Affirmation 2010- A Reluctant Critique.

Affirmation 2010

In January, a new Statement of Faith and Practice was set forth under the name Affirmation 2010.  It was issued by twenty or so Ministers of Reformed churches; Baptists, Presbyterians and Congregationalists.  Details can be found at  www.affirmation2010.wordpress.com

The prime mover of Affirmation appears to be Malcolm Watts, Minister of Emmanuel Church, Salisbury.  He is also Chairman of the Trinitarian Bible Society (1) and of the Bible League (2).  I am sure Rev’d. Watts would not object to being described as conservative in his theology and churchmanship. Emmanuel Church uses the Authorized Version of the Bible and is the only Baptist church in Britain that I know of that sings only unaccompanied metrical psalms.  This conservative approach has not prevented Rev’d. Watts from building up a substantial congregation.  I have been privileged to hear him preach on a few occasions, to listen to his teaching at the Salisbury Conference which his church hosts each year, and also at the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London.  He is a powerful and earnest preacher, exceedingly knowledgeable concerning Church History and the Puritans in particular.

Of the other signatories to the Affirmation, two are known to me personally as I have preached in their churches occasionally as well as listening to their preaching and teaching;  two or three others I have heard with much benefit at one conference or another.  All of them, I am sure, are godly men serving the Lord faithfully in their various congregations.  It is therefore with no pleasure at all that I begin to write this critique.  My concern with the document that these men have signed is that it is unnecessarily dividing the people of God, and raising what should be matters of individual conscience (cf. Rom 14:1-13) into articles of faith.  Although the cause of Christ is generally at a very low ebb in Britain, there has been in recent years an increase in interest in Reformed theology.  Without doubt, therefore, it must be Satan’s concern to divide and destroy the Reformed churches.  I greatly fear that these men, in their misplaced zeal, are unwittingly causing division rather than unity among the Lord’s people and may paradoxically end up quenching the Spirit that we are hoping will revive our churches.

Affirmation 2010 consists of fifteen articles of faith, each with a corresponding rejection of what is seen as aberrant practice.  This is a good idea in many ways; Christians should be clear about what they reject as well as what they affirm.  However, the Affirmation contains an article on ‘separation’ and the clear impression is given that Christians are to separate from whatever is rejected.  So far so good; certainly we should separate from those who deny the Trinity, Penal Substitution and Justification by Faith Alone.  But are we really going to base our standards of orthodoxy upon which Bible versions we use and what hymns we sing?

Several of the articles I thoroughly approve of, and therefore I shall be making no comment upon the following:  2. The Trinity.  5. Penal Substitution.  6. Justification by Faith Alone.   15. The Second Coming of Christ.  16. The Eternal State.  I am in broad agreement with several other articles and shall comment on those only briefly.   With others, as will be seen, I have deep reservations.

1. Infallibility of Scripture.  I never supposed that I would find myself in disagreement with an affirmation of Scriptural infallibility.  Indeed, I have no problem with the article until the last two sentences.  Even where the Masoretic and Received texts are declared to be the ‘authentic and preserved’ texts, I am actually in agreement.  Those who have read this blog will know that I quote from the N.K.J.V. almost exclusively, and that translation uses those very texts.  Where I part company with the Affirmation is where it proclaims the Authorized Version to be ‘by far the best and most accurate English translation.’  I beg to differ; but I fully accept the right of any church to use the A.V. if it wishes.  I preach from time to time at churches that use the A.V. and I am always happy to use it if requested.   If the Affirmation went no further than that, I would not be writing this critique; I would simply leave the authors to their opinion.  However, the Affirmation continues, ‘We reject modern and unfaithful versions.’  All modern versions and their users are lumped together and rejected in the very same terms in which Unitarians, Socinians and other heretics are rejected in subsequent articles.  What should be a matter of liberty and personal preference is being exalted to a matter of primary importance and, in the light of Article 13, to a matter of separation.  If the composers of the Affirmation do not intend that, then they needed to say so.  It is worth mentioning that even the translators of the A.V. would not have signed up to the Affirmation.  In the Preface of the Translators to the Reader,  they wrote,  ‘We do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession……containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.’

I could easily be persuaded to join a campaign to promote the Received Text, and I would gladly give financial support to a new Bible translation using that text if it is felt that the N.K.J.V. is not good enough.  What I will not do is try to foist a 500 year-old translation with archaic language on the churches; firstly, because it’s a lost cause, and secondly because even if it succeeded it would be a retrograde step.  The A.V. shares one feature with every other translation:  it was made by fallible, sinful men.   Infallibility does not rest with the translators, it rests in the original Greek and Hebrew texts.  That is why it is helpful to have someone who knows those languages in every congregation.  The A.V. falls short on three counts:-

1.  The English language, like every other, has changed over the past four hundred years.  Words alter their meanings over time.  In 2Thes 2:7, the A.V. translates, ‘Only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.’  The word ‘let’ in the 17^th Century, meant to restrain or hinder;  today, of course, it means ‘allow.’  Therefore the verse means the exact opposite of what the A.V. says it means.  The N.I.V. (and other modern versions) translate correctly, ‘But the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way.’

2.  Some of the language in the A.V. is scarcely comprehensible even allowing for the archaic language.  Consider Ezek 41:7.  ‘And there was an enlarging, and a winding about still upward to the side chambers; for the winding about of the house went still upward round about the house: therefore the breadth of the house was still upward, and so increased from the lowest chamber to the highest by the midst.’  This may be a word-for-word translation, but what on earth does it mean?  A translation that is so literal that no one can understand it is of limited use.

3.  Supporters of the A.V. make great play on the fact that some modern translations omit references to the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ (3), as indeed they do (except the N.K.J.V.).  The most frequently cited verse is 1Tim 3:16, though there are several others.  Less well known is that there are two places where all the modern translations affirm the deity of our Lord, but the A.V. does not.

Titus 2:13, A.V.  Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.’

Titus 2:13, N.I.V.  ‘While we wait for the blessed hope- the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ’ (other modern versions are similar).

2Peter 1:1b, A.V.  ‘…..To them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.’

2Peter 1:1b, N.I.V.  ‘….To those who through the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ have obtained a faith as precious as ours’ (other modern versions are similar).

The only modern translation that supports the A.V. in these two texts is the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses!  Just in case it might be thought that the A.V. is right in these instances, let the reader look at 2Peter 1:11.  Here the A.V. rightly translates, ‘….our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.’  Yet the Greek construction here is exactly the same as in 1:1.  I have no doubt that all the translators of the A.V. were staunch Trinitarians, but it ill behoves  A.V. supporters to sneer at the N.I.V. while the A.V. contains such serious errors.

There is also another place where the A.V.  finds itself in agreement with the J.W.s.  In John 1:32, it denies the personality of the Holy Spirit, referring to Him as ‘it.’  If a new Bible version appeared today with a similar error in it, the supporters of the Affirmation would be the first to pillory both the version and its translators .

Let me be clear once again.  I am not saying that the A.V. is a bad translation or that it is worse than the N.I.V.  The N.I.V. falls short on numerous occasions.  What I am saying is that the question of Bible translations should not be made an excuse for separation.  Let discussion continue by all means, but in a spirit of love while we contend for the Gospel of Christ.  I repeat, if the N.K.J.V. is not acceptable, let us have a new version based on the traditional texts, produced by a Christian organization.  I can think of no one better to do it that the Trinitarian Bible Society.  There is a Spanish Bible version, the Reina Valera, that is even older than the A.V., and based upon the same texts.  Yet this version has been regularly updated as the Spanish language has changed.  Revisions were made in 1909, in 1960, and now I understand that the T.B.S. is undertaking a new revision.  Quite right!  If the A.V. had been carefully revised every 50 years or so (4), there might not have been the need for the plethora of new versions.

3. Doctrine Of Grace.  It is no surprise that the Affirmation upholds the ‘Five Solas’ of the Reformation and the 17^th Century Reformed Confessions, but it is welcome nonetheless.  As a Five Point Calvinist, I can support them unreservedly at this point.  It goes on to ‘Reject Arminianism in all its forms, especially modern ‘decisionism’ and ‘easy believism.’  There seems to be a tautology here.  If all forms of Arminianism are rejected, then how does one ‘super-reject’ its modern excrescences?  There is an older, less objectionable form of Arminianism with which Calvinists were prepared to unite on certain matters in time past.  Whitefield was willing to work with Wesley in the 18^th Century, and Lloyd-Jones with Campbell-Morgan in the 20^th.  Did these men get it wrong?

This article is the only place where there is any mention of preaching and the Gospel.  I was particularly sorry that there was no stronger affirmation of these matters.  I would have thought that they deserved an article to themselves.  Had Dr Peter Masters been involved in the composition of the Affirmation, they certainly would have had.  Those of us who have attended the Summer School of Theology at the Metropolitan Tabernacle have grown used to his polemics on this matter.   Yet he is surely right here.  In many churches today, the sermon has become little more than a homily.  We need to encourage not only the regular expository ministry that the Proclamation Trust promotes so effectively, but also persuasive  Gospel preaching where the minister reasons with unbelievers (Acts 17:2; 18:4; 24:25; 2Tim 4:1-2).  The Affirmation does indeed speak of the need to ‘Fulfil the evangelistic commission’ but I am surprised that it is so mealy-mouthed about the matter.  I know that Rev’d. Watts is a strong supporter of evangelistic preaching, and I am surprised that he has not had more to say about it.  While the Affirmation is so busy rejecting all sorts of other things, perhaps it could have rejected Hyper-Calvinism ‘in all its forms’ such as the reluctance to exhort sinners to come to Christ (cf. Ezek 18:30-32; Isaiah 55:1-9).

4. Six Day Creation.  Again, I am in full agreement with the Affirmation at this point, and it can also claim Dr Lloyd-Jones as a supporter.  A belief in ‘Theistic Evolution’ seems to me to make it very difficult to uphold the Doctrines of Original Sin and Substitutionary Atonement.  How can one believe that Christ is the ‘Last Adam’ (1Cor 15:45 etc) if one doesn’t believe in a first Adam?

However, the Affirmation goes on to ‘Deny all attempts to interpret Genesis according to scientific theories.’  Fair enough, but if this denial means that we separate from such people, then we are rejecting Dr Thomas Chalmers (the originator of the ‘Gap Theory’) and  B. B. Warfield, who were such robust defenders of the faith in former times.  Should we burn their books?

In the interests of brevity I pass over several other articles with which I have only minor reservations and come to

13. Separation.   Once again, I can agree with the sentiments expressed here.  The Churches Together Movement has been baneful for the spiritual health of the country as it has encouraged evangelical churches to accept even the most blatantly apostate congregations as true Christians.  Where I live, almost every other church is in Churches Together and all inter-church fellowship and cooperation is made through this organization.  It is a hard necessity to stand aloof from it.

However, the Affirmation advocates not just one-stage, but two-stage separation.  That is to say that not only must churches separate from non-biblical churches, but also from those who, though themselves otherwise orthodox, have fellowship with those who are not so.    2Thes 3:6, 14 is forced out of context and used as a proof-text for this.   This means, obviously, that Free Churches must have no fellowship with even the most evangelical Anglican or Methodist churches, since these are bound to be having fellowship with others within their denominations.  If this position had been adopted in past times, it would have meant that Philip Dodderidge could not have supported George Whitefield, and John Sutcliff and his friends would have needed to separate from John Newton because of his friendship with Thomas Scott.  Scott himself, of course, would (humanly speaking) never have been converted if Newton had refused him friendship as an unbeliever (5).

There is a Scripture that addresses all this.  ‘Who are you to judge anther’s servant?  To his own Master he stands or falls’ (Rom 14:4).  Most certainly, Pastors should jealously guard their pulpits against those who might mislead their people.  Nor should we pray together with unbelievers as if we were in unity together, lest we encourage them in their unbelief.  But to refuse fellowship to a Christian because we don’t like the company he keeps smacks of Pharisaism (Mark 2:16).  I recently attended for the first time an event held by the Proclamation Trust.  To my surprise, there were numerous Anglican, Methodist and U.R.C. ministers who had come to learn how to preach biblically.  One whom I spoke to had come under severe pressure from his local Deanery because of his firm evangelical stance.  I say we should be encouraging such men, not spurning them and saying, ‘Keep to yourself, do not come near me, for I am holier than you!’ (Isaiah 65:5).

14. Revival.  Readers of this Blog will know that I am very passionate about Revival (6), and I therefore welcome any document that puts revival in the forefront of our thinking.  ‘Unless the LORD builds the house, they labour in vain who build it’ (Psalm 127:1).  However, once again there is a sentence in this article that causes me concern.  ‘Evangelism and outward reformation, in and of themselves, are not the answers to the dreadful lack of spiritual vitality and vigour, and mere activism on the part of Christians will never effect the desired transformation of Christ’s Church.’  It is the phrase ‘mere activism’ that worries me.  I got a faint whiff of fatalism in Article 3.  I am sniffing it again here.  I find it hard to believe that Rev’d. Watts is the author of this section.  A longing to see God coming in power on our land again must not cause us to slacken our efforts to reach out to the lost.  Matt 28:19-20 and Mark 16:15 give us no warrant to dilly-dally while we wait for God to act.

To sum up then, I say that this document, which I’m sure is meant to strengthen the Reformed churches, is far more likely to divide them.  Certain Reformed ministers whose signatures one might have expected to see, are conspicuous by their absence, and therefore those who have signed may find that they have circled their wagons even more tightly than perhaps they anticipated.  I don’t know what more to say other than that I find it very sad.

Notes.

(1) www.bibleleaguetrust.org.uk

(2) www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org

(3) See the TBS article by Rev’d David Blount.  www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/A121.pdf         or Three Modern Versions by Rev’d Alan MacGregor (Bible League Trust. ISBN 0-904435-87-3).  They both score some palpable hits without seeming to realise that a critique of the A.V. would reveal just as many shortcomings..

(4) In fact the A.V. was revised several times in the 150 years after its publication in 1611, culminating in the final Oxford Revision of 1769 which is the version used today.

(5) Read The Force of Truth by Thomas Scott (Banner of Truth Trust).

(6)  https://marprelate.wordpress.com/category/revival/