Consider the following:
The 2000 Baptist Faith and Message
Article III. Man
Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation. Only the grace of God can bring man into His holy fellowship and enable man to fulfill the creative purpose of God. The sacredness of human personality is evident in that God created man in His own image, and in that Christ died for man; therefore, every person of every race possesses full dignity and is worthy of respect and Christian love.
Wade Burleson, a trustee of the SBC’s IMB, explains: “The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 teaches that the descendants of Adam are not under condemnation ‘until’ they are capable of moral action. In other words, according to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 nobody is actually condemned for the sin of Adam, but rather, condemnation comes as a result of one’s own personal, actual sin. In other words, infants are ‘innocent’ before God and not under condemnation until they are capable of moral action and ‘choose’ to sin, and are then placed ‘under condemnation.’”
It seems that the authors of the BF&M 2000 attempted to appease the “age of accountability” proponents. Go here to see a comparison of the BF&M’s 1925, 1963, and 2000 to see proof that the language in this article was specifically changed from the orthodox definition of depravity to the new “non-Calvinistic” version.
Even though Wade Burleson prefers the definition of Depravity as it is written in the 1925 version, he believes that this issue is a non-essential issue. He explains, “Now, I frankly believe that there is room for Southern Baptists who believe both interpretations. Some Southern Baptists believe condemnation is because of Adam’s one sin, and others believe that no condemnation comes until there is personal, actual sin. I think the ‘tent’ is big enough for people who hold to these two different interpretations on this point of doctrine which is not an essential of the faith.”
I understand Burleson’s political view — namely that the SBC should be a “big tent” in order to continue to be healthy and successful as a denomination. I don’t know if I agree with it — but I understand it. And I understand that many true believers believe in the “age of accountability.” So I understand and agree that this issue is a non-essential as far as a person’s regeneration is concerned.
But just because this issue is a “non-essential” in that regard, I do not think that it is a non-essential issue in general — indeed, I think it is symptomatic of the theological problems among so many of my fellow SBC’ers. The condition of a human’s heart is a point of theology that goes to the very heart of the Gospel. This article completely strips away the entire teaching of the Adamic curse! This is so ironic from a denomination that emphasizes child evangelism — indeed, it sheds whole new light on the mantra, “You have to get ‘em lost before you get ‘em saved!”
Why are so many SBC’ers misinformed concerning the doctrines of depravity, imputation, and grace? Does anyone really believe that humans begin live in Christ and then at some point switch to being in Adam and then at regeneration are back into Christ for a second time? Did the founders of the SBC really believe that any human gets to heaven because they are INNOCENT of sin? And does anybody know who was responsible for the way this article was written in the BF&M 1963 & 2000?
Tweet
Jason Robertson is a husband and a father and a pastor. He is dedicated to leading and equipping his the Church with God’s word and biblical theology for life ministry, using a combination of pastoral, church planting and evangelism experience. He holds a Master of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is experienced in church planting, evangelism, missions, and the training of pastors and Bible teachers.
Jason has been preaching the gospel since 1985, serving the first ten years of ministry as a Southern Baptist itinerant evangelist out of Milldale Baptist Church in Zachary, LA which ordained him in 1993. He has preached in hundreds of churches in over 30 States and 4 countries. He planted churches in Siberia, Russia in the summers of 1993 and 1994. He founded Murrieta Valley Church in California, which he planted in cooperation with the SBC NAMB in 2001. He also teaches ministry students at California Baptist University.
You can hear his sermons and read his manuscripts on sermonaudio.com. Just follow the link to "sermons" at the top of this page.
Did the founders of the SBC really believe that any human gets to heaven because they are INNOCENT of sin?
That is what I usually ponder. If babies, children, etc. are allowed into heaven because they are innocent (and not sinners) if they die before they can mentally choose to sin (whatever/whenever that means), then would that not mean that there will be people in heaven that did not need a Savior at all? So while we sinners will be casting our crowns at the feet of Jesus praising Him for what He has done for us, what will they be doing?
I just reread the comparisons. It appears that the 1925 version is the only different one, that the 2000 version actually copies from the 1963 version.
So what happened between 1925 and 1963?
A misunderstanding of original sin always denigrates the grace of God and therefore leads men to not fully appreciate His wondrous grace. It also causes men not to see the pervasiveness of their sin and that we are totally sinful creatures. This then lessens our appreciation of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us and the imputation of our sin to Him, and how can you really understand justification if you can’t fully grasp imputation. In essence, this misunderstanding of original sin raises man and thereby lowers God. Romans 12:3 tells us not to think more highly or ourselves than we ought to think.
One of the issues behind the all the problems in the SBC over the last two decades is that the tent has been too large. Maybe some shrinkage would help us be more effective in true evangelism and church growth.
Mark Coppenger published an article on this point in the Founders Journal, Summer 1996 entitled “The Ascent of Lost Man in Southern Baptist Preaching.”
He writes:
When we read the 1859 Abstract of Principles of Southern Seminary, we find that lost man inherits a “nature corrupt and wholly opposed to God and His law.” Sixty-six years later, the first Baptist Faith and Message said men “inherit a nature corrupt and in bondage to sin.” The 1963 revision stated that men “inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin.” One wonders how a fresh revision might read in the year 2025? If the theological trajectory remains the same, perhaps in the 21st century men will be said to “inherit a nature open to sin as an option.”
Don Elbourne
Hey Jason,
Good post – I think it’s absolutely necessary to question Wade’s approach – particularly as his voice is broading and having more influence among younger SBC’ers. I believe he has a lot of good things to say – but – I am firmly convinced that the “big tent” mentality in many respects is a slippery slope.
(A thought also for WSSC.com)On the issue of the BFM 2000 definition depravity – for the purpose of ensuring that the SBC articulates a biblical and historical position – I think it’s important to separate the doctrine of sin and the doctrine of infant/child salvation (i.e., “age of accountability). While the two are closely related – they need to be addressed separately.
Let me explain…If we mesh the two together for the purpose of defining sin – then there is a bias that colors the discussion.
Let’s first deal with the issue of the doctrine of sin and then approach the issue of the age of accountability. Because there are those who hold to a biblical view of sin and God’s mercy to children (not having reached the age of accountability – e.g. – MacArthur).
But, we must sin the defining of sin as an essential doctrine because once we begin to give the tag of non-negotiable, as Morris points out, there goes the gospel.
This needs to be addressed as it is a very critical issue. Interestingly enough – John believed the doctrine of depravity to be essential (1 John 1:8,10).
Jude 2,
Q
Herschel Hobbs is responsible for the 1963 version. That version was intended, on several items, to appease several parties in the SBC.
This is precisely why I have been stating that the SBC should get rid of the BFM and draft a COMPLETELY new confession that is well written. At present, it functions like the 39 Articles of the Christian Religion. A Reformed Anglican and an Anglo-Catholic can read their doctrines into the 39 Articles, and the BFM is much the same way. The BFM is, altogether, a bad confession. It’s the 4th iteration of the New Hampshire, but each iteration gets us further away from the historical confession itself.
I have problems with the whole “Age of Accountability” thing.
My daughter is trying to get my attention at the moment. She is just over 2 years old. It is my desire for her to be in heaven with me. So why not just kill her so that she can go to heaven?
So many SBC’ers are “mis-informed” because the BFM is flawed in some areas. I vote for a re-write.
The irony here is that some folks this past year have come out against what they are calling “Burlesonism” because they feel it represents a moderating position that can change in a generation.
But the BFM itself is a moderating confession. It is inconsistent, in my opinion, to oppose Wade and support the BFM as is.
There is a way to write a confession that is both “conservative” and “mediating.” That is to say, it reflects broadly theological conservative principles (like inerrancy) and is broad enough for monergists and synergists and others to cooperate.
How? By taking a lesson from historical theology. There are, in fact, 2 ways. One way is by adopting a multi-confessional system like the Formula of Concord, or the Moravian symbols, or the 3 Forms of Unity.
The other way is to draft a new Southern Baptist Confession from scratch that utilizes positive and negative articles. This is a relatively old practice that goes back several hundred years, but folks aren’t generally aware of it.
The first principle is not to err to “excess” where every article is “fundamental” to being Southern Baptist. That’s the old Lutheran error. The Lutherans and the Reformed Orthodox could not agree on a broad “Protestant” confession because the Lutherans wanted to make all articles “fundamental” to being Protestant. Catholicism follows that same error, and many fundamentalists in the IFBx churches seem to follow that error too.
Positive articles delineate what is considered “orthodox.” Negative articles delineate specific items that will not be tolerated. At Trent, the Catholics, for their part, made the power of Rome fundamental and definitional to any fundamental doctrine’s very determination. They also included the merit system, mass, penance, and purgatory; and in negative articles, they anathematized the whole of the Reformed and Lutheran soteriological and epistemological doctrines and principles.
Positive articles include the doctrines of Scripture, God, the Trinity, Christology, pneumatology, Sola Fide soteriology, and (for Baptists) believer’s baptism, and regenerate church membership as primary and consist mainly in affirmations of saving truth. For example, “Christ is the Son of God; Christ is the ransom for our sins,” are positive affirmations. Negative articles within a confession identify errors of two sorts: immediate errors and indirect or secondary errors resulting from application of incorrect logic in doctrinal matters.
Blatant heresies, like Arianism or justification by merit fall into this first category of error. In the second category, a doctrine may controvert an error in the first if it is consistently followed. For example, the Reformed Orthodox of High Orthodox era dealt with an Arminianism that was friendly with Socinianism and which tended to conflate justification and sanctification, depending on its “flavor.” Ergo, negative articles might name Arminian errors.
In our own context, negative articles might name administrator baptism – not because it is blatantly heretical, but because it lends to errors in ecclesiology and sacramentology that are necessary for the health of the church.
Those persons in the first class are all infidels and unbelievers, or, at the very least unable to give a credible profession of faith for membership and cooperation. Those in the second class are schismatics and should be treated on a case by case basis.
In our own situation, it is undeniable that the SBC is composed of “General” Baptists and “Particular Baptists/Amyraldians.” I have advocated a similar approach in the past regarding the BFM as an example of this thinking. That is, if a new Baptist confession was drawn, positive articles could delineate the “Particular” soteriology and the “General” soteriological articles. Together, these would clearly delineate the bounds of orthodoxy and cooperation between Calvinists and Arminians in the SBC. Then, in a separate set of negative articles, the bounds of schism would be delineated on the one hand (anti-missionism, Neo-Gnostic hyper-Calvinism for example) and outright heresy on the other (Open Theism, Neo-Orthodox views of revelation). Again, this requires a careful, well constructed, well thought out theology and a mechanism for delineating, for purposes of trusteeships and office holding at the denominational level, which articles are not negotiable.
Thus, the boundaries are clearly delineated. There is no ambiguous language when folks lay out, in well thought out language, what is meant. There is room for debate as well, but it is more like the intramural debate on the RB list regarding the 1689 Confession, and the Calvinists and anti-Calvinists will not be in a state of war with each other with anti-Calvinists wanting to root out the Calvinists and vice versa. Instead, they can debate the issues freely and let the churches decide for themselves, which is the way it should be. Right now, I fear we have too many people wanting to elevate “Baptist principles” (however they wish to define them) to the level of primary doctrines around which all else must conform. That might work for believer’s baptism in general or for a regenerate church membership, but when you get to issues like eternal security or “Baptist tradition” (however defined), which are not historic Baptist principles qua principles, that’s a problem. The big danger is rationalism, in which something other than the doctrine of God and Scripture become the controlling principia. That’s the problem with Arminianism and libetarian free will, and it’s the problem with hyperCalvinism and God’s sovereignty or the 5 Points. It can happen with Baptistery too, if we elevate “historic Baptist principles” to that level.
Salient, surely you are a deeper thinker than your above post indicates. Your statement is akin to arminians telling calvinists there is no need to evangelize if election is true.
It seems like a year ago John Piper put an article out about the death of infant(very young) children. His position is that while they are inherently sinful just like everyone else, God does not damn them for that or sins committed prior to the ability to understand. I think John MacArthur takes the same view.
James,
It is evident from the link that Salient placed in his comments that he was not endorsing the position. In fact it is obvious.
G A Jones, I agree completely that the doctrine of sin and infant child salvation need to be separated. I personally think the theology concerning child salvation needs to be addressed in light of the doctrine of sin and the doctrine of justification by faith. I grew up hearing about this “age of accountability”, but honestly it is not biblical, and is inconsistent with anyone who claims to believe in justification by faith alone. You cannot belief both, because they are in direct odds with each other.
“Instead, they can debate the issues freely and let the churches decide for themselves, which is the way it should be.”
Gene– This though is the mentality that lead to one side becoming dominant and silencing the other. How can we have a general rule of “freedom of conscience” in the Convention and then have Churches deny it to its congregants. I mean this, our Churches pastor, a couple of decades ago excommunicated three Calvinists because of their beliefs without contest. Anyone observing this was then either silenced or convinced as to the position. But, if we SBC’ers believe in “freedom of conscience,” at least the type Mullins and Hobbs advocated which Wade Burleson mischaracterizes as that which was held by orthodox Reformed believers of the past, then how can a church practice exclusionism in it own ranks and stand in integrity with the SBC.
Its impossible. I think if you will review the decline of orthodoxy in the SBC it begins with the attitudes of tolerance for personal opinions. The Scripture, however, quite contrary to the “liberal” views of Mullins and Hobbs, disallows “opinion.” “Scripture is not given for any private interpretation (opinion) but men of old spoke as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” The modern paradigm is that all opinions are equal, and equally true, even if Hobbs and Mullins said that there are certain timeless truths that all Baptists hold to. Tell that to T.D. Jakes and those who are partnering with this flaming heretic. “Texas pastor Jack Graham of Prestonwood Baptist Church unites with charismatic leader T.D. Jakes for a second annual “Global Day of Prayer” on Pentecost weekend, after which both churches lead the Dallas community in 90 days of blessing their communities. Graham draws repeated fire from SBC fundamentalists who think building homes and praying with T.D. Jakes are compromises of the doctrine of the Trinity.” And we could talk of James Draper’s closing comments of the 2005 Convention in which he destroyed the doctrine of Christ’s sinlessness, not to mention that the Lifeway’s Spring guide told its teens that Christ could have sinned if he had chosen too.
That is why there is a declension in orthodoxy. Who is to say what is right, when opinions are allowed to stand as truth. Therefore, all doctrines are on the auction block, now, for sale to the most powerful bidders all in the name of cooperation.
I do not advocate an implicit faith. However, there guidelines in Scripture that keep us from devolving into error such as 1 Corinthians 4.6. In this I would absolutely agree with you that the negative articles is a good idea. This Scripture addresses that, in part. If we cannot come to an absolute agreement according to the Word of God, then it must be considered opinions of men and cannot be taught as Truth.
I would suggest that anyone interested, go back and consider the differences between the liberal modernism of Mullins’ and Hobbs’ understandings of “liberty of conscience,” and “soul competency,” and that which the reformers held as to these particular doctrines.
We must understand that Mullinsism, or latitudinarianism, like politcal liberalism is not about cooperation. It is about compromise of the Truth. What we have as historical record in the SBC, is that those who wanted liberty to defect from the founding principles of the Convention ascended to power and crushed the founders. To wit, we now have only a 10% remnant of Calvinists, and brass men in positions of power in the SBC who do not shame at mischaracterizations of history, who caricaturize Calvinism, and can openly label the historic doctrines of the SBC as heresy and no one bats an eye. This is history of cooperation. But, as Christ said, “How can two walk together, lest the agree…You cannot love two masters.” The desire for expansion and funding, prominence and power is the reason that compromise was first made. The enemy is always sooo willing to lend assistance.
Brother, you have been to Triablogue recently and I have warned you that you are flirting with hyper-Calvinism in your characterizastions regarding Arminians and Arminianism, so forgive me if I do not accept what you have to say about some things.
The churches, brother, have always been free to decide issues for themselves. The Association is free to disassociate with the churches, call them to repent, etc., but, dear brother, the Baptist way has always been to allow the local churches to decide issues for themselves.
I can’t help but notice that you completely ignored what I stated about positive and negative articles that would clearly and definitely define the bounds of orthodoxy and which errors would not be tolerated at all. It would be helpful if you would place my comments about the churches in that context.
Your way, as it stands, attacks the autonomy of the local church. And, yes, Brother Wade is right about the Reformed way. I know this, because I’m the one that wrote a paper on that subject for him that is derived from Richard Muller’s own research on this subject. If you disagree, then I look forward to your rebuttal of the last chapter of Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics Volume 1.
The Three Forms of Unity is a prime example. The Heidelburg Cathchism is a prime example. The First Helvetic Confession is a prime example.
The Reformed have always distinguished between doctrine for the churches and doctrine for the academy. The Reformed have always distinguished between errors that are direct and indirect, and the Reformed have never, ever come to a conclusion on exactly what is fundamental and what is not in all times and places. Dort might be construed to repudiate not only Arminianism but Amyraldianism’s view of the atonement, but that does not mean that Amyraldians are excluded from the Reformed consensus, for example. Nobody would countenance anti-trintarianism, but there is room for Nicene subordination and Calvin’s view (and mine), which differs.
You say: “This though is the mentality that lead to one side becoming dominant and silencing the other”
So, I take it you were opposed to the Conservative Resurgence? I take it you are opposed to the Synod of Dort? That’s the Reformed way; that’s the Baptist way too. The Presbyterians and Dutch do it by presbyterys and colloquies, the Baptists do it by the local church. The Regular Baptists of NC and SC did it that way too. The Separates did it differently, and they garnered much distrust from the Regulars for it. They had to give up your way at the union.
Who, pray tell, gets to decide which articles are fundamental if not the local churches through their messengers? Your way seems to be to call all things fundamental. You’ll have a hard time holding everybody to the 1689 Confession in your church as they grow, sir. I’m on the RB list, and we are NOT all in one accord with the 1689. We debate it regularly.
That is why there is a declension in orthodoxy. Who is to say what is right, when opinions are allowed to stand as truth.
Of course, in the context of what I wrote, this objection makes no sense. The boundaries are set, and the churches are free to debate within those boundaries.
Therefore, all doctrines are on the auction block, now, for sale to the most powerful bidders all in the name of cooperation.
This is, of course, an utter straw man regarding what I have said here and what Wade himself has stated. I have personally lamented the lack of clarity coming from the SBC on which articles are primary and which are not; which are not-negotiable, and which are not. You sir, seem to be a functional Lutheran or Catholic in that regard. They made the error you are making. The Reformed did not.
What we have as historical record in the SBC, is that those who wanted liberty to defect from the founding principles of the Convention ascended to power and crushed the founders.
That is a tendentious characterization. What we have in the SBC is a repeat of Geneva from 1725 to the 19th century. What we have isn’t a desire for liberty, but the rise of rationalistic theologies, in which central planks were inserted into the theology of the individual and then the churches. That’s what happened in Geneva, and that’s what happened in the SBC. It wasn’t “a desire for liberty,” rather it was a systematic buying into the theological methods of the times. Ironically, those who cry now about “Baptist principles” whether they relate to PPL (for or against, it matters not) or even “Calvinism” or on the other side, “Free will,” are making the exact same error. Those principles are not proper for constructing a confessional theology. That is rank rationalism. Scripture and God are the twin principia on which a proper theology is founded. All else comes from them.
What Wade has argued and what I have argued here and will continue to argue, Brother, is that the denominational confession should be broad enough to include as many as possible within the pale of orthodoxy and specific enough to delineate those limits as well as the errors that need to be addressed, either my way (by positive and negative articles) or Wade’s way, by some sort of mechanism for what is in Cat. 1, 2, and 3. Wade is not arguing for the inclusion of modalists, Open Theists, and others, or an “anything goes” mentality. He is arguing for a broad consensus that will allow as many churches to cooperate as possible while avoiding the errors of excess.
You, by way of contrast, have come to Triablogue and argued that Arminians deny Sola Fide. The contrast could not be more stark. I, by way of contrast to you, have stated that a credible profession of faith can be had with a Reformed, Lutheran, or Arminian confession (the WCF, Formula of Concord, As.oG Statement). When arguing with Touchstone, aside from basic Theology Proper and Christology and Pneumatology, I included Sola Fide, eg. a proper view of justification. That’s it.
Let us learn from history.
The Heidelberg Catechism is a remarkable example of a broadly Reformed consensus document. Its commentary (by Ursinus), however, takes on a more scholastic flavor. That said, the broader membership of the churches was not required to learn Ursinus’ commentary, rather it was intended as a help to the pastors. This is rather like a standard PCA church today, in which a member does not have to be a Calvinist (or even a Paedobaptist); but deacons and elders must hold to Calvinism or, in a Baptist context, Bethlehem Baptist Church (John Piper’s church), which has a confession for its members but the eldership and diaconate have a larger, more detailed confession they must hold, teach, and defend. Likewise, Bullinger’s own contribution, the Second Helvetic Confession, can be contrasted with the Decades, insofar as the Confession presents predestination as a single decree of election, whereas in the Decades, his personal theology presents predestination in double terms, like Calvin and Beza. Why these differences?
The Reformed Orthodox differentiated between personal theology and academic theology and between academic theology and confessional (ecclesiastical) theology and catechism. Catechisms explain theology to the members of the churches. Confessions define the boundaries of orthodoxy and serve as consensus documents, while at the same time serving as broadly polemical documents by excluding particular views. The Catechism is remarkably silent on what most people think of as “fundamental” Reformed doctrines. Here, the concern was piety and its relation to doctrine, not precise doctrinal standards commonly associated with the more developed confessions. We find, for example, statements about the sufficiency of the cross but not the specific scope of the priestly office and work. These were controversies later theologians had to address, and, academically, these were, even in the era of early Reformed Orthodoxy, separate epistemic questions that required detailed attention. Maccovius’ Loci Communes discusses the Decalogue, Apostle’s Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and sacraments and considers these as fundamental to faith and salvation relating to the Trinity, God’s goodness, justice and omnipotence; the Law, original sin; the two natures of Christ, and the mediatorial work of Christ; justification by faith alone; the basic creedal articles, prayer, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper. It is worth noting that there is no mention of predestination and election as fundamental doctrines.
Note that, on the one hand, Reformed confessions, including the Second London Baptist Confession, are all highly developed, but given the level of catechesis at their point in history and thus their own understanding of their confessions, we find a remarkable lack of concern for the finer points of academic discussion in questions relating to fundamental articles. They reflect their time.
The BFM 2000 itself is a broad confession and quite forgiving compared to the First and Second London Confessions. What was “confessional” knowledge or “catechistical” knowledge in the 17th century is not “academic” for the average church member living in 2007 under the BFM 2000. Our list of fundamentals for inter-church cooperation may need to be cognizant of this reality. Likewise, as that situation hopefully changes, the standards can and perhaps should be tightened, and this is something that requires mutual accountability at the associational level. We must work to elevate the understanding of our faithful members and do something about the discipline of our members in general or else we will find ourselves aiming too low in our list of fundamentals. Ignorance should be taken into account, but it should not be an excuse for laxity. Neither Wade, nor I, have stated otherwise.
At the same time, we must recognize with the High Orthodox that the designation of certain articles like the Trinity, or the two natures of Christ as fundamental and necessary to salvation does not mean we demand the laity become masters of arcane distinctions and difficult concepts in the Chalcedonian Creed or Nicea-Constantinople. also, we must agree that mere intellectual assent is not enough, they must manifest “gracious impressions on the heart and will,” in concert with their understanding, and “a certain regular obedience in the whole course of their lives.” (Samuel Hopkins, On the State and Way of Salvation, Works, 3, 452). Neither can we err in defect or in excess.
Fundamental articles are thus a complex related to one another and Christ Himself, and they are thus foundational to salvation insofar as they relate God’s covenant of grace. In a looser sense, we may expand these fundamentals to include the Law, the Creedal articles (the Apostle’s Creed), the Lord’s Prayer, and the power of the keys. In a stricter sense the fundamentals are precisely those teachings necessary to salvation and the amplification and elaboration of those truths, the underlying beliefs which cannot be ignored or denied,” (Turretin, Institutes, XIV.4).
Taking your own view on Arminianism expressed on my blog, let us see what our forefathers said in the age of High Orthodoxy.
We find
1. We must distinguish between that which is necessary to the being of the church and that which is necessary to the salvation of believers under Category 1 (Objective error).
2. Subjective errors must be distinguished between those arising from ignorance and those arising from unbelief. Also, here too, the condition of the church and that of believers themselves must be distinguished. (Subjective Error)
3. Here, in this third level we must distinguish between patterns, manner, and degrees of judgment and tolerance, so that a difference must be recognized between the rules and judgment of particular churches and the general assent of the church, universal and invisible. Moderation is required in the first case, and firm judgment is necessary in the latter, so far as those who deny universal truths of the church are excluded from heaven (Voetius, in PRRD1, 419). In other words, there is a difference between a difference of opinion, a schism, and outright heresy. (Principles of Distinction)
Also, there is a difference between those doctrines which immediate arise from Scripture’s reading (Trinity, Christology, justification by faith alone) and are primary and those arising by derivation (the exact relationship of the 2 natures; the ordu salutis). To what extent then are can the doctrines in this latter category be considered fundamental?
1. If a doctrine is present and explicit in Scripture it is fundamental and foundational, ergo necessary.
2. The implicit or virtually present doctrine attains a fundamental or normative status when its formulation becomes an issue of debate between orthodox and heterodox Christians.
3. When the heterodox formulation leads to an erroneous and soteriologically dangerous understanding of the explicit and formal or primary doctrines.
4. This argument extends to cover doctrines developed as logical conclusions from primary dogmas.
Here, we must caution. Hyper-Calvinists (and I would say the defenders of the IMB’s baptism policy) are a prime example of the abuse of this fourth principle, when they assert that no Arminian is saved (or that the failure to believe in eternal security constitutes a denial of Sola Fide), because of the way Arminians construe election, atonement, perseverance, etc.
They used, as I have argued, positive and negative articles. They included a mechanism for thinking through indirect and direct error and distinguishing them.
Varieties of fundamental error include three types:
A. Against fundamentals – Direct Error
B. Against fundamentals – Indirect Error
C. Against fundamentals – Beyond the matter
The first is a direct attack. The Socinians directly attacked the Trinity and the divinity of Christ. Many Anabaptists, along with the Catholics attacked justification by faith alone directly. The second would be a doctrine that is subversive of a fundamental. Open theism denies God’s providence by denying infallible future foreknowledge. The attack is indirect, by way of libertarian freedom. Libertarianism itself denies no fundamental if it is construed in relation to prevenient grace, but, in this instance, it is the way it is employed by Open Theists that makes its use an indirect attack on a fundamental, for it is, in Pinnock’s case not only attacking the doctrine of God, but also introducing a post-mortem universalism. The third class involves faith in problematic and curious questions that do not arise from the Word of God plainly, like PPL or “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” or dogmatic statements about supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism.
By denying Sola Fide, Romanists denied a fundamental article; ergo Stafer called them heretics, for they accepted the merit system and the supremacy of the Pope, resting the foundation of the whole Church on an institution and not Christ’s Lordship (Stafer, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, IV.xiv.§ 6).
The Lutherans were said to err to beyond the Fundamentals. They denied double predestination but accept Sola Gratia, so they are not heretics; rather their specific formulation of predestination at the conceptual level differed with the Reformed. Functionally, it was no different. However, their doctrine of the Lord’s Super depends on a particular Christology that is implicitly Monophysitic and their doctrine of baptism could lead to a denial of Sola Fide if pressed in a particular direction. Thus, they erred in falling into Christological speculation and losing Sola Gratia like the Arminians.
The Arminians erred against fundamentals, not because of their soteriology , but because they denied the innate knowledge of God, and thus flirted with Socinianism. Arminians who accepted Sola Fide and did not screw up their doctrine of God in the process were charged not with fundamental error (a denial of Sola Fide or Theology Proper), but an indirect error (a denial of Sola Gratia). Indirect error is schismatic, not heretical.
In all of this, there was great latitude among the Reformed. Turretin’s list of fundamentals and that of Witsius did not agree. Explicit articles, for the Orthodox, included: The Trinity, the doctrine of sin, Christ’s person, nature, and work, the doctrines of the gospel, Sola Fide, justification, sanctification, true worship, resurrection, eternal life (PRRD, 426). That sounds remarkably like the BFM 2000, doesn’t it. Some also referenced the Apostle’s Creed. Other confessions like the WCF and LBCF2 borrowed from the Nicene.
There is no doctrinal rigidity here. Why? Because any list is apt to be developed in the context of polemics. It is also clear that, the Reformed Orthodox left us with a position that attempts to find a mediating path between Socinian and Arminian reductionism on one side and Catholic and Lutheran multiplication to excess on the other. Here lies the danger in drawing the circle too wide or too narrow. Who are today’s “Socinians?” Who are today’s “Lutherans?” From my personal perspective, the SBC at present is at a crossroads. Having just recovered from errors of reduction in their immediate past, they are now, if certain voices (particular those of the SBTC and SWBTS and other places) have their way, in error of erring to excess.
Historically, from the time of the Reformation to the time of High Orthodoxy among Lutherans and Reformed, only these traditions maintained the right stability, but Lutherans, who erred to excess were generally the first to fall into rank liberalism through the Tübingen School. This will happen to the SBC if every article is made non-negotiable. History bears this out. The Reformed lost their academies and did orthodox theology in the churches of Europe, and, for a time at Princeton (for the Baptists SBTS and SWBTS) much more slowly. Those who held onto orthodox principles and methods held onto their orthodox doctrine and practice the longest. Those who held to central dogmas and/or erred to excess or defect never had the kind of stability of these groups.