reformed Baptist that respects the Word of God and the Confession should be sought and maintained. It may cause some defections, disruptions, and all sorts of discussion and discomfort, but afterwards it will yield the peaceable fruit of righteousness that is found among like-minded and united brethren. I believe we have the foundations in place, if we would be bold enough to look back to the past in order to move into the future. Therefore, I offer this Rational Apology and Historical Mandate for Strict Confessionalism tempered with charity and grace to all my brethren. Let us first define, and then walk in the way we ought to go. Amen!