III. A Cordial Examination

III. A Cordial Examination of the Theological Paper Issued By The RBF


Introduction

Please note that the Theological Paper was issued by the RBF. That was possible only because I was no longer considered a member of the RBF, otherwise that Paper would not have been issued in the name of the RBF because much of it is inconsistent and contradicts the plain teaching of Scriptures as summarized in the 1689 CoF. The Theological Paper claims to espouse the ‘standard reformed position.’ If the views expressed are indeed the views of the modern Reformed Baptists, then I am no longer one. My kinship is with the Particular Baptists who formulated the First (1644) and the Second (1689) London Baptist Confession of Faith. Since I still consider myself a neighbor to the brethren of the RBF and the churches represented by them, I would like to come and examine the ‘standard reformed position’ of these brethren as stated in this formal declaration of their theological positions.

“He that is first in his own cause seemeth just
But his neighbour cometh and searcheth him.” Pr 18:17.

On September 25, I responded to the Theological Paper issued by the RBF. Elder Lam has claimed on behalf of the RBF that the theological views of the RBF do not contradict the teaching of the 1689 CoF. Whether they are a correct expression of the ‘standard reformed position’ or not is of little concern to me. It is my opinion that very much of the views espoused and defended in the Paper do plainly contradict the teaching of the Scriptures as summarized in the 1689 CoF. In the response which follows I will endeavor to examine the theological views stated and compare them with the teaching of Scriptures as summarized in the 1689 CoF. Let each Berean-minded reader judge for himself whether the views espoused and defended by these leaders of the RBF and their churches are indeed not contradictory to the teaching of Scriptures as summarized in the 1689 CoF.


“Dear brothers of the RB Fraternal, (and churches represented by them)
Please see my comments to your official Theological Statement “A Response of The Reformed Baptist Fraternal.” Your paper is pasted below. My comments are within your paper, section by section. Your words are marked RBF, and mine by SL. Your words are put in smaller font.


RBF: A response to a theological challenge put forward by Pr Lau from SDC.
Why a response? Since last year, Pr Lau has engaged the fraternal with some theological issues for discussion. We met for three sessions and subsequently continued to discuss through e-mails, but we only found ourselves disagreeing with one another at many points and could not come to an acceptable conclusion. Meanwhile some of our church members were informed about the discussion and expressed their concerns and wanted to know about our stand on the issues. In view of that, we now issue a common response to the challenge put forward by Pr Lau.

SL: Let it be known that I was merely making theological inquiries. However these innocent inquiries did make some people felt challenged, and instead of adopting a study-mode, they switched into defensive gear. Nevertheless, I am delighted that you have finally put forth this carefully considered statements of your theological conviction. I am grateful that this common response has been issued. Now I have a printed picture of what constitutes the ‘standard reformed position’ espoused and defended by RBF. With your views set in black and white, it is far easier to interact intelligently. Perhaps this time some acceptable conclusion could be made when your ‘standard reformed position’ is shown to be plainly contrary to the teaching of Scriptures as summarized in the 1689 CoF. But I am not so hopeful. The plain teaching summarized in the Confession may still be explained away, and rejected. It has been insisted by some that since we do not have access to the ‘original documents’ of the 1689 CoF we could never know for sure what is meant be those confessional statements. With such presupposition, is it not a mockery to even claim that the theological views of the RBF do not contradict the teaching of the 1689 CoF?


RBF: We shall begin by considering what all this discussion is about. It is about the “order of salvation” and related issues. How did Pr Lau express himself in the “order of salvation”? Following is a summary of what has been expressed by him through verbal discussions and e-mails.

SL: Please refer to the short article on ‘The Order of Salvation in the 1689 CoF’ in Section II above for a reliable summary of my view on the order of salvation. The RBF’s summary is inadequate at best, and misleading at worst. You will see what I mean.