RBS Tabletalk
the weblog of reformed baptist seminary
About
Archives
Recent Posts
- New Site, New Location, New Look
- A Brief Report on the 2009 Winter Module
- Spring Conferences
- Spiritual Declension: Lessons From Early 18th Century Particular Baptists, Part 4-Negative Attitudes toward the Evangelical Revival: Reason #1
- Spiritual Declension: Lessons from Early 18th Century Particular Baptists, Part 3-The Chilling Effect of Hyper-Calvinism
Recent Comments
Top Posts
- Yes, We May Be Passionate: A Friendly Response to Dr. James Renihan’s "Are You Passionate?"
- An Immoral Proposal: A Case Against Embryonic Stem Cell Research
- Young, Restless, Reformed: “Hip, Hip, Hurrah!” or “Bah Humbug!”?
- Peter Enns, Jeffrey Niehaus, the Ancient Near East, and Inspiration
- The Son of Man Came Drinking: Was Jesus a Social Drinker? Part II
Blogroll
- Alpha & Omega Ministries
- Between Two Worlds
- Challies.com
- Church Matters: 9 Marks Blog
- Desiring God Blog
- Founders Ministries Blog
- Illumination
- Monergism
- Pyromaniacs
- Reformed Baptist Academic Press
- Reformed Baptist Fellowship
- Reformed Baptist Seminary
- Reformed Baptist Theological Review
- The Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies
- The Puritan Board
- Theology for the Rest of Us
- Together for the Gospel
[...] Confession. In this post, I’ve tried to alert us to the danger of Reformed traditionalism. In the next post, I hope to provide an example of a limitation (or weakness) in our own 1689 Baptist Confession of [...]
The Danger of Reformed Traditionalism, Part I « RBS Tabletalk
September 16, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Greetings! I enjoyed your post and the footnotes. Good job.
>”Puritan and Baptist forefathers”
Its always strange to see these two groups mentioned together. Puritan dislike of Baptists was second only to Puritan dislike of Catholics. Puritans ran both groups out of their American colonies.
>” historically creeds and confession have been the church’s response to erroneous or heretical teachings that arise from within or without the church.”
That’s pretty much a confession that the Bible is not as perspicuous as many claim, is it not? If the Bible alone is sufficient then what do we need a creed that addresses divorce? Jesus said divorce is wrong and God allowed it under Moses due “hardened hearts”. Isn’t the scripture clear enough?
God bless…
+Timothy
Timothy
September 21, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Timothy,
Glad you enjoyed the post. I’m actually in favor of creeds and confessions. I think the “no creed but the Bible” position leaves a church open to potential heresy, as history bears witness. Indeed, the “no creed but the Bible” is the alleged position of the Jehovah’s Witnesses cult. (see my series “On the Validity & Value of Confessions of Faith”) On the other hand, I think the church and Christians didn’t stop learning all there is to know about the Bible in the 17th century. So I believe creeds and confessional statements should be updated and refined over time. That’s why I wrote this post.
deangonzales
September 23, 2008 at 11:47 pm
[...] English in order to insure the clarity and intelligibility of the faith we confess. See my post “The Danger of Reformed Traditionalism, Part II.” [7] Examples above drawn from the 17th century King James Version plainly demonstrate that the [...]
Yes, We May Be Passionate: A Friendly Response to Dr. James Renihan’s “Are You Passionate?” « RBS Tabletalk
November 6, 2008 at 3:08 am