The Relevance of the Doctrinal Statements of Earlier Church History for Studying the BFM2000

In this series, we are poking around in search of relevant information that will help us come to grips with the issues of “caveats” and “tiers” in relation to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.  For good measure, I have added in consideration of the helpful analogies of a “canon within the canon” and “canon” vs. “apocrypha.

In the first installment, I considered what the New Testament has to say in these areas.  There wasn’t much to look at in regard to caveats and tiers, or even a canon within the canon (other than how the NT quotes quite heavily from certain books, but not much–or not at all, with Esther–from others).  The most helpful area of consideration in regard to the NT had to do with the emerging canon, in contrast to other books–some even written by an apostle–spoken of in the NT which did not have full canonical authority.  (That, of course, sounds eerily similar to what the NAMB, IMB and Southwestern Seminary trustee boards have done: effectively claim ”canonical” [i.e., BFM2000-like] authority for their “apocryphal” [non-consensus] de facto doctrinal guidelines/policies.)

As we move into post-New Testament era church history, we will endeavor to stick to our stated series guidelines.  I’m going to do my best to keep it: 1) selective (as opposed to boring you with example after example); 2) simple (as opposed to technical); and 3) specific (in application to the SBC context).  Any recommendations as to how I can accomplish these goals better will be greatly appreciated!

So, get strapped in.  We’re going to cover a lot of history in a short span of time/writing.  While that may seem like a disadvantage, the flip side is the advantage of being able to get a quick overview look at similar situations across a sizeable swath of time.

In moving through the period of the church fathers and theologians, there were heresies in regard to several of the core doctrines of the faith that had to be dealt with by church councils (starting with Nicea, in AD 325), which produced important consensus creedal statements.  Alongside those early theological face-offs, the recognition of the NT canon was finalized, with a compressed canon viewpoint partially forcing the church to face the issue. 

Later, corrupt mechanical medieval Catholicism encountered a reform movement that spread providentially.  During the Reformation and Post-Reformation periods, issues like caveats in regard to ever more detailed creedal statements sometimes became very big deals. 

In addition, the Counter-Reformation formally expanded the Catholic canon, after having used the apocrypha for doctrinal purposes (e.g., as the primary “biblical” basis for their teaching on purgatory) for hundreds of years before.  In reality, they were forced to do so in the face of tenacious Protestant agreement on the canon of the 66 books of inspired Scripture and perceptive criticism of Catholic appeal to the unofficial apocrypha. 

The first Baptist doctrinal statements emerged from the Anabaptist movement.  Then came the London Baptist Confessions of Faith (1644, 1689), and–here in the United States–the New Hampshire Confession (1833).  The first distinctly Southern Baptist statement of faith was the Abstract of Principles, originally adopted by Southern Seminary  in 1858. 

For our purposes at this point, suffice it to say that the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message (which we will get to in the next installment) was, for the most part, an adaptation of the Abstract of Principles, which was largely adapted from the New Hampshire Confession.  In each case, the changes had to do with the distinctive Baptist theological emphases of each historical period/geographical setting. 

Now, it is time to ask: what do we need to learn in each of our areas of interest from this “helicopter” view of church history?  We will start with caveats, proceeding to tiers, then the “canon within the canon” issue and, finally, “canon” vs. “apocrpypha.”

It appears that the best way to approach the caveats issue is to note that earlier doctrinal statements did not spread out and cover so much doctrinal ground, but were more detailed in regard to a specific doctrinal area.  So, for example, when Arius expressed his “caveat” about the Nicene understanding of the person of Christ, that point of disagreement was enough to consider him and his belief as heterodox (effectively a heretic).

By contrast, in later centuries, creedal statements had become so much more detailed that a caveat, or even several caveats, might not make any major difference, especially if you could defend your position biblically.  For example, Moise Amyraut was tried three times for heresy by the French Reformed synod in the mid- to late 1600s, because he held to a non-Calvinist view often called “hypothetical universalism.”  Each time, though, he was acquited because he knew both Scripture and Calvin better than his accusers (or the creed, in this case).

In regard to the tiers issue, a couple of situations are worth noting.  Since the church of the early centuries saw fit to hammer out such issues as the person of Christ and the Trinity before what we might consider to be other equally important doctrines, perhaps history is telling us that those should be viewed as “first tier” doctrines.

On the other hand, the huge dispute between the followers of Jacob Arminius and the Dutch Calvinists focused around five points that approximate to the degree of sinfulness of mankind, the divine-human balance in salvation and whether there is security for the believer.  So, you could make a case that the wider issues of the gospel, including God’s choice in the matter, plus the security issue, are the “core” doctrines that deserve to be seen as the first tier.

In looking at the canon within the canon viewpoint, two classic, though significantly different, examples are Marcion and Luther.  Marcion’s hard core stripped down “canon” rejected the entire Hebrew Bible, as well as all the New Testament, except Paul’s Epistles and the Gospel of Luke.  He kept only the “Gentile” part with which he was comfortable.  Luther, by contrast, only questioned the canonicity of James, calling it “a right strawy epistle” and placed it at the end of the German Bible.

Bottom line here: Moving aggressively for a smaller canon gets you labelled a heretic (Marcion).  Just questioning things, and preaching from a reduced canon (Luther) hardly raises any hackles at all, even though 2 Timothy 3:16 clearly says that “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable… .”

Finally, on the canon vs. apocrypha front, the fourth century achieved the decisive “consensus” (a term used prominently in the Garner BFM2000 Motion, if you recall), noted clearly in Athanasius’ Easter Letter (367), but most importantly in the vote of the Council of Carthage (397).  At that point, books like 1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas, which some were enamored with, receded into officially non-authoritative status, after hanging around on the edge of things and being accepted in some quarters (which sounds disturbingly like what has happened with the ”apocryphal” additions of some of the entity trustee boards).

Our final example for this installment in the series is the Catholic tradition for several centuries prior to the Council of Trent (1545-63).  They relied upon the Apocrypha, which had never received official “consensus” recognition as Scripture, as the so-called “Scriptural” basis for their distinctive doctrine of purgatory, which spawned the graft of indulgences.  With that glaring example of what can happen when non-consensus doctrinal positions are allowed to hold sway, should we really be surprised that SBC entity trustee boards are successfully running the same scam right before our eyes today?  After all, the Catholic Church got away with it just fine until the Reformers called their hand on it (i.e., proclaiming sola scriptura).  It is truly sad that it must be asked, “Will the SBC listen to its reformers today, or just continue to follow this terrible Catholic precedent, for no other reason than the completely irresponsible half-truth that trustees are not really fully accountable to the Convention for their decisions?”  Selah and Amen.