7 minute read
Repentance and responsibility
3 BIERTON PARTICULAR BAPTISTS ARTICLES OF RELIGION, 1831 99
V That these occasions were under widely different circumstances than the present day (1878).
VI That to derive any absolute and universal rules would be unsafe.
VIIThat it is an assumption that any one has ever been inspired as the Apostles.
VIII That such assumptions have let to gross errors found amongst Romanists and professed Protestants.
In breaking the article down in this way it is easier to treat each point. However, I think the main point of belief is: -
“We cannot derive absolute and universal rules for ministerial addresses from certain particular scriptures”.
The rest of the article anticipates objections by those who make reference to scriptures containing Apostolic addresses and justifies such caution by alluding to errors of the Romanists and professed Protestants.
Repentance and responsibility
All men should cease from sin and it is right to rebuke men for sins. Men should turn from sin and live uprightly. Such repentance is a duty of all men even if there was no salvation. Remember God is good and the goodness of God leads men to repentance. But after, due to his hardness and impenitent heart wrath was treasured up unto himself against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God. When God would render to every man according to his deeds. Romans 2 1-6. Hence the gospel calls men (outwardly by) to these duties of religion he has fallen from and a natural and legal repentance; this being distinguished from evangelical repentance. The natural or legal repentance being enjoined and pressed upon all men in a state of nature whether dead elect or none elect through the gospel. (See Dr J Gill Body of Divinity on repentance towards God and effectual calling.) Also read the Arminian Skeleton by William Huntingdon, page 217 / 218, where he states God hath power to command a change of hearth and to make them clean even though man has lost the ability to comply. If you read the Seceders it is written of Williams Tiptaff that towards the end of his life her continually called men to repentance (Seceders Vol. I). I know of no Strict Baptists who would deny this and it seems difficult to believe the compilers of these added articles could have fallen from the truth. Nevertheless we must take the articles as written for these articles define and limit church membership to such as agree with the compilers of these articles.
If these compilers deny ministers or Christians should warn people and children of their sinful ways by informing them; unless they repent they shall perish for their sins they shall perish and exhort them to cease from them and call upon God for mercy they are wrong. For this duty is a fallen
100 3 BIERTON PARTICULAR BAPTISTS ARTICLES OF RELIGION, 1831 creatures duty whether dead elect or reprobate. This repentance may be considered as legal and to what natural conscience leads to. Of this kind of repentance Jonah, and the prophets, and the Lord Jesus, the apostles and the ministry of the gospel commands.
But if these compilers assert that the grace of evangelical repentance (repentance which flows from faith in Christ is a free grace blessing, a gift of God, is bestowed, and such repentance is unto life. That it flows from a love to Christ having knowledge of sins already pardoned then they are right. Since this cannot be a duty of all men or any in a state of nature. Hence no minister of the gospel in his right mind would dream of exhorting such to believe and turn to God in this way.
This I believe I could prove to be the position of Dr Gill, William Gadsby, John Warburton, John Kershaw, William Huntington and Joseph Philpot position.
This is my position and I believe to be the biblical one. Hence we deny Duty Faith and Duty Repentance and do not agree with Andrew Fuller who expressed his views in his book “The Gospel worthy of all Acceptation”. Nor Baxterianism as stated in article 28.
Now if you ask me what was in the minds of the writer and body of men that asserted these added articles it is rather difficult to say, for this reason we need to widen our research and find other evidence to establish their meaning. We know this; these men were not inspired as the Apostles, as they admit this in their articles. So they are self-confessed fallible men and so may be in error on this matter, whatever they thought. The problem that we may find is this: what aught you to do if we discover through our research these men were wrong on this point? I’m sure this would be the fear of any person who stands to loose many things should they discover any such error in their articles of religion. However the Christian should not retreat when faced with such a reality. My position would be to do what conscience dictates, in the fear of God, knowing that what we turn our hand to do, we do with all our might and leave the outcome to the Lord. By these means the Christian church has always prospered and of course we see the Lord our God work for us in establishing His truth amongst us. Indeed we must so do, if we are to contend for the faith once delivered to the Saints.
If I may direct you to the Gospel Standards committee’s response to the same question in 1906. Mr Popham writes: -
“ It is not for me say what was in the minds of the framers of those Articles, nor yet affirm that they were all accurate theologians etc.
Here we find the same difficulty and admittance that Mr Popham was not in the position to say what was in the mind of Mr Hazlerigg and the
3 BIERTON PARTICULAR BAPTISTS ARTICLES OF RELIGION, 1831 101 men that adopted those added articles. He may have known and was not prepared to say or could only surmise; in which case he could not speak on that which he knew not. From this question we learn the problem is not new by any means, nor is it easily solved.
My comments Article 32
I We have only brief records of Apostolic addresses to mixed groups of people. Be this as it may, we have the record of which it pleased God to grant and that scripture is that which is profitable for doctrine, reproof and correction in righteousness. Yes every word, accent and punctuation. (As in the original)
II That such occasions were special and circumstantial cases. Every case and occasion is special and peculiar and can never be repeated and no one could deny all circumstances are different.
III That on these occasions the Apostles was under immediate direction of the Lord. We know the apostles were not always under the immediate direction of the Lord as Peter is discovered to us. However since this article does not refer to any particular reference this cannot be disproved.
IV That from this case we cannot derive universal rules for ministerial addresses. Since these cases are not specified who can say. However we draw rules from ministerial addresses from no single example but from the whole tenor of the scriptures and hence we are able to deny certain modes of Congregational addresses.
V That these occasions were under different circumstances and widely different than the present day of 1878. No person would deny that the times in 1878, in England, were different to those days of the Apostles in other lands, but we do take note of these occasions and differing circumstances in order to understand Apostolic doctrine.
VI That to derive any absolute and universal rules would be unsafe. This has been considered in part under my point IV. We derive any such rules from the whole of the scripture and not just one part. I would say it be unsafe to ignore the apostolic examples for our apostle exhorted “These things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of piece shall be with you”.
VIIThat it is an assumption that any one has been inspired as the Apostles. To this the whole body of Christ agree, that is they who take the scripture to be the only rule of their faith and practice.
VIII That such assumptions have lead to the gross errors found in Romanists and professed Protestants. Since we deny apostolic inspiration to any but apostles this must be the case.
