Journal: Journal of the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies
Volume: JIRBS 03:1 (NA 2016)
Article: The Consequences Of Positive Law: The Particular Baptists’ Use Of Inferential Reasoning In Theology
Author: Samuel D. Renihan

JIRBS 3 (2016) p. 123

The Consequences Of Positive Law:
The Particular Baptists’ Use Of Inferential Reasoning In Theology

Samuel Renihan*

* Samuel Renihan, M.Div., is a pastor at Trinity Reformed Baptist Church in La Mirada, CA and a Ph.D. student at the Free University of Amsterdam.

“We are generally held to deny all consequences, which is false.”

– Thomas De Laune

In comparing the Second London Confession of Faith (1677) with the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) a recurring question arises concerning the way in which these two confessions handle “consequences,” or doctrines drawn from the Scriptures through inference, reason, and deduction. The WCF states that “The whole Councel of God…is either expressely set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.”1 The 2LCF edited this statement to say that “The whole Councel of God…is either expressely set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture.”2

What was the nature of this change? And what were the reasons behind it? Various authors have taken note of the difference but said little to explain it. Among those who have offered explanations, few sufficiently represent or appeal to the writings of the Particular Baptists themselves in their assertions.3 James Renihan, in contrast to

JIRBS 3 (2016) p. 124

the majority, has argued from the sources that this change is explained by two factors.

The first explanation is based on the distinction between “good” consequences and “necessary” consequences as articulated by George Gillespie and William Greenhill.4 Good consequences are probable and supportive, while necessary consequences are binding and authoritative. Based on this distinction, the argument for the Baptists’ edit is that good consequences should not be raised to the level of Scripture as confessed in chapter one of the Confession. Either they’re true or they’re not. Thus, either our faith and practice is “necessarily contained” in the Scriptures, or it is not.5

The second, and more pertinent, explanation for the difference between the confessions derives from the Particular Baptists’ insistence on positive institution for religious worship or covenantal ordinances. It is this argument which we will address. When the question is examined in light of the Particul...