Open Air Theology “Creeds & Confessions” The guardrails of Grace

What are you doing?

He never let a cigar that way. You use a wooden match. Preserves the flavor, you see. But the worst curse would come upon the one who seduced him. Whose head would be crushed by the seed of the woman.

And the punishment was too severe? What's wrong with you people?

Are you ready to get back to work?

With pleasure. So, Senor Kramer, what is this about?

I choose to believe the Bible because it's a reliable collection of historical documents written down by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. They report to us supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claim that their writings are divine rather than human in origin.

Don't any of you have any guts to pay for blood?

I'm your huckleberry.

But because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began.

I don't know why you're clapping. I'm talking about you. I didn't come here to get amens. I didn't come here to be applauded. I'm talking about you.

Hello, everybody.

Welcome to Open Air Theology. I am one of the hosts here. And before we get into introductions, I have to just first say you need to go check out on YouTube Open Air Theology. Go look that up. Subscribe to this channel.

We come on here weekly, fellowship with good brothers in Christ and just talk about a variety of topics in the Christian faith. I do want to start off with giving a huge shout out for Striving for Eternity with helping us live stream these shows on his channel and on his platforms.

It's a great blessing to know. All right. Don't tell Andrew I'm saying this right now. It is a great blessing to have Andrew be a brother in Christ and a dear friend of myself. So he's a good dude. Don't tell him I said that.

But on that note, go check out Open Air Theology on YouTube. Support Striving for Eternity through all the different social media platforms that he is on. And I'm going to pass the mic over to my brother to the right or to the left of me.

And then we'll just go around the circle down to the side and then back up to myself on introductions.

Well, hello, everybody. My name is Tom Sheppard and I'm a co-host of Open Air Theology with Braden Patterson here on my right. Maybe your left. And we want to welcome you to the show. And again, a great shout out to Andrew Rappaport and Striving for Eternity to help us get the show going.

So if you've not done so, as you're watching this and you're listening on Striving for Eternity, please go to YouTube and look at the Open Air Theology. Look at us. Click subscribe. We want to be well known, be able to bring the show to you guys on Facebook and YouTube as well.

But today we have a conversation that we're going to be talking about creeds and confessions, the guardrails of grace. But before we do that, I want to introduce you to two guys, two brothers in Christ.

One guy you may not know by name. On Facebook, he's known as the Particular Baptist. Brother, introduce yourself.

Yes.

My name is Michael Selesky. I am the teaching elder, preaching elder, pastor at Grace Baptist Church in Parable, Arkansas. If you're in the area in northeast Arkansas, we'd love to see you. Nine o 'clock is our service.

Our main service.

Afterwards,.

We have fellowship and we have Bible study. I'm also on the board of directors for the Lord's Refuge. It's a men's inpatient rehabilitation center. I'm also in a Christian band called Deny Myself. But it's just a blessing to be on this show.

It's a blessing to be with you guys. I follow you guys on Facebook and on YouTube. I would recommend that everybody who's watching, especially my friends, that you would like and subscribe.

Thank you.

Great.

Then we have a return guest with us tonight. Brother Jared, go ahead and introduce yourself, brother.

Yes.

Thank you, Brayden. My name is Jared Randolph. I'm the pastor of Emmaus Road Baptist Church in Middle Tennessee. We have very young to middle age, looking for older people to come into our church to make that all the way across the board there.

Right, brother? But I would just say that we're very blessed to be where we're at in the ministry and looking forward to what the Lord has for us. We have Sunday school at 10, our main service at 11, and then we have a midweek service for Bible study Wednesday at 6 .30.

So just looking forward to this show tonight and the great discussion and fellowship.

Amen. Amen. Well, I'll introduce myself now. My name is Brayden Patterson. I am the pastor here at Grace Bible Church in Moorpark, California. I'm the new pastor here. It's a great blessing to be here and just to be getting to know the saints better and better every single day during just this transition period.

If you live in the area of Moorpark in Ventura County here in Southern California, I would love to meet you. You should come worship with us at 10 .30 on the Lord's Day here in Moorpark. Look up Grace Bible Church, Moorpark, California.

It'd be a great blessing to meet you. And just to learn about Christ with one another and herald the good news of him, his life, his death, burial, and resurrection on our behalf. So it's just a great blessing to be a co-host here on Open Air Theology.

And again, just a heads up for everybody, go check out Open Air Theology on YouTube. It'd be a great blessing if you subscribed, liked, and shared this with your family and friends. Like I said before, it's a great time to be able to come with brothers and just talk about a variety of things on Christ and the church and doctrine and so on and so forth.

But on that note, what are we talking about tonight, Tom? What is the topic and the variety of things that we're chatting about?

So it's going to be interesting. So I get the privilege actually to be about the quiz and ask these brothers right here because they're actually pastors of churches. I didn't announce my home church is Grace Bible Church of Birney and we're about 20 miles north of San Antonio, Texas.

And I get the privilege of actually going out on the streets and doing the evangelism, bringing people, calling people to repentance and pointing them to Christ on the streets and then inviting them to our local church where they're shepherded and cared for and equipping them to go out and do the exact same thing that I do and go out on the streets.

What this is going to be about today is talking about creeds and confessions, why they're important. How are they guardrails? The actual title is The Guardrails of Grace. And one of the questions I wanted to ask you guys, you guys could jump in, whoever wants to answer this question, is what is to define a confession, what's the difference in a creed, a statement of faith, a confession?

Anybody who wants to answer that can jump right in. What's the difference in a confession versus a creed versus a statement of.

Faith? I'll go first, Tom. I would say that a creed is more general, vague, most of the time it's very short, it's shorter in length and this deals with the essentials most of the time of the Christian faith.

Your confessions get more into the distinctives and typically like our confession, the 1689 will be very robust and deal with all those particulars that a creed might not. That's just a basic definition I guess.

I would agree. I think that creeds are purposefully broad whereas confessions.

Are.

More specific and get into the distinctives and kind of take the high points of theology and break them down in a way that they are.

Lending.

To clarity and communicating belief.

And they teach.

The faith.

Right, so the essentials, they keep the faith. In this podcast here, everybody here including myself would hold to 1689 Lenten Baptist Confession of Faith and not only that, we would also hold to 1689 Federalism.

I believe that's right, Jared, right?

Yes, I do.

Tell us about the history, Brayden, if you would. Historical significance, why was the 1689 Lenten Baptist Confession of Faith written and how does it shape the Reformed Baptist theology? What's the difference in the 1689, let's say, versus Westminster?

Yeah, great question. I think maybe to some people's surprise, maybe not to everybody's surprise, the 1689 Lenten Baptist Confession of Faith is the second particular Baptist confession that came about in that time period in the 17th century.

The first Baptist confession was in 1644, I believe off the top of my head. I don't have any notes in front of me, so I'm speaking all from memory, but 1644. It was more generalized. It wasn't as maybe well thoroughly put together as the 1689 was, in my opinion.

But in that statement that came out, it was initially written with the main purpose of wanting to demonstrate that the particular Baptists were not Anabaptists.

There was a great.

Push against Anabaptists for good reasons, and the particular Baptists wanted to make sure to clearly define that they were not these rogue, anarchist Anabaptists. So that document came out in 1644. However, the Westminster came out shortly thereafter.

It was a more thoroughly done document. Following this, you had the Congregationalists who came out with the Savoy Declaration. And then in 1677, Benjamin Keech and Nehemiah Cox wrote up the 1689, which a lot of people think that it is very similar to the Westminster.

It is. But it's more similar to the Savoy Declaration. And so if you actually bring up those three documents side by side, you'll see that the 1689 is actually more based off of the Savoy than the Westminster.

And so the Baptists are more similar to Congregationalists in its ecclesiology, and that's why you see a lot of those similarities. But that being said, they definitely wanted to distinguish that they had a different view of baptism, as well as some other particulars, maybe even in reference to covenants.

However, the main point that I think that one of the reasons that it is written is that it was wanting to show harmony and unity with other Reformed particular type of Christians, Reformed Christians.

They wanted to show that they were there right there in the trenches with other Reformed Presbyterians and other Reformed Congregationalists, while also showing distinctives. Just like the Congregationalists showed distinctives to the Presbytery, so too the Baptists wanted to show distinctives to their doctrine.

But that being said, 1677 is when that is initially published, and then in 1689 there would have been a larger council done in that time, and more churches would have signed their name to it. I believe there was minor adjustments done to the document during that time, but the 1689 was not written in 1689.

It was accepted and maybe recognized by a large, vast majority of Baptists in 1689, and that's where that name comes from. But that's a short, brief history on the 1689, and if I said anything incorrectly, please correct me,.

Brothers.

I think that's really good. What would you guys say to people who say, I don't really need a creed or a confession or anything. My creed is Christ. No creed but Christ. I have the Bible. What's the purpose?

What's the actual purpose? And why is it helpful for a church to actually hold to a confession?

Well, that statement, no creed but Christ, is a.

Creed. It is.

Right, so give us an example. So if I was to say, Christ is King, what would Much anybody abroad can agree to that statement. But when you get down to it, you might have somebody say, okay, well, what about this Jesus?

When we start actually finding out who this Jesus is, is he the same Jesus that a Mormon believes in? Well, now we've got to tighten it up and actually find out what about this Jesus? Who is he? Is he God?

Is he just an ordinary man? Is he a created being? Is he eternal? We actually have to define that right. So in that, go on. Tell me a little bit more about the difference in why it's important to hold to the confession.

Well, I would say the churches who don't like to adhere to a confession, typically are the first churches to go off in the air. You see that historically. And Braden, you were talking about the, I think, the second, you went from the first to the second.

Yes. If I'm not mistaken, I think the second confession, they decided to write that in response to a particular Baptist preacher who was actually starting to teach heresy. You know, the Trinity and other doctrines.

I might be mistaken about.

That, but I think... How many centuries before you're saying?

It was, I forgot what year it was. It was right before the second thing at London was published. It was the reason why they did. Because he was a particular Baptist pastor and he was obviously associated with them, and he started to teach heresy, and so they wanted to distance themselves from that guy.

Because they're going to receive a lot of heat from the Presbyterians and the Congregationalists.

Let me answer this real... To be honest with you, brother, I don't know off the top of my head. I don't know off the top of my head to be honest with you. That sounds about right. There was... And I would love to go in more detail with that.

Anybody that's watching, I just saw a question be posed. Our YouTube channel is found on YouTube under Open Air Theology, so go check that out. It would be a great blessing for you guys to join us weekly.

Great, great blessing. Go check that out. But all these confessions, Jared, and you know this, right? All these come out in a time in particular defense against heresy. I think you see that in the Nicene Creed.

You see that with the Athanasian Creed. You see that with any creedal statement. Even the statement that we see in the New Testament, and Habs Addison said it earlier, Jesus is Lord. That comes about in a day when the Roman...

The Roman Caesars were saying that you must confess that Caesar is Lord. And so to protect against that, the church said, no, we can't submit ourselves to that. We're going to say Jesus is Lord.

And so that right there is a...

Yep, and so.

Creeds.

Have come about, confessions have come about in opposition to heresy typically. And so that wouldn't surprise me if that was the case in this situation that you had made mention of. The statement no need but Christ, to go back to what Tom said on that.

That statement, it sounds really, really good to our ears. It sounds like it's something that you want to get tattooed to yourself. Like, yeah, that sounds really good. I can admit that that sounds like a great statement.

But it really is a statement that doesn't... It's a statement that every cult has promoted in some form. And I can speak of that as an XLDS person myself. And it is a statement that gives no clarity to what that person's belief is.

If somebody says no creed but Christ, the next question you have to ask is, what is the Bible? And they're going to tell you what the Bible is. You're going to say, then, what does the Bible teach? And then they're going to talk about what it teaches God.

Then you're going to have to ask them what about who's God? And then they're going to have to define God for you. And then you're going to have to have them define Christ. Then you're going to have to define man.

And then you're going to have to define salvation. And long and behold, guess what they have promoted or developed for you? A confessional statement.

But the.

Issue with it is that they produced a confessional statement by themselves that is solo confessionalism that they have no other ties to any other Orthodox group of people that have put something together that summarizes the faith in some way.

And so that's the scary part about submitting to, in my opinion, no creed but Christ.

Right.

Real quick, Ross the Wretch on Facebook. You can go to my channel, Tom Shepard. It's just on my page right now. And I believe Andrew Rappaport might have it on his Facebook page as well.

Yeah, he has it on his Facebook,.

Yep.

Yeah, that's important too. Mike, you were going to say something to add to that.

Answering about the people.

Who.

Reject.

The need of a man-made confession stating that the Bible alone is enough to understand Christian doctrine. When you read in Ephesians and you read that God had given the church, apostles and prophets and evangelists and teachers and preachers or preaching pastors, however you read that, you understand that God has blessed the church with godly men, right?

Equipped to teach. And godly men before us arranged key doctrines under headings so that they're more accessible at a glance. And all truth is God's truth, right? And truth isn't subjective, it's objective.

So if it was true in 1689 or 1677, it's true now. And it's only pride that refuses to listen to the collective voice of godly men that God has blessed the church with in years gone by. And sometimes we fall into this trap in America.

I know we do as if we're the first people.

To.

Have a Bible,.

Right?

But truth never changes. And especially with the 1689 or any, the Westminster, you can look at the three forms of unity or the canons of Dort.

These just aren't shooting from.

The hip, this is what I feel like I believe. They're scriptural references at the end. So that everything is rooted in the word. Confessions act like these forms for laying concrete, right? So that when you pour the concrete,.

Not.

Only is it level, but it's sure. And you're kept within orthodoxy, right? You're kept within what godly men have been teaching for 1 ,500 years, 2 ,000 years, you know?

Yeah,.

I think that's one of the things I was thinking about here. We were actually on the topic of evangelism. How do we go out and do evangelism? And a couple of people that I was talking to on the discussion and topic of street evangelism and stuff like that said, you know, well, this church right here is going to be our model right here.

This seminary is going to be our model. And his words were, you know, we don't have to reinvent the wheel. And I would agree with that, but no current seminary invented the wheel. We have godly men that have actually had documents that have spent time immersed themselves in Scripture.

And not only just one person, but I mean, we're talking the collective group of godly men actually were immersed in the languages and steeped in theology, came together and united. So the next question would be, how and what way do we have, let me just go ahead and read it right here, this particular question, in terms of unity and clarity, how do confessions promote unity and clarity and doctrine within the local church?

That's good.

Lewis stated earlier, when you read 1689, you instantly recognize that it's worded very similarly with the Westminster Confession of Faith. And that's not, that's on purpose. To show unity where we can have unity, but then show Reformed Baptist doctrinal distinctives, particularly in like covenantal distinctives.

Where.

We can't have unity on those things. We have differing views.

Right, so Braden, what point would you actually see a distinction between the Westminster Confession of Faith and 1689?

I think most obvious would be in the chapter of baptism. That would be a very quick one right there. The chapter.

Of,.

That's a very clear one.

Right there. I think also the 1689, and I think all the confessions, those three major confessions that have been previously mentioned are set up in a very systematic way, so that when you open it up it first says that Scripture is the only sufficient rule of infallible saving knowledge of faith and obedience.

That's the authority of Scripture. All the confessions open up in that way.

The 1689.

Adds, because it's written the latest, it adds more clarity, I think than what the other two documents had in my personal opinion. You can see that in the very first statement, that very first sentence of chapter one, paragraph one.

That being said, I think you get through chapter one through six and then it then introduces Christ and the Covenant. Covenants and then Christ. That's where you start seeing maybe a shift in how Baptists view Covenants.

You have in the 1689 a different view of Covenants than what the Westminster has. Namely the difference between seeing the Covenant of Works versus the Covenant of Grace. The Westminster would be saying that the same Covenant re-administered a Covenant of Grace re-administered since the beginning.

Whereas the Baptists in chapter seven, you don't see it specifically but then as you read more and more of the confession, it starts to develop that the Covenant of Grace is a totally unique Covenant to those Covenants of Works in the Old Testament.

That's a pretty distinguishing line that you see throughout the whole 1689.

That's an important thing too and I maybe wanted to bring it up but since you brought it up earlier talking about 20th century Baptist Covenant theology.

Versus.

Number one, anybody want to define what 20th century Covenant Baptist Church theology is? What does it look like?

I would just say it's very similar to the Presbyterian model.

Do you all agree with that? I would agree with that.

You know I would say it's very similar but then it's slapping that obviously the Believer's Baptism onto it and then you would also run into those that hold to New Covenant theology but they usually go to the first Baptist confession because they usually don't hold to the tripart division of the law and some other things here and there and so that's where they usually go to that first confession rather than the second.

One. So if we look at the confession in and of itself we're really looking at more of a unity. The purpose of it was to develop unity with the Presbyterian saying hey we are not Anabaptists. We do not hold to what they're believing.

Accept us and let's be united as brothers. That was the actual purpose of the confession. Resources would actually be more for the actual distinctive.

Of.

Baptist Covenant theology. Would you guys agree.

With that?

Kind of also and this is on the fringe but it's still there where a couple of Presbyterian brothers, friends of mine they hold the Westminster as authoritative as the Bible. They would make statements like they're both binding to the conscience and soul and it's like well no confessions are good so long as they line up with Scripture.

Right? And everything takes a subordinate role to the word of God.

Absolutely. Matter of fact. Mike that's a great leading right into the next question. Potential pitfalls. Are there dangers in elevating the confession too highly in the life of the church? How should these be avoided?

What say you Jared?

What say you Jared on this?

I would.

Agree or I would say you can definitely take it way too far. Of course I grew up in a I would say more of an anti-confessional upbringing.

Now when you say anti-confessional are you against confessions or just not?

Not really militant just not like hey I'm confessional. You know like that. More so just yeah this is kind of what we believe but I didn't really get into it like in detail and so now I've become more hey it's being confessional is important because of things we've already said but also it lays out clearly hey this is what this is what we believe and if you have any questions concerns here read this you know Brighton held up a few minutes ago the book we have at our church several copies of that book right there and so if someone comes in our church and they ask hey what do you guys believe here you go and if you have any questions feel free to ask and so that's just a good way to do that but getting back to what I was saying though yes we can take it way too far.

I think if I'm personally I've seen this happen in a lot of our Reformed Baptist Presbyterian Reformed circles. It seems like if you don't cross every T and dot every I then you're not in the Reformed group right and I think it's going way too far.

I think we need to try to strive for harmony with our other Presbyterian brothers who we obviously disagree with on certain issues and so while we should have a very high view of confessionalism I think it can be extreme in some cases.

And we see it. That's right. Yeah I brother I agree with you 100 you. Unfortunately today we're seeing so many splinterings of denomination and positional stances on things it's I think it's truly sad.

To get.

So down I mean people are splitting in dividing on tertiary and quaternary things and then claiming well you can't be a Reformed Baptist if you don't hold to this. Or you can't be Reformed if you hold to this or you can't do this.

If this is this you're not a Reformed Baptist if you don't have a beard.

Like just like.

That's the kind of attitude that people.

Are having right now. I'm good. Yeah you're good Jared.

Reformed points bro.

Reformed points.

Yeah you're getting brownie points.

Right?

That's a good question right there and I was just watching. If you guys haven't had it go to Moorpark Grace Bible Church Moorpark's page. Brayden just started a series on teaching through the confession and gave a very basic rundown of what it means to be Reformed.

You want to talk.

About that? Yeah you know I I so I argue that to be Reformed there's a lot of people.

Today that use that word.

Sam Harris nice seeing you brother.

Hey heck yeah the.

The.

Yeah so a lot of people think that being Reformed is just being Calvinistic or is just having you use an ESV Bible or an LSB Bible or you have a you have the John Mack study Bible. That's what makes you Reformed.

And it's like no that's not that's not the qualifiers for being Reformed. And so I really heavily lean on the three C's being that it is Covenantal. You need to be Covenantal. You have to. You should see a Covenantal theme in Scripture.

That's what all common in the 17th century each one of those confessions is articulating and arguing for that view of Scripture is that God has revealed himself through the means of Covenants. They'll differ on how to understand the Covenants.

Right. We've talked about that but Covenant theology nonetheless. Then second Calvinism and Soteriology so that salvation is of the Lord again that would be a defining thing of the Reformed people of the 17th century.

And then also the last thing is of course Confessionalism. If you don't hold to a historic confession I would argue that you have a really hard time trying to argue that you are Reformed. I think you've lost ties to that term.

Let me be clear in saying that it's not taking that definition is not trying to articulate that you the non-Reformed person is wrong in your theology you might be right in your theology. It's just that terms are important and we live in a world that likes to change terms and move goal posts.

And a boy can say that they're a dog under these defining things. But no definitions really matter. And that's where I think we need to go back to those three C's and stop trying to add different things onto it or take things away from it to make you fit that goal post.

Right. So there's a question that just came up and I posted it up here so everybody can see. It says how much room is there for small disagreements within a confession to which the congregation officially holds.

How does this leniency vary. If at all one of the things is and I think that you said this Mike earlier and matter of fact one of your posts on Facebook is that this is the position of the church and this is what we teach and everything.

So there might be varying aspects of actually what you believe. So which brings it to the next question. Does somebody in order to be a member of your church do they have to fully affirm the 1689 in order to be a member of your church.

Would you still allow them to be a member of your church. And if there is any leniency at all where would you guys draw the line to say hey guys let's do some work. Yeah.

For our church before they become members they take a membership class and they I hand out this questionnaire so they can explain to me how they believe a man is justified in the eyes of God. I also give them James Pettigrew voices.

Abstract of.

Abstract.

Of principles and I give them a 1689 I explain to them that listen now this is what we teach. This isn't what you have to believe unless you want to be part of the leadership here a deacon or an elder.

Wednesday nights we go through the 1689 because I believe all confessions need to be exposited like scripture and it's two way communication. It's not just me telling them what this means. It's two way communication with questions engaging the congregation and seeing where they stand on these points and showing these points biblically because I believe that's important at the end of the day.

Your faith is resting in the Word of God alone. You're convinced of these things by the Holy Spirit in the Word of God.

I was going to say Jared do you. Do you hold that same position.

That.

This is what we teach but if you're going to be in any type of a leadership role you would have to hold firmly to the 1689. Yes.

We're very similar to my brother here.

Yeah.

To be in leadership you have to fully affirm the 1689 now. Obviously even with that I would there are things that I would say. I think I might word it a little bit different in this sentence here right of one paragraph you know one example might be.

I'm sure you guys probably have talked about it a lot the Pope right and other areas. But what I mean when I say fully affirmed is that I can look at each chapter each section and say yes. For the most part I do agree with what it's teaching here.

You have to be able to do that. To be in leadership now to be a member you don't have to fully affirm it as long as you can sit under the preaching or teaching of the elders at the church.

And not cause division.

Yeah good point. So let's say give a scenario here without purposely causing division. If there was somebody sitting in the church there who was willing to sit under the teaching but let's say a brother comes to them on the side.

Hey guys you know why do you believe this or that you know let's say you have a Presbyterian that joins your church. I don't know that you guys actually do that. If they did on that actually is another question.

If a Presbyterian joins your church would you allow them to partake in the Lord's table.

So as long as they are believers in the Lord Jesus Christ and they have been baptized biblically then I would be okay with that. Now who knows if they were actually baptized biblically. That's why you have to be able to sit them down and talk with them in private and get to know that before you move forward in that process.

Okay Brayden what's your answer.

I was just looking at so this book going back just to the previous question real real quick this book the Confessing Baptist. It's put together by Robert Gonzalez the Dean of Reformed Baptist Seminary great brother in Christ.

He edited this book that has a multitude of authors on it and it just talks about different levels of subscription. Some people are hold to absolute subscription historical subscription full or strict subscription but at the end of the day system subscription.

There's just varying views of where you would fall in line of that. And it accounts for those minor scruples. Like you said Jared with the definite article regarding the Pope being the Antichrist that's the most common scruple that people would take issue with is saying that they would want to rewrite that to say the Pope is an Antichrist and meaning that there's a multitude that he doesn't have to be the Antichrist.