One netfriend wrote:

Historically, you suggest that Baptists didn't claim much authority for creeds on the basis that "God still had yet more light and truth..." From memory, the major reason for Baptist opposition was that "if it said more than scripture, it said too much, and if it said less than scripture it didn't say enough." In other words, it was out of deference to the sole authority of scripture, rather than the words of a later hymn.

Nathan responded:

I think both are true here. There are actually two slightly different issues, because there have been two different baptist approaches to creeds and confessions of faith.

The first is to reject their production and use altogether, and that is usually premised on the view you have described. It is a difficult appraoch to live by, because I don't think any seriously tries to practice the idea that every line in scripture is creedal an of equal importance. Is believing that Elimelech belonged to the clan of Ephrath reqally as crucial to our faith as believing that God so loved the world that he sent his only Son? Of course not, and once you have accepted that then you have already accepted that a summary of faith that says less than the Bible might have value in guiding us as to the essentials.

The other approach is to produce confessions of faith as a guide to the essentials and as a statement of group identity, but to always regard them as transitory and capable of revision as we grew in our understandings of God's truth (Baptists have probably produced more confessions of faith than any other tradition). This approach is, I think, premised on the "Lord has yet more light" principle. Incidently, that saying doesn't originate in the hymn. The hymn was based on the saying, which is attributed to John Robinson's final speech to his congregation before leaving on the Mayflower for America in 1620. That's only twleve years after the founding of the first Baptist congregation, so it goes way back in our confessional tradition.

Netfriend:

What if the reason for God demanding a sacrifice (vis-a-vis a punishment) had to do more with reinforcing the cost of sin in the mind of the penitent than in satisfying any notion of justice? In other words, it dramatises Genesis 3 - sin causing death? Now I may be switching out of the doctrine of substitutionary atonment into another, and I am open to having my categories realigned here, but in the light of your paper, no other options are offered.

Nathan:

I think I'd probably be a bit uncomfortable with the ethics of a God who demands a death in order to make a point too. However, I'd certainly agree that the sacrificial death of Christ - giving up his life in consequence of his uncompromising stand for life in the face of the powers of death - now serves to reinforce the cost of sin in our minds.

Peace and hope,

Nathan

______________________________________ Nathan Nettleton Pastor, South Yarra Community Baptist Church Melbourne, Australia