In the previous post, I drew from the Philadelphia Confession (1742) to answer the question posed: are Baptists Calvinists? The article I quoted from is basically what Calvin had argued in The Necessity of Reforming the Church in the 1530s. Let me also add that the article from the Philadelphia Confession is the same as that in the London Baptist Confession (1689), the Savoy Declaration (1658) used by Independents and American Congregationalists, and originally written by the Westminster Divines published in 1647.
Someone may ask the question: this is only from the Calvinistic wing of the Baptist movement; what about the General Baptists? Before answering the question, allow me to confess one thing: though I am a convinced and ardent Calvinist, I first learned of the "Regulative Principle" by reading the early General Baptists. Men like John Symth and Thomas Helwys believed that the Church must believe and practice what is specifically taught and commanded in the Holy Scriptures with the New Testament as a sort of final authority within the Scriptures. This conviction led them to reject infant baptism and episcopal and presbyterian governments, and affirm believer's baptism and local church autonomy. General Baptists carried this conviction so far as to deny a place for singing praise in the corporate worship believing that the commands to sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16) were meant for private and family meetings. Even though I disagree with much of General Baptist doctrince (including their doctrine denying singing in corporate worship), I must give them credit for introducing me to a type of the Regulative Principle.
Other than Baptist Confessions, which uphold the spiritual law of worship, Baptist catechisms do as well. The Baptist Catechism that attached the London Confession of Faith teaches this regarding the Second Commandment:
Q/A 56-What is required in the Second Commandment? The second commandment requires the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire all such religious worship and ordinances, as God has appointed in his Word. (Italics mine).
Q/A 57-What is forbidden in the Second Commandment? The second commandment forbids the worshipping of God by images, or any other way not appointed in his Word. (Italics mine).
This is the same catechism used by American Baptists during Colonial days and into the 19th century. In fact, this was the first catechism used by proto-Southern Baptists as the framers of the Charleston Baptist Confession (the same as the Philadelphia Confession) attached this catechism to the confession in 1813.
Compare this catechism's questions and answers on the second commandment to the Westminster Shorter Cathechism (Q/A's 50-51) and the Heidelberg Cathechism (Q/A 96). The conclusion is clear: Baptists historically are Calvinistic, even Reformed in their teaching on the Second Commandment, which the spiritual law of worship emerges. To reiterate the Church of Christ (corporately) is to worship only according to the express commandments and approved examples of the Holy Word of God, and is never to add anything to, or take from these commandments and examples. I also believe that the spiritual law of worship is in effect in private and family worship, but this current conversation is concerned with public worship.
African American Baptists have lost sight of this teaching along with other Baptists. On a personal note that I believe illustrates how far African American Baptists have drifted, I attended a well-to-do, progressive African American Baptist church in Houston, Texas over two years ago on December 25. Actually, the "worship service" was held in an arena with possibly a thousand people in attendance. The "service" was replete with "praise dancers," a hand-bell choir, special music, and NO SERMON. When asked, "how did I like the service?" I answered, "I didn't." When asked, "why?" I stated, "The worship was unbiblical; it went against the second commandment." That assertion caused a little rancor because I wholly believe that the other person in the discussion had no idea that the second commandment dealt with praise dancing, etc. The conversation shifted abruptly, but one other person stated that, "Everyone worships in his own way." That statement more than anything else left me in a mournful state of mind. If a worshiper believes such, can he/she really worship God in spirit and in truth? I think not. To follow the logic this person used, Christians have the authority to change the elements of the Lord's Supper; rather than using the fruit of vine, why not mineral water, or Jones Soda? Instead bread, how about calamari, or egg rolls? That would be blasphemous, wouldn't it? How would Christ feel about this usurpation? When we, the creatures, assume to know better than God in either doctrine or practice, we have usurped God's authority and sovereignty. We are guilty of idolatry.
Brother and sisters, we have some worked to do and much praying to do on this issue.
We who are committed to historic Reformed theology and practice must argue (lovingly) what the Scriptures teach on the issue of worship.
Reformed4ever.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
While I am not Reformed and do not strictly adhere to the regulative principle, I think that it is important that every group of believers be cognizant of their heritage and the theological implications of their doctrines. In this regard, Baptists, especially National Baptists fall short. It is a shame that National Baptists and other Black American Baptist traditions are not knowledgeable of their rich heritage. For instance, I once asked an ordained elder in the Black Primitive Baptists about John Calvin and he had never heard of him. I used the word predestination and he was immediately familiar but he did not seem to understand the historical context of Reformation teaching on the subject. This is a sad commentary on the theological ignorance that is allowed in our Black Christian circles. The National Baptists and other Black American Baptists need to carefully revisit their rich theological heritage in order to accurately assess the current situation. I think that the current situation is a sad day for the church. In reading Thabiti Anyabile's assessment in "The Decline of African-American Theology" I was saddened by how far we have drifted as Black American Christians from our historic Protestant orthodox roots. While I do not think that his view that Old Princeton theology is the standard by which we should be judged, I do think that he is on to something in terms of the lack of theological depth in the contemporary Black church. I am committed to the Classical Pentecostal tradition so I have some issues with some aspects of Reformed theology but I must say that if I had to choose between the old Reformed Black Baptists and what qualifies as the Black church today I would gladly identify with the the older theology. I wish there was more research into the history of Protestant orthodoxy among Black American Christians. I wish you Godspeed in your endeavor to research and teach us about the historic Black church and our modern theological deviations from orthodoxy.
Thank you sir for your pointed insights and remarks. We, as African American Christians especially, must be cognizant of the history of Protestantism. We do ourselves a diservice by operating from ahistorical theological paradigms. Why am I a Baptist? From a human perspective, I am because of my father. I've remained Baptist because of the clarity of the doctrine and the closeness of its doctrine to Holy Scripture.
As I will develop later, since you raised the point of not upholding the regulative principle, the regulative principle is nothing but the application of Sola Scripture to matters of worship. This is the Calvinistic/Protestant doctrine National Baptists need to study.
The praise dancing, the unholy music, the shallow lyrics of the songs all scream for the need to Reform worship in African American churches.
Post a Comment