Creeds and Liberty
Have you ever heard someone say, “I affirm the Fulton Confession of 1900 (FCOF), just as all sound PB brethren did over a century ago”? Perhaps you’ve heard someone else respond, “I stand by the Second London Confession of Faith (SLCOF) as our Baptist forefathers did.” Statements like these have existed for some time among Baptists. In some ways it is reminiscent of how our forefathers would say, “I am of Paul,” and others would respond with, “I am of Apollos.” (I Corinthians 1:12)
There is no shortage of opinions on the matter of historical creeds in the Old Baptist church, or in other churches for that matter. When I hear these discussions, I find myself thinking, “You say you affirm thus and such creed, but do you affirm the liberties that accompany that affirmation?” As discussions on historical creeds continue to crop up, it occurs to me that those who posit their preferred creed as a de facto test for Old Baptist orthodoxy must not stop there. They must go all the way and accept the unavoidable logical ramifications that accompany their affirmation. Simply put:
One cannot affirm an Old Baptist creed apart from affirming Old Baptist liberty.
That is unavoidable. If that does not jump out to you at first glance then consider the following:
The Fulton Confession of Faith Camp
Those who stand in lock step with the Fulton Confession of Faith as an orthodox summary of Old Baptist beliefs must also admit the rights of ANNOTATION and CLARIFICATION. That’s because the Fulton brethren were unwilling to affirm the Second London Confession of Faith without the addition of their clarifying notes. It follows that Old Baptists in the present must possess this same liberty.
The Second London Confession of Faith Camp
Moreover, those who stand in lock step with the Second London Confession of Faith as an orthodox summary of Old Baptist beliefs, in so doing, admit to the rights of BORROWING, EDITING, COMPOSITION, and REJECTION. That is because this confession was born of the exercise of these rights toward the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), which was the product of Scottish Presbyterianism.
This point bears additional consideration because the Second London Confession is, in no small measure, directly copied from the Presbyterian WCF that preceded it. Those who believe the SLCOF represents an authoritative standard for Old Baptist orthodoxy also must admit that Old Baptist heritage is in some sense a product of the reformation, rather than a product of the Anabaptists who were persecuted by the reformers both before, during and after the reformation. Both of these claims are considered unacceptable by most Old Baptists in our time. Nevertheless they are impossible to avoid if someone exalts the SLCOF to that status among us.
More to the point, if one regards the Second London Confession of Faith as a test for Old Baptist orthodoxy, they must also afford their current Old Baptist brethren the same liberty of BORROWING, EDITING, COMPOSITION, and REJECTION that their forefathers possessed and exercised to produce that confession.
Old Baptist Liberty is Unavoidable
Confessional examples could be multiplied but these two observations are sufficient to make the case against the dangers of using historical creeds as an ironclad test for Old Baptist orthodoxy. Whatever one might make of the much ballyhooed confessions of Baptist history, those who suggest that they represent a valid test of Old Baptist orthodoxy must likewise affirm the Old Baptist liberties of ANNOTATION, CLARIFICATION, BORROWING, EDITING, COMPOSITION, and REJECTION, as a matter of unavoidable logical consequence. That’s because it is impossible to affirm the creed while rejecting the liberties that produced it. Those who deny that baptists have such liberties, would have to reject any confession produced through the exercise of those liberties, and that includes the WCF, the SLCOF, and the FCOF (not to mention a host of other creeds). Simply put:
Once the liberty of ANNOTATION, CLARIFICATION,
BORROWING, EDITING, COMPOSITION, and REJECTION
is established, every appeal to these statements
as a requirement for orthodoxy is obliterated.
THUS the Bible ALONE is our Sole Rule of Faith and Practice
It is for this reason that we must reject the rise of “formal creedalism” among the Old Baptists and instead orient ourselves directly around the word of God, which declares:
“The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” (Psalm 12:6-7)
“It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. “ (Matthew 4:4)
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” (II Timothy 3:16-17)
Finally
If it seems evil to you to heed those admonitions directly from the word of God, perhaps you will hear it from an authority for which you have higher regard:
“The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.” (Second London Confession of Faith, 1.1)
Plainly stated, if it takes a quotation from Second London Confession of Faith to convince you of this truth, then I rest my case regarding the dangers of confessionalism in the Old Baptist Church.
- Elder Daniel Samons