In 2001, the faculty of the Southern Baptist flagship seminary, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS), produced an exposition on the then new Southern Baptist confession, The Baptist Faith & Message 2000 (BF&M 2000). The document, An Exposition from the Faculty of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary on The Baptist Faith and Message 2000, features the writings of twenty seven SBTS professors (including BF&M 2000 framer Albert Mohler) in over forty pages of exposition on the sections of the BF&M 2000. The exposition sheds much light on the varying interpretations of the BF&M 2000. The issue of interpretation is the purpose of this post, particularly in light of the requirement that all Southern Baptist seminary faculty, and those in various other denominational positions, affirm the BF&M 2000.
Two Interpretations – One Confession
A Denial of Inherited Guilt
In a recent discussion regarding inherited guilt and the BF&M, Dr. Steve Lemke, Provost and Professor of Philosophy and Ethics at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, suggested that the BF&M 2000 section on man denies the doctrine of inherited guilt. Lemke asked:
But would it be correct to read your remarks as saying that you cannot affirm the Baptist Faith and Message (any version), especially its statement that children are not guilty of sin until they “are capable of moral action”?
and
…you are affirming the Baptist Faith and Message statement (present in all three versions — 1925, 1963, and 2000) that children are not guilty of sin until they “are capable of moral action”? So, therefore, children are not guilty of sin?
Source: http://sbctoday.com/2011/08/25/distinctive-baptist-beliefsnine-marks-that-separate-baptists-from-presbyteriansdistinctive-baptist-belief-2%E2%80%94the-age-or-state-of-accountability/#comments
Section III of the BF&M 2000 states:
Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation.
Interestingly, the BF&M 2000 adopts the same language of the BF&M 1963 which deviates from the first Southern Baptist confession, the BF&M 1925, regarding original sin and the finer point of inherited guilt. The BF&M 1925 states:
He was created in a state of holiness under the law of his Maker, but, through the temptation of Satan, he transgressed the command of God and fell from his original holiness and righteousness; whereby his posterity inherit a nature corrupt and in bondage to sin, are under condemnation, and as soon as they are capable of moral action, become actual transgressors.
Dr. Lemke interprets Section III of the BF&M 2000 to be a direct denial of the doctrine of inherited guilt and thus with good conscience he affirms the BF&M 2000, fulfilling the requirements of NOBTS.
An Affirmation of Inherited Guilt
Former Southern Baptist Theological Seminary professor Daniel Block, now a professor at Wheaton College, penned the expositional section on man in the SBTS document An Exposition from the Faculty of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary on The Baptist Faith and Message 2000. Contrary to the interpretation of Steve Lemke, Block understands Section III of the BF&M 2000 to affirm the doctrine of inherited guilt. Block writes:
Because of sin, which may be understood fundamentally as rebellion against God, we all come under the curse of God. In accordance with the biblical perspective of the entire human race as united in descent from Adam, the guilt of Adam’s sin falls on all, and estrangement from God in whose image we are made extends to all. [Emphasis added]
Source: http://www.sbts.edu/documents/bfmexposition.pdf
Dr. Block interprets Section III of the BF&M 2000 as an affirmation of the doctrine of inherited guilt and thus he, presumably, affirmed the BF&M 2000 in accordance with the requirements of SBTS while he was employed.
Practical Implications
It is clear that Drs. Lemke and Block do not interpret the BF&M 2000 to be communicating the same doctrinal position regarding inherited guilt. Dr. Lemke believes the confession denies inherited guilt while Dr. Block believes the confession affirms inherited guilt. It is not surprising to those who have studied the BF&M 2000 that varying interpretations arise. The document by its very nature is not designed to detail the finer points of theological truth but is meant to provide a general confession of Southern Baptist tradition related to faith and practice. However, there is a price to pay for vague language used in confessions that are vitally important to the faith and practice of a particular confessing group. If a person cannot with good conscience affirm the BF&M 2000, there are serious implications for such a position. All six SBC seminaries require each faculty member to not only teach “in accordance with and not contrary to” the BF&M 2000 but also to affirm the confession with good conscience. Dr. Lemke explains further:
But not being able to endorse the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 in the SBC has implications: (a) you can’t teach at an SBC seminary, (b) you can’t hold office in the SBC, (c) you can’t hold office in most state conventions and many associations, (d) you can’t be elected as a trustee of an SBC entity or board, (e)you can’t be certified as a NAMB church planter, (f) you can’t be approved as an IMB missionary, and (g) you can’t be elected to the SBC Executive Committee, etc. All of these require affirming and signing the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. And, it is possible that your church’s association, state convention, or the SBC might disfellowship you. So you can hold your personal belief that is at variance with the BF&M 2000, but you can’t do so and serve at most levels of SBC life. (That may not break your heart, but just recognize that this would significantly qualify or diminish a person’s claim to being a genuine Southern Baptist if Southern Baptists would not recognize you as being of the same faith and practice as most within the SBC).
Source: http://sbctoday.com/2011/09/06/distinctive-baptist-beliefsnine-marks-that-separate-baptists-from-presbyteriansdistinctive-baptist-belief-5%E2%80%94baptism-and-the-lord%E2%80%99s-supper-as-symbolic-ordinances-not-sacraments/#comments
There are serious implications in Southern Baptist denominational life for the person who cannot affirm the BF&M 2000.
Regarding BF&M 2000 interpretational disagreement within the SBC, many questions arise:
1. What is the correct interpretation of the BF&M 2000?
2. Is Dr. Lemke correct that the document denies inherited guilt? Perhaps Dr. Block’s interpretation is correct in that the BF&M 2000 affirms the historic Christian doctrine of inherited guilt.
3. Who enforces proper interpretation?
4. Would Dr. Block be in the position to be hired at NOBTS in light of his interpretation of Section III? Conversely, would Dr. Lemke be in the position to be hired at SBTS in light of his interpretation?
These are all valid questions. Although, I presume as long as someone signs above the line and affirms the BF&M 2000, there would not be cause for further discussion.
The vague confessionalism present in the SBC pushes me to understand the BF&M 2000 in a less than desirable light. Not merely because of the document itself, but because of the context in which it exists; a doctrinally diverse denomination. Consequently, the confession essentially means nothing (as multiple interpretations are allowed to exist side by side), and yet in Southern Baptist denominational life, the confession means everything.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
-
Transformed Theology
