With the growing interest among Baptists in early creeds and historic Protestant confessions, James Renihan’s To the Judicious and Impartial Reader: A Contextual-Historical Exposition of the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith is right on time. The Second London Baptist Confession is a lightly revised version of the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) and Savoy Declaration (1658). Its purpose was to unite seventeenth-century English Baptists with other Reformed Protestants against the rise of Roman Catholicism and Socinianism. In addition, though the English Particular Baptists had previously adopted a Confession—commonly known as the First London Baptist Confession—in 1644, they recognized the value in the excellent work of the Westminster Assembly. By adopting the Westminster Divines’ work for their own Confession, they garnered for themselves a robust articulation of the doctrine of Scripture, classical theology in both the doctrine of God and Christology, covenant theology, the five solas, the doctrines of grace, the three uses of the law, reformed worship, and a spiritual presence view of the Lord’s Supper. Only light revisions were needed for church government and believer’s baptism! Any Baptist with Reformed leanings might need to wipe the saliva from his chin at this point.
Dr. James Renihan is President and Professor of Historical Theology at International Reformed Baptist Seminary in Mansfield, Texas, and a long-time pastor of churches in Massachusetts, New York, and California. He earned a PhD from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and has produced many works on seventeenth-century Baptists, including a commentary on the First London Baptist Confession of 1644. He has lectured on both confessions for over 20 years, gaining a reputation among confessionalists as an expert. Pressure from Renihan’s colleagues to turn those lectures into a book finally prevailed.
Before you purchase this commentary, it is essential that you know Renihan’s methodology. Renihan calls this a “contextual-historical” commentary. The critical question he seeks to answer
is, “What did the Confession mean to readers in its own context?” To do this, he purposely relies heavily on historical citations from seventeenth-century primary sources. So, if you desire to
know what the framers of the Confession meant by what they wrote in their seventeenth-century context, find out why specific changes were made from the Westminster Confession, and would like helpful expertise from our generation’s premier 1689 pastor/scholar, you will be pleased with Renihan’s commentary. However, if you are looking for a more introductory exposition on the Confession, I would refer you to Sam Waldron’s classic or the more recent edited work by Rob Ventura.
Why is Renihan’s commentary necessary? In my doctoral studies, I was pleased to discover that the Confession addressed many of the modern aberrations to the doctrine of God and the person of Christ by firmly rooting its doctrines not only in Scripture, but the specific language of historical creeds and confessions. The Confession addressed many of the modern aberrations to the doctrine of God and the person of Christ by firmly rooting its doctrines not only in Scripture, but the specific language of historical creeds and confessions. Click To TweetTo my surprise, I learned some of the proponents of those modern aberrations subscribe to the Confession! By applying modern theological definitions to words like “immutable,” or the phrase, “without body, parts, or passions,” they were not historically subscribing, which would require adopting the metaphysical assumptions of the authors and what these phrases meant in their seventeenth-century context. Renihan’s commentary carefully illuminates what the framers of the WCF (Westminster Confession of Faith), Savoy Declaration, and 1689 Confession meant by what they confessed. So, Renihan interacts with such theologians as Benjamin Keach, Nehemiah Coxe, Hercules Collins, John Owen, William Perkins, John Goodwin, Edward Leigh, John Lightfoot, Matthew Poole, Francis Turretin, and more. He also engages modern experts on the seventeenth-century theological milieu, such as Richard Muller, J.V. Fesko, and Carl Trueman.
Renihan’s introduction is invaluable, as he provides the intentional structure of the Confession, something that the novice will not immediately discern. He also lists some of the most important seventeenth-century sources: “Various works of John Owen seem to stand behind assorted statements or phrases in the text, along with Thomas Goodwin, Francis Cheynell, and Edward Leigh. John Lightfoot is cited at length in the appendix, while it is probable that well-known treatments of Scripture such as Matthew Poole’s Synopsis Criticorum, the English Annotations, and expositions of various books of the Bible were consulted” (12). He also ends each chapter with Scriptures for meditation and a historic prayer. This is a good reminder that our study of doctrine is never separated from devotion.
Renihan’s familiarity with the Confession allows him to make important connections throughout, especially regarding specific Baptist revisions to WCF and Savoy. When someone sees the term “covenant of works” missing from Chapter 7, they might assume the Baptists do not hold to a covenant of works. Renihan shows that the framers are merely making the chapter flow better, considering that the covenant of works is mentioned later in Chapters 19 and 20. Renihan offers similar help with what seems like an unfortunate change from WCF’s famous dictum that doctrine “by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture” to the 1689’s statement that doctrine is “necessarily contained” in Scripture. Renihan writes, “Necessarily contained probably signals a desire to ensure that theological propositions are grounded in revelation, not human reason alone” (90). The Baptist Confession is not espousing a biblicist position by any means. Importantly, I consistently found Renihan’s comments and the sources he used to align with the Christian orthodoxy of the Great Tradition. I consistently found Renihan’s comments and the sources he used to align with the Christian orthodoxy of the Great Tradition. Click To TweetHe quotes pre-seventeenth-century figures like Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, and John Calvin. His familiarity with the early Christian creeds allows him to show how the framers essentially embedded them into the Confession. He even has a helpful appendix that enters the debate over Eternal Functional Subordination/Eternal Relations of Authority and Submission, masterfully quoting relevant post-Reformation contributions that address the issue. The appendix concludes, “Based on this material, it is certain that post-Reformation theologians would (speaking anachronistically) reject any form of eternal functional subordination or eternal relations of authority and submission (or any other title to express Trinitarian subordination) among the glorious subsistences” (784).
While the work is fantastic, it might be improved by including suggestions for further reading with pertinent articles and chapters. The reader can scour the footnotes for sources, but
specific suggestions might have kept me from feeling like certain sections warranted further discussion. For instance, Chapter 7, which is on the Covenant of Grace, could have addressed the current debate in Reformed Baptist circles. Is the approach of Cox and Owen correct or the traditional one-covenant/two administrations perspective of Gill? Also, considering the article on the Sabbath is the most common exception to a full subscription to the Confession, Renihan’s shorter treatment could have been supplemented by recommendations. As stated in the preface, Renihan is aware of the limitations of a one-volume treatment, so he is not to be faulted.
May the Lord use this commentary to spur another generation of Baptists to confess the truths of the Confession. This would be an answer to the framers’ “earnest prayer,” as stated in the introductory epistle, “that God’s Holy Spirit will ensure that truth will be confessed, not only in word but with sound faith and conscientious obedience. All of which is to glorify God’s name
through Jesus Christ” (49)
Credo Magazine
Advertisment
