Confessionalism

Reformed Baptists are confessional because their churches subscribe to written confessions of faith. A confession of faith is a brief summary of the Bible’s theology that expresses a church’s standard of teaching for church officers and members. Confessions of faith also serve to protect against heresies and errors. Many of the early Baptists, both in England and in America, embraced the Second London Confession. The Second London Confession, based on the Westminster Confession (Presbyterian) and the Savoy Declaration (Independent), was originally edited and published in 1677, perhaps by Nehemiah Coxe and William Collins, at the Petty France church in London. The London General Assembly formally adopted it in 1689 after English persecution ended.

The Second London Confession’s theology is continuous with the First London Confession, which is evident from their theological content. Furthermore, many of the signatories of the first also signed the second, showing that there is no substantial difference of doctrine. The Second London Confession includes a great deal of the language found in the Savoy and Westminster confessions, showing the widespread doctrinal solidarity the Baptists shared with the Reformed orthodox.15

The Second London Confession contains the theological insights of the church throughout its history, including the doctrine of the biblical canon, orthodox Nicene Trinitarianism and Christology, the Augustinian doctrine of human nature, and the Reformed doctrines of the sufficiency of Scripture and salvation by grace alone, as well as a congregationalist doctrine of church government. Its only distinctively Baptist doctrine is that credibly professing believers alone should receive the sacrament of baptism and join a local church. As such, the doctrinal content of the Second London Confession is the fruit of some of the most gifted and faithful theologians throughout church history, and it is the confessional standard of the Reformed Baptists.

The Hermeneutics of Reformed Confessionalism

The confessions of the Reformed tradition grew out of a commitment to a proper theology of biblical interpretation (or hermeneutic). The Reformers held that the Bible is God’s perfect and sufficient special revelation to men (2 Tim. 3:16–17) and that Scripture describes realities that exist beyond itself, namely, God and creation. Scripture progressively reveals God’s unchanging nature as well as His activities in creation, providence, and especially salvation throughout history.

A Hermeneutic of New Testament Priority

Because God is the Bible’s primary Author (Auctor primarius), the Reformers were committed to understanding the Bible as a single unified and organic whole. Thus, while they engaged in careful grammatical historical exegesis, the Reformers were also firmly committed to reading the Bible theologically, always working to understand the divine Author’s intention. The theological interpretation of the Reformers observed that later revelation clarifies what is less clear in earlier revelation, and that later revelation makes explicit what is only implicit in earlier revelation. Every book written by a human author explains earlier passages of the book in later passages, and the Bible is no different. Describing the Reformed hermeneutic on the relationship between the testaments, Louis Berkhof rightly says, “The Old and New Testament are related to each other as type and antitype, prophecy and fulfillment, germ and perfect fulfillment.”16 This same hermeneutic was taught by Augustine, who said, “The New is in the Old concealed; the Old is in the New revealed.”

A Christ-Centered Hermeneutic

As a result of viewing the Bible as a unified whole, the churches of the Reformation affirmed a Christ-centered hermeneutic. Many passages teach that Christ is the theological center of Scripture. Luke 24:27 says that when Christ was with His disciples on the road to Emmaus, “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.”17 And 1 Peter 1:10–12 says,

Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.

The Old Testament prophets spoke of Christ’s sufferings and resurrection because the “Spirit of Christ” was in them (1 Peter 1:11). These Old Testament prophets were moved to write and prophesy of Christ by Christ Himself. Other passages teach the same thing. Colossians 2:3 says that in Christ “are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” No treasures of wisdom and knowledge are found outside of Jesus Christ. We see in 2 Corinthians 1:20 that “all the promises of God find their Yes in Him.” No promises of Scripture find their “yes” outside of our Lord Jesus. The apostle John tells us that Jesus is the “Word” of God (John 1:1) and that “he has made him known” (John 1:18). The words “made him known” could be translated “explained Him,” meaning that Jesus explains God. Jesus reveals God. Jesus is the final Word on God. All of Scripture reveals Jesus and points to Jesus as the revelation of God Himself. Therefore, if we would understand the Scriptures, we must understand how all of Scripture reveals God Himself, pointing to the chief revelation of God in Jesus Christ.

The Old Testament reveals Christ in various ways, but three stand out most prominently. First, it reveals Christ in clear promises of the coming Messiah. Second, it reveals Christ through types and shadows, including but not limited to the old covenant patriarchs, prophets, kings, priesthood, and sacrificial system. Third, it reveals Christ through His pre-incarnate appearances, often by the presence of the angel of the Lord.

A Hermeneutic of Necessary Logical Consequences

Another important aspect of the theological interpretation of the Reformers involves necessary inferences from biblical revelation. The Protestant Reformers did not believe the meaning of God’s Word is limited to the explicit words of the Bible, but that it also includes all doctrines that can be drawn from the Bible by proper hermeneutics and sound reason. Acts 2:31, for example, makes a logical inference from Psalm 16:10 in words not used in that Psalm, and it reads the Old Testament in light of Christ in the New.

The Second London Confession speaks of the whole counsel of God in terms of what is “either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture” (2LCF 1.6). The Bible, therefore, reveals the whole counsel of God in two ways. First, it does so by what is “expressly set down” in the Scriptures. But second, it reveals God’s mind by what is “necessarily contained” in the Scriptures. The words “necessarily contained” refer to doctrines that are made logically necessary by what the Scriptures explicitly say, but are not taken from the Scriptures verbatim. Doctrines necessarily contained in the Scriptures include the biblical canon, God and the Trinity, the covenant of works, the covenant of redemption, the covenant of grace, and others. An early English Particular Baptist, Benjamin Keach, said, “That which by a just and necessary consequence is deduced from Scripture, is as much the mind of Christ as what is contained in the express words of Scripture.”18 Keach was saying that what is correctly deduced from Scripture is as much divine revelation as Scripture itself.

If the Bible were written by human authors who contradicted themselves, or if it had conflicting narratives and doctrines, or if God revealed Himself outside the Bible through changing prophecies or church traditions, then no unified or coherent system of doctrine could possibly be drawn from the Bible. Thus, the Reformed confessions of faith are only possible because the Bible is one book, written by one unchanging divine Author, who reveals Himself perfectly in sacred Scripture. The Reformed faith takes seriously Christ’s promise in John 16:13: “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth.”

Sola Scriptura: Scripture Alone

Many people wrongly think the very concept of confessionalism contradicts the doctrine of sola Scriptura. These anti-confessionalists cry, “No creed but the Bible!” They claim to believe in sola Scriptura, Scripture alone, and therefore they do not believe there is any need for confessions of faith, and they believe that confessions of faith tacitly add human traditions to the Bible.

But the Reformers never intended the doctrine of sola Scriptura to exclude biblical confessions of faith. Rather, sola Scriptura means that Scripture alone is the supreme authority for the church; that it is sufficient for all saving knowledge of God, faith, and obedience; and that it is the standard by which all church doctrines and traditions are to be tested. The Reformers said that the Bible is the norma normans, the rule that rules. But creeds and confessions of faith are a norma normata, a rule that is ruled. That is, the Bible alone is the supreme standard of our faith, but there are subordinate standards that are themselves subject to the Bible.

The Second London Confession teaches the Reformed doctrine of sola Scriptura:

“The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.” (1.1)

The “former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.” (1.1)

“The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits [personal opinions], are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved.” (1.10)

In opposition to sola Scriptura, during the late Middle Ages as well as in the time of the Reformation, the papacy insisted that both Scripture and extra-biblical church tradition have equal authority for the formulation of church doctrine. Rome claimed that Scripture may not be used to critique official church tradition because both Scripture and church tradition come from the church and therefore have equal authority. This allowed the papists to assert authority for unbiblical doctrines, such as purgatory, indulgences, the veneration of relics, transubstantiation and the mass, prayers to Mary and the saints, and papal infallibility.

The Protestant Reformers countered these false teachings by insisting that God gave the Scriptures alone to the church as sufficient special revelation. They firmly held that no human tradition has authority equal to the Bible. This allowed the Reformers to critique church tradition with the Bible and to purify the church by eliminating unbiblical doctrines and practices.

Sola Scriptura for the Whole Church

The Protestant Reformers viewed sola Scriptura as a doctrine of the church, not merely of individual private Christians. Sola Scriptura never meant that individual Christians may study the Bible in isolation from the church and come to private conclusions apart from wise and godly teachers of the church, who themselves speak according to the Word of God. The Reformers taught that the Bible is clear enough for anyone to understand the basic message of salvation (Ps. 19:7; 2 Tim. 3:15), but the Bible as a whole is only best understood within the church. How do we know this is true? With few exceptions, God gave the New Testament letters not to individuals, but to churches or leaders of churches. The Bible is complex, and due to sins and weaknesses, even sincere believers can misunderstand it (2 Peter 3:15–16).

The Reformers knew that individual Christians understand the Bible most fully when they listen to faithful teachers of the church, both past and present, whom God gifted and called to teach the Bible and warn against error. Hebrews 13:7 makes this point when it says, “Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith.” Faithful teachers in the church never add to the meaning of the Bible (1 Cor. 4:6). Rather, they explain it plainly so God’s people can see in the text for themselves what the Bible teaches (2 Tim. 2:15). Ephesians 4:11–16 says that qualified teachers and preachers are gifts of Christ to His church. To disregard Christ’s teachers is to disregard Christ’s good gifts and Christ Himself.

Church tradition, therefore, in the view of the Reformers, is nothing other than the witness of great teachers throughout church history, including church fathers such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Augustine, Anselm, and others, as well as the creeds and confessions. These teachers and documents have been wrong at certain points, but their faithful insights into Scripture are invaluable. And when the Bible is read in conjunction with the great Bible teachers of the past and present, it becomes easier for individual Christians to see for themselves what the Bible really means.

Richard Muller writes:

Sola Scriptura was never meant as a denial of the usefulness of the Christian tradition (traditio, q.v.) as a subordinate norm in theology and as a significant point of reference for doctrinal formulas and argumentation. The views of the Reformers developed out of a debate in the late medieval theology over the relation of Scripture and tradition, one side of the debate viewing the two as coequal norms, the other side of the debate taking Scripture as the sole source of necessary doctrine, albeit as read in the church’s interpretive tradition. The Reformers and the Protestant orthodox followed the latter understanding, defining Scripture as the absolute and therefore prior norm, but allowing the theological tradition, particularly the earlier tradition of the fathers and ecumenical councils, to have a derivative but important secondary role in doctrinal statements. They accepted the ancient tradition as a useful guide, allowing that the trinitarian and christological statements of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Chalcedon were expressions of biblical truth, and that the great teachers of the church provided valuable instruction in theology that always needed to be evaluated in light of Scripture.19

How Confessional Christians Study the Bible

Consider how individual Christians ordinarily come to understand the meaning of the Bible. Imagine a faithful Christian man who reads his Bible at home. He also comes to church Sunday after Sunday, and he listens to his pastor, who carefully preaches the Word of God. As this man listens to sermons at his church, he’s also looking at his Bible and comparing what he’s hearing with the Bible. He’s thinking about his pastor’s hermeneutic, explanations, and applications while he listens. He is learning the Bible in the context of the church by a faithful pastor. If he can see that what his pastor is teaching is in the Bible, then he believes it. He looks at the grammar, context, and overall theology of the Scriptures to understand the meaning of any given text. On the other hand, if he can’t see that what his pastor is teaching is found in the Bible, he will reject what he’s being taught. Christians come to understand the Bible, more and more fully, within the church.

That is what the Protestant Reformers understood happened throughout church history. Pastors and teachers have been studying the Bible for more than two thousand years. They have been preaching sermons and writing books about what the Bible means, putting it all together, dealing with difficult passages, and finally showing how it all leads to a greater knowledge of God, worship, and faithful obedience.

The church wrote down the most valuable teachings of its leaders in its creeds and confessions. Thus, the Protestant Reformers heavily weighted the creeds as a secondary authority, subordinate to Scripture. That is why the Reformers explained the Bible in light of the church’s creedal tradition, believing the ancient creeds to arise from Scripture itself, even while humbly examining them on the basis of the Bible. This is what it means to be confessional. The classic confessions of faith summarize the wisdom of the church from ages past, and confessional churches read the Bible in light of those confessions, even while examining those same confessions based on the Bible.

A Reformed confessional church, therefore, is simply a church that believes the doctrine of sola Scriptura as it was originally intended by the Protestant Reformers.

When Reformed Baptists come to the Bible, they study it while presupposing their church’s confession of faith, which contains the substance of the church’s orthodox creedal tradition along with the recovered insights of the Protestant Reformation and the doctrine of the church. If a Reformed Baptist is studying the Bible and thinks he finds something that contradicts his confession, he doesn’t immediately reject his confession. Instead, he humbly assumes that he has misunderstood the Bible. He then studies the Bible along with good commentaries, both old and new. He especially tries to understand how his Reformed Baptist forefathers explained whatever passage is in question. That is an important step because unless one understands how a confessional doctrine was derived from the Bible in the first place, then it would be hasty to reject it. In the course of study, he might find that he made an interpretive mistake and discover that his confession of faith was right all along. Alternatively, it is possible that he ends up disagreeing with his confession based on Scripture, and depending on the significance of the disagreement, he might take an exception to the confession, or choose no longer to identify as a Reformed Baptist. Both of these are faithful outcomes, but the procedure of carefully studying how historic confessional doctrines were derived is what makes one Reformed in his study of Scripture.

Against Nuda Scriptura

The Reformed faith and Reformed Baptists oppose the doctrine of nuda Scriptura. This is a term used to describe a position that rejects Reformed confessionalism. Nuda Scriptura means “naked” or “bare” Scripture. It is the idea that people should faithfully approach the Bible and interpret it without any traditions, presuppositions, or prior theological commitments at all. In fact, that is impossible, since every interpreter approaches Scripture with some set of presuppositions. The only question is whether the interpreter is aware of his presuppositions so that he can examine them with the Bible. Another term for nuda Scriptura is “biblicism.”20 D.B. Riker defines biblicism in the following way: “Biblicism is the rejection of everything not explicitly stated in the Bible, and the dismissal of all non-biblical witnesses (Fathers, Creeds, Medieval Doctors, councils, etc.).”21

The cry of those who hold to nuda Scriptura, or biblicism, is “no creed but the Bible!” Students of history will recognize that this statement is not historically Baptist, since Baptists have had many confessions of faith throughout their history.22 The sentiment behind the phrase “no creed but the Bible” is related to the Restoration Movement led by Alexander Campbell, the founder of the Churches of Christ, during the Second Great Awakening (1790–1840). Those of the Restoration Movement say, “No creed but Christ; no book but the Bible.” Ironically, the Churches of Christ, who inherit the legacy of Alexander Campbell, have a definite unwritten creed, which includes an Arminian soteriology and the necessity of baptism for regeneration, along with other distinctive doctrines that all cohere within a complete theological system that is not written down. The fact that the Churches of Christ do not have a written creed does not mean they do not have a creed. Ironically, the slogan “no creed but the Bible” is not in the Bible. It is itself a creed—human words about the Bible.

The point is that every church has a confession of faith, whether it is stated or unstated, written or unwritten. Biblicist churches all believe the Bible means something, and they have distinct perspectives on salvation, baptism, church membership, and Christian obedience that they think are nothing other than what the Bible teaches. However, because these churches do not clearly distinguish between their beliefs (confession) and the Bible, they tend to confuse their beliefs about the Bible with the Bible itself. Confessional churches, on the other hand, believe it is clearer and more honest simply to write down their confession of faith for all to see so that it can be examined by the Word of God.

Carl Trueman writes,

I do want to make the point here that Christians are not divided between those who have creeds and confessions and those who do not; rather, they are divided between those who have public creeds and confessions that are written down and exist as public documents, subject to public scrutiny, evaluation, and critique, and those who have private creeds and confessions that are often improvised, unwritten and thus not open to public scrutiny, not susceptible to evaluation and crucially, ironically, not, therefore, subject to testing by Scripture to see whether they are true.23

Some Problems with Nuda Scriptura

The lack of a confession of faith in a church can lead to a number of problems. One problem is that pastors and teachers who call themselves biblicists approach the Bible independently, without consulting the great Bible teachers of the past. Carl Trueman wisely warns the biblicist pastor,

Do not precipitately abandon creedal formulations which have been tried and tested over the centuries by churches all over the world in favor of your own ideas. On the whole, those who reinvent the wheel invest a lot of time either to come up with something that looks identical to the old design or something that is actually inferior to it. This is not to demand capitulation before church tradition or a rejection of the notion of Scripture alone. Rather, it is to suggest an attitude of humility toward the church’s past which simply looks both at the good that the ancient creeds have done and also the fact that they seem to make better sense of the testimony of Scripture than any of the alternatives.24

Another problem is that biblicism can lead to pastoral authoritarianism. Non-confessional pastors often represent their teaching of the Bible as the one true meaning of God’s Word. As a result, church members who differ from the pastor’s teaching might be viewed as rebelling against the Word of God. Another problem is that the pastor’s doctrine might change over time. And since he views his doctrinal change as growth, he may ask the congregation to change its beliefs, too. This is authoritarian because it makes the pastor the one who determines the meaning of the Bible. When a church is confessional, however, the whole church votes to receive a particular written confession of faith that expresses that church’s understanding of the Word of God. A confessional pastor is required to take a vow to uphold the church’s confession, and if his doctrine changes, then he is required to offer his resignation.

Yet another possible problem in biblicist churches involves heresy and division. Churches without a confession of faith may have an insufficient unifying doctrinal center, such that church members hold a wide variety of beliefs on significant issues. Church members might think they believe the Bible, even though they embrace serious doctrinal errors or heresies. Many professing Christians today unwittingly hold serious errors such as social trinitarianism, extra-biblical revelation, forms of Pelagianism and Gnosticism, legalism, antinomianism, etc. A diversity of aberrant beliefs and practices will lead to great divisions within a church. But when a church is confessional, the church’s confession of faith is the formal unifying center of its doctrine. Members have the liberty to differ on non-confessional matters, but no member may promote any doctrine contrary to the church’s confession of faith. This real agreement on the central doctrines of the faith is the basis for great unity within the church.

Thus, confessional Christians believe written confessions of faith protect the supreme authority of Scripture, guard members against authoritarianism, and help to preserve the unity of the church. Confessionalism draws a sharp distinction between human interpretations of the Bible (a confession of faith) from the Bible itself. Reformed Baptists confess in the first sentence of the Second London Confession of Faith that the confession is not the Bible. This clear distinction allows the confession of faith to be seen for what it is—a human document—and then critiqued by the Bible.

A Biblical Case for Confessions

The Bible teaches that the church is responsible to confess its understanding of the meaning of the whole Bible. The Bible says that the church is “the pillar and support of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15, NASB), which means that the church must declare, explain, and defend the truths of the Bible with human words. Jude commands the church “to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). Paul says that the essence of spiritual warfare is that “we destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God” (2 Cor. 10:5). One of the basic qualifications of a pastor is that “he must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it” (Titus 1:9).

1. The Basic Biblical Requirement of Confession

The Scriptures teach that Christians are to confess their faith. In the Old Testament, a basic confession of faith is found in the Shema.
Deuteronomy 6:4 says, “Hear O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.”

In the New Testament, we see the content of a basic confession in Romans 10:9–10, which says, “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.”

So, at a fundamental level, a confession of faith in Christ as Lord and Savior is required for salvation. But this basic confession will expand as Christians grow in their understanding of Scripture and as they disclaim doctrinal errors.

2. The Five Trustworthy Sayings

Consider the Bible’s five “trustworthy sayings,” which were oral tradition before they were written down in the Bible. These were early, miniature confessions of faith that deal with a variety of theological truths that involve the gospel, church order, and godly living. The originally man-made sayings were so accurate that, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Paul included them in the Bible.

The fact that these “trustworthy sayings” were written in the Bible proves not only that Scripture approves of confessions of faith, but that it encourages and praises them. It also proves that human words about the Bible can be as true as the Bible itself.

3. The Pattern of Apostolic Teaching

Scripture shows that the apostles taught summaries of the whole Bible. It speaks of “the deposit entrusted to you” (1 Tim. 6:20), “the good deposit entrusted to you” (2 Tim. 1:14), “the words of the faith” and “the good doctrine” (1 Tim. 4:6), “the traditions” (2 Thess. 2:15), and “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). Acts 20 says that Paul taught the whole counsel of God to the Ephesian church over the course of three years (Acts 20:31). Three years does not seem long enough for an exposition of every verse of the Bible, but it seems to be about the amount of time that would be needed to teach a comprehensive summary of Scripture.

Not only did the apostles teach summaries of the Bible, but the Bible also requires pastors to adhere to a pattern of doctrine that arises from the Bible. Paul commands Pastor Timothy in 2 Timothy 1:13–14, “Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you.” What does Paul mean by “the pattern of sound words?” He is referring to a well-organized body of doctrine. The Greek word “pattern” (hupotuposis), related to the Greek word tupos, means “type” or “form.” It was not enough for Pastor Timothy to have the Bible in his mind, and to teach and guard the words of the Bible; he was also required to follow an organized summary of the Bible. This is a command to follow a sound confession of faith about the Bible.

It is not only pastors who ought to hold to a biblical confession of faith, but whole churches should too. In Romans 6:17 Paul tells the church, “But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed.” The word “standard” is tupos, which we saw above in 2 Timothy 1:13. It refers to a type or form of teaching. Paul’s point is not that the Bible itself is the “standard,” since the Bible is not a “form” or “pattern” of human teaching, but the very Word of God. Instead, Paul is saying that the church had received and was committed to a comprehensive summary of biblical teaching that was faithful to the Scriptures, but distinct from it.

Thus, both pastors and churches should confess a robust doctrinal summary of the Bible in their confessions of faith, which Paul calls a “pattern” (2 Tim. 1:13) or “standard” (Rom. 6:17).

One other proof of the validity of confessions of faith comes from Acts 17:11, which says that the Bereans “were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so” (emphasis added). These Bereans had received the “word” of the apostles, the apostolic summary of biblical theology. But then they nobly tested that word by examining the Scriptures to see whether or not the word was true. The same should be done with confessions of faith.

4. The Nature of Biblical Confessions

Not only did the church have positive confessions of biblical doctrine, but it also confessed the faith over and against errors and heresies that were threatening the church. When everything the Bible says about confessions of faith is considered, we find that it requires the church to make a robust confession of biblical truth that summarizes the whole counsel of God. Here are a few that are found in Scripture.

A Confession Against Judaism. In 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul combines the church’s confession that there is only one God with the confession that there is one Lord Jesus Christ. He says, “There is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” In this confession, the church affirms monotheism just as Judaism would. But in order to distinguish itself clearly from the Jews who denied the deity of Christ, the church also affirmed Christ as Lord and Creator of all things.

A Confession Against Division. Some professing Christians in the early church would have divided the church between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. But the apostle Paul confesses in Ephesians 4:4–5, “There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope that belongs to your call—one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” This confession affirms the oneness, or catholicity, of all who are united to Christ.

A Confession Against Gnosticism, Asceticism, and Paganism. We see a further expansion of the church’s confession in 1 Timothy 3:16, which says, “Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by the angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.” This confession was written as the church faced additional heresies, including Gnosticism, asceticism, and paganism (see also 1 John 4:2–3). Acts 19:28 records a false confession of paganism, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” but the church confessed, “Great . . . is the mystery of godliness.”

It is never a question of confession or non-confession. The only question is whether the confession is true. The church confronted these newer heresies even as it also confronted the older error of Judaism. The church needed to confess that Christ is Lord, contrary to Judaism. But it also needed to declare the full humanity of Christ over and against Gnosticism. It needed to affirm the sufficiency of Christ’s work to save, contrary to asceticism. And it needed to confess that God is one, over and against the polytheism of paganism.

The point is that the church not only positively confesses the faith of the Bible, but it also confesses the faith over and against heresies that threaten the church. The church must remain vigilant against new destructive heresies that originate in the kingdom of darkness attempting to undermine sound doctrine and the health and life of God’s beloved people.

A Robust Confession of Faith. Finally, if the church is required to confess the whole faith over and against error, then the church’s confession of faith should not be minimalistic. Rather, it ought to be robust, like the great Reformed confessions, including the Second London Confession. Consider what we can learn about this from the book of Romans. Paul had not yet been to Rome, so he wrote a letter that presents a summary of necessary Christian doctrine.

Consider what Paul says in Romans 16:17: “I appeal to you brothers to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught: avoid them.” When Paul speaks of “the doctrine that you have been taught,” he’s referring to everything he had just taught them in the book of Romans. Romans is a compendium of theology, and it is what Paul considered necessary for the life and health of the local church in Rome. Here are some of the doctrines taught in Paul’s letter to the Romans:

Since Romans is Paul’s summary of “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27), and since churches are to confess and proclaim the whole counsel of God, then a church’s confession of faith needs to contain a fullness of doctrine, with categories similar to what we find in Paul’s letter.

B.H. Carroll writes,

A church with a little creed is a church with a little life. The more divine doctrines a church can agree on, the greater its power, and the wider its usefulness. The fewer its articles of faith, the fewer its bonds of union and compactness. The modern cry: “Less creed and more liberty,” is a degeneration from the vertebrate to the jellyfish, and means less unity and less morality, and it means more heresy. Definitive truth does not create heresy—it only exposes and corrects. Shut off the creed and the Christian world would fill up with heresy unsuspected and uncorrected, but none the less deadly.26

How a Church Might Subscribe
to the Second London Confession

I recommend the following manner of subscribing to the Second London Confession in local churches, though I recognize that some faithful Reformed Baptists will disagree on some of these matters.

1. Any believer should be allowed to join a local church, provided he does not have a divisive spirit.

A local church should be a “professors church.” That is, all who have a credible profession of faith are fit candidates for church membership (Rom. 10:9–10). Credible profession involves (1) a true articulation of the gospel along with (2) a testimony of sincere faith and repentance of sin and (3) evidence of a holy life. The Second London Confession teaches that a credible profession of sound conversion is a prerequisite to membership. Chapter 26, paragraph 2 says,

All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.

Most historic Baptists have also held that those who give a credible profession of faith should be biblically baptized before they join a local church (see 1 Cor. 12:13). That is also my personal view, but it is not a requirement of the Second London Confession, which leaves the question open. The early Baptists who subscribed to the confession were divided on whether baptism by immersion upon a person’s credible profession must precede membership.

Beyond the two requirements of (1) a credible profession of faith and (2) biblical baptism, there may be a great deal of disagreement about many doctrines among the members of a local church, even on the doctrines in their confession. Yet the church can still enjoy great unity in the gospel of Christ.

2. Churches that subscribe to a detailed confession should use a “subscription of unity” among church members.

As we have seen, the book of Romans teaches a robust system of doctrine that is a summary of biblical truth, the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). Paul wrote the epistle to the church at Rome, expecting the elders to teach its total content and expecting the whole church to believe and practice what it says. At the end of the letter, Paul says to “watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them” (Rom. 16:17). What “doctrine” is Paul talking about? He means the robust doctrine of the whole book of Romans, which touches upon most doctrines of the faith.

Notice that Paul does not say to avoid those who “do not understand” or “do not positively and accurately affirm every doctrine” in the book of Romans. Instead, he says to avoid those who “cause divisions” or “create obstacles” to the doctrines in his letter. Thus, the church of Rome could receive new believers who were still growing in their understanding of what Paul had written. But while they were still working out their understanding of biblical truth, the members of the church needed to agree to maintain unity in Christ. They were not permitted, therefore, to “cause divisions and create obstacles” about anything in the book of Romans. Divisive members need to be avoided. Titus 3:10–11 says, “As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once, and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.”

Churches should subscribe to a robust confession in a similar way. The ultimate goal is that all church members will agree wholeheartedly with the whole counsel of God. Members should understand when they join that the teachers of the church will be consistently teaching the Bible as a whole and showing how the Bible supports the church’s confession of faith, since the teachers of the church believe that the confession is an accurate summary of the Bible.

1. Therefore, at a minimum, all church members need to have a teachable spirit, willing to sit under and learn from those who teach the Bible in a way that expresses all the doctrines of the church’s agreed upon confession of faith.

2. They should agree not to teach against the confession of faith, distribute literature against it, campaign against it on social media, etc.

3. They must agree not to cause divisions or strife in the church about anything in the confession of faith (Rom. 16:17; Titus 3:10–11).

4. They should not be settled in strong opposition to anything taught in the confession of faith.

This kind of subscription among members allows for a great deal of doctrinal diversity, together with robust doctrinal confession.

A non-Calvinist, for example, who disagrees with the Second London Confession’s teaching on unconditional election, but who has a teachable spirit and is not hardened in opposition to the church’s confession, is free to join the church. Similarly, a paedobaptist who has himself been biblically baptized as a believer (it is my view that he must be biblically baptized), and is open to learning from the Word of God and to changing his position on baptism to the one explained by the Second London Confession, is also free to join.

Credible profession of faith in Christ, together with a teachable spirit of unity in Christ, is all that is required for church membership. This manner of subscription is rooted in the moral law of God, which forbids a factious spirit and calls for unity in Christ. A divisive spirit is murderous, thieving, deceptive, covetous, etc., but God commands us to be united in Christ in love. Those who have the Spirit of Christ may certainly disagree about secondary doctrines without causing strife in the church because of their love for Christ and for one another.

Furthermore, all faithful churches have procedures for discussing and changing their confessions of faith, which are outlined in their constitutions or bylaws. Confessions are not infallible and are always subject to correction by the Word of God. Members who follow the agreed-upon procedures for debating and changing a confession of faith with a humble spirit are not being divisive, provided they do so in love, with humility, and grace. The Scriptures, not the confessions, are the final word on sound doctrine. A confession of faith is the church’s effort to accurately express what the Scriptures mean. And any human statement can be wrong. Therefore, faithful churches have mechanisms in place to change their confession, if so warranted by the Bible.

3. The officers of a church ought to embrace a “full subscription” to the confession of faith.

“Full subscription” for officers, elders and deacons means that they affirm every doctrine in a church’s confession of faith. Paul says that elders in the church must proclaim “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). And a church’s confession of faith is that church’s understanding of “the whole counsel of God.” Pastors are not free to teach whatever version of the “whole counsel of God” they personally believe. They must preach what the church believes. They are under the church’s authority to teach the Bible in a manner consistent with the church’s confession. The church as a whole adopts its confession, partly as a check on pastoral authority. Confessions of faith, thus, prevent pastoral authoritarianism. The Scripture as confessed by the church is what elders are charged to believe and teach (see Tim. 1:13–14).

Deacons, too, are required to “hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience” (1 Tim. 3:9). “The faith” is the total body of revealed truth (see Jude 3), and a church’s understanding of the Bible’s truth is expressed in its confession of faith. Thus, deacons, as leaders in the church, should fully subscribe to a church’s confession of faith. All church officers should publicly vow to personally adopt and defend the church’s confession of faith. If a church officer changes his views at any point in his tenure, he should make that change known to the elders and be humbly willing to withdraw from his office, if necessary. He would certainly be free to remain a member of the church as long as he does not cause division over his disagreements with the confession.

A church, therefore, may confess its understanding of “the whole counsel of God” while making room for a great deal of theological disagreement and walking with those who have a simple but sincere profession of faith in Christ. This is, in fact, what Scripture requires the church to do: confess the whole counsel of God with a godly spirit of unity in the essentials, of liberty in non-essentials, and of love in all things.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Bible requires the church to confess the faith with human words about the Word of God. Confessions of faith are essential to protect the authority of Scripture. When the church expresses its confession of faith, it is distinguishing between Scripture and its understanding of Scripture so that the confession can be judged. Confessions of faith are also part of the church’s defense of biblical truth over and against error. Further, confessions help preserve the unity of the church when church members are received based on a credible profession of faith, but are also asked to learn from and submit to the church’s confession as the standard of teaching.

Reformed Baptists hold to the Second London Confession, which was the most influential confession of faith among early Baptists. In the next chapter, we will turn to the doctrine of the law of God. A clear understanding of the law of God is the basis of a clear understanding of the gospel.

  1. 15. The best commentaries on the First London Confession and Second London Confession include James M. Renihan, For the Vindication of the Truth: A Brief Exposition of the First London Baptist Confession of Faith (Cape Coral: Founders, 2021); James M. Renihan, To the Judicious and Impartial Reader: An Exposition of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith (Cape Coral: Founders, 2022); Samuel E. Waldron, A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, 5th ed. (Grand Rapids: EP Books, 2016).

  2. 16. Louis Berkhof, Principles of Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1950), 133.

  3. 17. Notice the emphasis on the totality of Scripture in this verse. Jesus began with “Moses and all the Prophets.” He used “all the Scriptures” in His teaching. The trip to Emmaus was hours long, so Christ would have had a great deal of time to touch upon many Old Testament connections to Himself. Christ doubtlessly left out many of the Old Testament types, shadows, and allusions to Himself, since this walk would not have been long enough to explain everything in the Scriptures concerning Himself. Christ used all the Scriptures on this long walk to Emmaus to explain many of the things concerning Himself to His disciples.

  4. 18. Benjamin Keach, The Rector Rectified (London: printed and sold by John Harris, 1692), 33.

  5. 19. Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology, 2nd edition (Grand Rapids: Baker), 338.

  6. 20. Some may use the word “biblicism” in a positive sense to mean that the Bible alone is the final authority over one’s philosophical and theological presuppositions. But in this context, it refers to an interpreter’s blindness to his philosophical and theological presuppositions.

  7. 21. D. B. Riker, A Catholic Reformed Theologian (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2009), 4, fn 17.

  8. 22. See William L. Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1969).

  9. 23. Carl Trueman, The Creedal Imperative (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012) 15. For another excellent volume on the importance of creeds and confessions, see J.V. Fesko, The Need for Creeds Today: Confessional Faith in a Faithless Age (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2020). To understand the story of the church’s development of creeds and confessions, see Donald Fairbairn and Ryan M. Reeves, The Story of Creeds and Confessions: Tracing the Development of the Christian Faith (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2019).

  10. 24. Trueman, Creedal Imperative, 107

  11. 25. Emphasis added in this section.

  12. 26. B. H. Carroll, An Interpretation of the English Bible, Volume 6 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1973), 140.