Confessing the Faith (Pt 2) "Holy Scripure"

Opening

Prayer

How many of us are familiar with a man named Voddie Bachman? Voddie is a good brother in Christ, he is also a Reformed Baptist who strongly holds to the 1689 LBCF. He has a great quote about why he believes in the Bible. He says “I choose to believe the Bible because it is a reliable collection of historical documents written by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. They report supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and they claim that their writings are divine rather than human in origin.” I believe that this saying from Voddie is inspired by how the 1689 LBCF writes about what the Holy Scripture is.

If you were asked today why do you believe in the Bible, would you be able to respond in a manner like Voddie? It is my objective for today’s bible study to help you in answering that question; “Why do you believe in the Bible and what does the Bible mean for you?”

But before we are able to answer those questions or get into the very first chapter of the 1689 LBCF we need to do two things;

Recap from our study from last week, and

talk about little more about the history of the 1689 LBCF, which will take up half of our study tonight.

Last week

I want to ask us a series of questions in relation to last week;

What was the fancy saying that many modern evangelical say that also is reiterated at large in some forms by cults?

What are the three C’s of reformed theology

Are creeds and confessions scriptural?

What makes a creed or a confession good (like the 1689) versus bad (like the sparkle creed)?

How can confessions be useful for you today?

History

So now let’s turn our attention to the History of the 1689 LBCF. The 1689 was not written in 1689 nor was it the first Baptist Confession. The first Baptist Confession was written in the year of 1644 with the specific purpose in mind to distance the particular baptist with the anarchist group known as anabaptist while also showing theological distinction from the General Baptist who were Arminian in soteriology (Which is the doctrine of salvation).

The confession was titled;” A Confession of Faith of Seven Congregation or Churches of Christ, Which Are Commonly (But Unjustly) Called Anabaptists.” This was clearly seen as a means of defense against those who were trying to lump all baptists into a category of being anabaptists. This document was much shorter than the later 1689 and did not deal with as many theological points as the 1689 does. The first Baptist Confession was signed by seven church. Those same seven church, some of which ceased because of persecution, or combining other churches, all in some representation signed to the 1689. Meaning, that the 1689 LBCF did not have a differing theological stance, but retained its unity of perspective from amongst those who originally put together the 1644.

In the year of 1646, the Presbyterian, Westminster confession was produced, which was very thorough in several points of doctrine. This document laid out Presbyterian ecclisiology of church governance, infant baptist, and their view of a state-church relation.

In the year of 1658, the Savoy Declaration was written by 6 men who revised the Westminster to have a congregationalist view of church order, while rejecting the idea of a state-church union. They however, retained infant baptism but, interestingly enough (and rather inconsistently) they made it a requirement that for church membership, a personal profession of faith was necessary.

Why was that inconsistent? (Baptism doesn’t need a profession of faith, but church membership does, kinda odd)-Side note!!! I believe this is why John Owen and Nehemiah Coxe would have very similar views. given enough time John Owen would have become a reformed baptist (let’s just claim him joke)

The reason I bring the savoy declaration into the conversation revolving around the 1689, is because the savoy declaration was inseparable in the 1689 development. Many people think that the 1689 was based off the Westminster, however a close study would yeild the understanding that the 1689 closes resembles the Savoy over the Westminster. This is not to say that the 1689 was disconnected to the Westminster, but that the stream of development into the 1689 was more closely aligned with the congregationalist rather than the Presbyterian.

(Backdrop for 1677)

The 1689 Confession, was actually written and published anonymously in 1677. But why was it published then and why do we then call it the 1689 when it was written in 1677. Well in the 17th century in the land of London there was a series of laws passed called the “Clarendon Code.” These law sought to put an end to the dissenters and separatist (Which were baptist, congregationalists, and Presbyterians) of that century. It made it required that all the ministers to use the book of common prayer which was a Anglican book, it made it illegal to have religious gatherings of over 5 people, and it prohibited minsters who had been ejected under these laws of uniformity from coming within 5 miles of their former parishes.

So why do you think that this book was written anonymously? Because Baptist Pastors were being put out of their homes and jailed for their calling. John Bunyan (Author of pilgrims progress) was one of these Pastors who went to jail.

The anonymous Pastor’s were Nehemiah Coxe (Joke about baby Nehemiah) (a Discourse of the Covenants) and William Collins, but also most likely with the help of others such as Benjamin Keach (who was a co-pastor with Collins). It was originally titled; A Confession of Faith. Put Forth by the Elders of many Congregations of Christians (Baptized upon Profession of Their Faith) in London and the Country.”

So then why is the 1689 called the 1689 today? Well in the year of 1689 the “Toleration Act” was made which undid many of the laws made under the Clarendon Code. Thus, now the confession could be publically accepted and heralded by the Particular Baptist’s. So after this Toleration Act took place, there was convened a large council of particular baptists representing over 100 different church. where tehy looked over the confession and then signed it. This is truly one of the great joys about being a baptist that hold to the 1689, you are subscribing to something that is rich in theology and something that historically significant.

I hope in saying all of this you can clearly seen that Baptist who hold to the three C’s of reformed theology, one of which being confessionalism which would insinuate the 1689 LBCF, are indeed reformed in every aspect. The reason I say this is, because many would try and argue that Baptist can not consider themselves reformed (RC Clark namely). Sam Waldron says this; “It is simply historical ignorance or theological prejudice which causes men to deny that Baptist may be Reformed. Whether this objection proceeds from those in traditional Reformed denomination or from those in Baptist circles, it cannot stand the light of historical examination.”

But this is some basic history of the 1689 LBCF that I wanted to have for us before we dive into chapter 1, Paragraph 1.

Do we have any questions about this portion of tonight’s lesson?

(Helpful link for future study; Tabular Comparison of 1646 WCF, 1658 Savoy Declaration, the 1677/1689 LBCF, and the 1742 PCF — https://www.proginosko.com/docs/wcf_sdfo_lbcf.html

The Holy Scriptures

Paragraph 1

(Concrete analogy) How many of us have ever mixed and poured concrete? When constructing a house, how important is having a foundation? How important do you think it is to have concrete that is correctly mixed with the proper ratios of water a cement for your house’s foundation? I would argue that it is of the upmost importance! If the mix is wrong, or improperly applied, there is sure to be cracks and the whole house has risk of falling.

Why do you think that in the Westminster, the Savoy declaration, and the Baptist Confession do they start with Holy Scripture? Because they are foundational. In fact the first several chapters of the confession are seen as foundational for the church. But, If you get this chapter wrong, you will have a theological house that is sure to fall. Let’s read Matthew 7: 24-27.

Read paragraph 1

2 Timothy 3:15-17. Isaiah 8:20. Luke 16:29, 31. Eph. 2:20.

Romans 1:19-21.

Hebrews 1:1-2.

2 Peter 1:19-21.

(Questions)

How many kinds of revelation are there? (Name them)- A. Nature, works of creation, and providence....But Holy Scripture is the only...

Is the “light of nature” clear? Is it sufficient for salvation? why or why not? —A. it is not. Tells us there is a God but not to place faith alone in Jesus Christ.

In what sense is the written Word sufficient? Is the Word sufficient as a math book? construction manual?… A. It is sufficient in the things concerning God, Faith, and Obedience.

In what sense is the written Word certain? Is what the Scripture says about your salvation a sure thing? Why?.... A. If we can’t say that the word of God is certain, we have a dire need to question where we have placed our faith.

in what sense is the written Word an infallible?.... A. Who is the supreme author of the scripture? God Himself, so what would it mean for God’s character if the scripture had error or fault within it?

In what sense is the Written Word the standard?.... A. according to what standard will all men be judged? Rom. 3:10-23. This standard is revealed in the written Word.

In what sense does it mean “Only?”… A. This might be the most important word here just as we see the word alone as important qualifier in the 5 Solas (remind everyone of what that is?

In what sense is the written Word necessary?.... A. can you and I have a correct understanding of God through any ordinary means outside of the written Word? It is neccesary as if something in our doctrine is in error it is correct with that which is certain and uncorrectable, which is the written Word.

Paragraph 2

Read Paragraph 2

Questions from the audience.

This is where we will pick up next week.

Pray