Reggie Weems

Tennessee’s oldest Association, the Holston Baptist Association, appropriately chartered itself on Reformation Eve, October 30th, 1786. The charter’s fifth point reads, “The present Baptist confession of faith, We adopt as our Confession, the same which was adopted at Philadelphia (Pennsylvania) in the year of our Lord – 1742.” The Holston Baptist Association did not exist a single day without a confession of faith. It adopted the Philadelphia Baptist Confession the very same Monday that seven churches chartered as an Association. Adopting the Philadelphia Confession was in sincere and complete alignment with Baptists throughout history. Baptists in Tennessee and worldwide have always been confessional. In its preamble, the BF&M 2000 states, “Throughout our history we have been a confessional people, adopting statements of faith as a witness to our beliefs and a pledge of our faithfulness to the doctrines revealed in Holy Scripture.” Every generation has well understood that doctrine determines destiny. Although Baptists traditionally view their history through one of two historical systems, Anabaptist or Separatist, both veins of Baptist history have consistently defined themselves and their Baptist distinctives through confessions.

The German born martyr, Balthasar Hübmaier was the only Anabaptist leader schooled in scholastic theology. He left the Catholic Church and became an evangelical in 1523, publishing his confession of faith, “Achtzehn Schlußreden or Eighteen Theses in Waldshut, Germany, only one year later. In Eighteen, Hübmaier displayed a radical commitment to Scripture alone as the Christian’s source of faith and practice but still considered a confession essential to delineate Anabaptist distinctives as separate from the Catholics, Zwingli and Calvin. His 1525 work of “Summa of the Entire Christian Life” detailed his views on communion while his On the Christian Baptism of Believers (1525) publicly furthered his teaching on adult, believer’s baptism. The only scholastically trained Anabaptist leader of the 16th century understood the need for and wrote a confession of faith. If Baptists originated from the Anabaptists then it is perfectly in line with that tradition to be confessional. To a degree (the degree is debated as the Jerusalem-John-River Jordan theory versus the Anabaptist spiritual kinship theory) Anabaptists definitely influenced the likes of John Smyth and Thomas Helwys, the ancestors of the General Baptists in England.

In 1611, Thomas Helwys separated himself from John Smyth on the grounds of his own Baptist beliefs and eventually returned to England with a small remnant of Smyth’s once Baptist congregation. Helwys is honored by Regent’s Park College (Baptist) at Oxford University as the first Baptist and he became the pastor of the first Baptist congregation on English soil. Most importantly Helwys also wrote the first plea for religious liberty in the English language. Addressed and delivered to King James (of 1611 fame), the pamphlet eventually cost Helwys his freedom and life. In that booklet titled, “The Mystery of Iniquity” (1612) Helwys pleaded for religious liberty and freedom of conscience not simply for Baptists but for every religion on the globe. Yet the same man who gave his life for soul freedom and liberty of conscience also wrote, “Declaration of Faith of English People Remaining at Amsterdam” in 1611, a 27-article Baptist confession for his own congregation. Like Smyth, Helwys saw no contradiction between soul liberty, freedom of the conscience and allegiance to a document that espoused the Baptist faith. Smyth and Helwys were both General Baptists.

In 1644 and again in 1689, the Particular Baptists also produced their own Confessions of Faith. Their purposes were the same as Smyth and Helwys. Through the 1644 and 1689 Confessions they intended to publicly declare their Baptist distinctives as differentiated from Catholics, Anglicans, Presbyterians and others who all claimed a belief in the Bible as their sole and soul authority. Particular Baptists confessed the independency of each congregation but also the common bond of doctrine required of each congregation writing, “although the particular Congregations be distinct and several Bodies, every one a compact and knit City in itself: yet are they all to walk by one and the same Rule” (44/Article XLVII). They saw no contradiction between church or soul independence alongside of doctrinal accountability. Early Baptists in America adopted the Philadelphia Confession of 1742 which was simply a slightly altered version of the 1689 London Baptist Confession. Particular Baptists denied any Anabaptist affiliation and present the Separatist view of Baptist history. In fact, one of the primary purposes for publishing the 1644 Confession was to disavow any likeness to the Continental Anabaptists. Yet like Anabaptists and General Baptists, Particular Baptists also demonstrated a passion for soul liberty and freedom of conscience. Article 20 of the 1689 Confession stated ” God alone is lord of the conscience, and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship. So that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commandments out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience….and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.” Like Anabaptists and General Baptists before them, Particular Baptists saw no conflict between adopting a statement or confession of faith and practicing soul liberty and freedom of conscience.

Baptist history irrefutably reveals that it is very Baptist to practice soul liberty and preach freedom of conscience while simultaneously creating and adopting a Baptist Confession of Faith. The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 is a Baptist confession of faith in a long line of Baptist confessions that have co-existed with Baptists since their inception. It defines Baptists as distinctive from all others who also claim the Bible as the Word of God. Without such Confessions, Baptists possess no distinctives, which separate them from other believers and/or denominations. Certain biblical doctrines are non-negotiable for Southern Baptists – indeed to be a Baptist. Such thinking was the centerpiece of James P. Boyce’s address in 1856 to the trustees of Furman University. Dr. Boyce’s concerns for theological integrity among Baptist found its fruition in the Abstract of Principles (the first Confession of Faith endorsed by Southern Baptists) on which Southern Seminary was founded.

The BF&M 2000 openly declares itself subservient and accountable to the Bible. Baptists have historically proclaimed God’s Word as their sole and soul authority while also producing Baptist Confessions that demonstrate Baptist distinctives and propagate Baptist identity. No soul has the right to reject the Bible as its sole authority. Historic Baptist Confessions, the BF&M 2000 included, clearly affirm this truth. They do not impede on soul liberty or freedom of conscience. As all preceding Baptist Confessions, the BF&M 2000 simply, powerfully and necessarily adds clarity to how Baptists have historically interpreted the Bible. To reject the BF&M 2000 in the name of being a Baptist, is, in fact, very unBaptist. The Southern Baptist Convention was founded in 1845 as a missionary enterprise whose very hope for world evangelization was based on Baptist doctrinal distinctives confessed by Baptists. The Baptist perspective on Scripture gave rise to Baptists seeking to promote “the faith once delivered unto the saints” to the entire world. Thus, in that year, 293 delegates in Augusta, Georgia, committed themselves to “eliciting, combining and directing the energies of the whole denomination in one sacred effort, for the propagation of the gospel.” As such, the BF&M 2000 stands in historical continuity with such an hallowed effort.

In complete compliance with the history of our Baptist faith and the Southern Baptist Convention’s history, the BF&M 2000 asserts the need for doctrinal integrity as a Convention while simultaneously and inherently defending soul freedom and liberty of conscience. Its Preamble speaks to both doctrinal integrity and the believer’s conscience. It states, “Baptists are a people of deep beliefs and cherished doctrines. Throughout our history we have been a confessional people, adopting statements of faith as a witness to our beliefs and a pledge of our faithfulness to the doctrines revealed in Holy Scripture. Our confessions of faith are rooted in historical precedent, as the church in every age has been called upon to define and defend its beliefs.” In the same Preamble the BF&M 2000 states, “Baptists cherish and defend religious liberty, and deny the right of any secular or religious authority to impose a confession of faith upon a church or body of churches. We honor the principles of soul competency and the priesthood of believers, affirming together both our liberty in Christ and our accountability to each other under the Word of God.”

Article 17 reads, “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it.“The BF&M expresses Baptist doctrine and proposes the same liberty of conscience as Anabaptists, Smith, Helwys, General and Particular Baptists and our own Southern Baptist founders, consistently declared in their own Confessions. Our forefathers saw no contradiction between soul freedom,liberty of conscience and Confessions. Such documents, the BF&M 2000 included, clearly exclaim that the conscience is free from men’s commandments that either are contrary to God’s Word or not contained in God’s Word. As such, it continues in the same vein as other historic Baptist Confessions that simultaneously affirm both soul liberty and freedom of conscience while promoting the Christian faith through Baptist distinctives.

Thus, to suggest that a Convention should not affirm or adopt the BF&M 2000 is to be either unaware of Baptist history or to intentionally ignore Baptist history. Or it is to suggest that the BF&M 2000 contains doctrines that either are contrary to or not contained in God’s Word, which it does not. In reality then, there is no reason for any Tennessee Baptist to deny the unconditional affirmation, even adoption of the BF&M 2000. Like Baptist Confessions before it, the BF&M 2000 affirms historic Baptist distinctives while simultaneously, inherently, voluntarily, unequivocally endorsing the soul liberty and freedom of conscience that those in opposition to affirming or adopting it, claim is denied to them by its very acceptance. Their reasoning is proven illogical by the very Confession they refuse. If soul liberty and freedom of conscience is the genuine reason for rejecting the BF&M 2000, that concern is answered in the document itself.

Nor is the cry of credalism a valid argument against the BF&M 2000. Historically creeds exist because doctrinal statements do not exist. For instance, in the absence of any generally accepted statement of faith defining the personhood of Christ, the Nicene Creed was written to combat Arianism. In the absence of a confession, such creeds are necessary to define the essential aspects of one’s belief system. Creeds are birthed in an empty womb void of doctrinal confessionalism. Hence, Baptists are confessional because they are not and do not need to be credalists by virtue of their Confessions.

An opponent of a Confession of faith might argue, “We have no creed but Jesus” which however, is in itself, a creed. Further, it places an individual or corporate body in the same awkward, undefined position as the Church prior to the 4th century, eventually requiring a more fully developed creed defining which Jesus (Catholics, Muslims and Jews all believe in Jesus) the speaker describes. In the absence of a Confession, such a creed as “We have no creed but Jesus,” ill-defines what is believed and insufficiently defines what is not believed. Another person might express the sentiment, “I do not want to be that narrow minded” not understanding that the very statement by which they argue against a Confession creates a personal creed. In the latter case, a theological vacuity is created. It does not define any parameters for belief, only nebulously arguing against what one does not believe. It also opens the door to any unnamed belief system, be it the universalism of yesteryear or the soteriological pluralism of our day. As such, it is virtually impossible to denounce a confession without creating a creed in the process. One must be either confessional or creedal. No person or entity, who claims any faith, exists for long without one or the other. Yet Southern Baptists have been intentionally noncreedal in their historic Confessions.

There should have been no opposition to affirming the BF&M 2000 at the TBC 2006. Baptists have always been confessional. In addition, Tennessee Baptists have had six years to examine the doctrinal integrity and Baptist nature of the document. In fact, the BF&M 2000 should be adopted as the TBC Statement of Faith. It is historically correct to do so. It is doctrinally correct to do so. It is theologically correct to do so. It is Baptist to do so. It is never unBaptist to be confessional and historically, rather unBaptist not to be confessional. Christian history reminds us of the dangers that exist for any body of believers who do not possess a confession of faith. It is historically Baptist to possess a statement of faith; on this, all streams of Baptist history agree. It is true of our Baptist ancestors in Europe and/or England. It is true of the Southern Baptist Convention. It is true of Tennessee’s Baptists. As such, Tennessee Baptists should recall their confessional history and reclaim the confessional character of their origins. It is what has made us what we are and will serve us well into the future.