This is the final installment of a guest series by Dr. Drew Grumbles. See Part 1 Here, Part 2 Here, Part 3a Here, Part 3b Here, Part 4a Here, Part 4b Here, Part 5a Here, Part 5b Here, Part 6a Here, Part 6b Here, Part 7a Here, and 7b Here.
We have seen that even the demons believe in one God. They know that they themselves are not gods. Can we also say that the demons affirm the first phrase in Chapter 2 of the Second London Baptist Confession? We have dealt primarily with exegesis, both of texts positively affirming monotheism and of those texts that are used to argue for other gods’ existence. This is because the supreme judge by which opinions are to be tried is the Holy Scriptures.[1] Yet, after exegesis, we must summarize and express the truth of the Scriptures in non-inspired words. Such is the benefit of Confessions, words which have stood the test of time in expressing truth. For Reformed Baptists, our confessional document is the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith. Some who hold to the view that other gods exist also assent to this Confession. They do not believe that their view contradicts the Confession of Faith, arguing instead that the Confession is silent on the issue.[2] Therefore, in this final article, we will discuss the claim of the Confession as to how many gods exist.
Opening the Confessional Door?
The phrase under scrutiny in the Confession states, “The Lord our God is but one only living and true God . . . .”[3]Moffitt summarizes how the “other gods” view interprets the phrase, saying, “The language and grammar used in each confession, along with the explicitly stated attributes of this being, make it clear that they describe a unique, uncreated being. There is only one who inherently possesses these divine attributes, and He alone is to be worshiped.”[4] In other words, in this interpretation, 2LCF 2.1 declares that only one God (among possible others) possesses the characteristics mentioned, including being “our God, living, true, self-existent, infinite, etc.” The one God’s name is YHWH. To what “language and grammar,” then, does he refer?
First, the “other gods” view emphasizes the pronoun, “The Lord our God.” That is, the Confession, they say, speaks only about what is true of YHWH, the God of the Bible. Second, the Confession simply states that YHWH is the only “living and true God.” Other gods may exist, but not as living and true ones. Only YHWH meets the two criteria of being both living and true. To be living, presumably, means that he is uncreated. What it means to be true is less clear. Perhaps “true,” in this view, refers to his absolute supremacy and uniqueness, legitimately worthy of worship, and true in the sense of fidelity deserving full loyalty. In other words, “true” means he is the unique deity, but it does not mean that he is the exclusive deity of all creation. The modifier “living and true” becomes a controlling factor in understanding to which God the line in the Confession refers.
For the “other gods” proponents, the Confession leaves open the question as to whether other gods exist, so that Particular Baptists can amicably disagree on that question. In one sense, such a view is understandable, but the question must be asked if such a meaning is even plausible in light of what we know about the Confession, or if these proponents are looking to the Confession to see what they want to see.
Interpreting the Confession As Exclusivistic
In response, we address first the use of the pronoun “our.” Does the Confession merely state that “our God” is living and true, while the hypothetical others are not? Renihan shows that this pronoun shows a difference from Nehemiah Coxe’s similar statement in Vindiciae Veritatis, but Renihan interprets the pronoun as simply an assertion that YHWH is the God of his people. This leads to worship, reverence, and awe, he concludes.[5] Probably the Confession includes the pronoun because of the proof-text they use, Deut 6:4. Just as Israel said, “YHWH our God is one,” so now the new covenant Christian can affirm the same.[6] Moreover, WCF and Savoy both state, “There is but one only living and true God. . .” Can one really make a case that, by adding the phrase, “The Lord our God. . .” the framers of the Second London allow for belief in other gods? A very heavy burden of proof lies upon the one who wishes to make such an assertion. Aside from these hints, then, we cannot precisely say what the framers intended by this pronoun. However, as we continue to examine the phrase, we can see clearly that they did not intend to open a door to belief in the existence of other gods that are not “ours.”
Next, then, what about the claim that only YHWH is the one “living and true” God? Can we reasonably say that the Confession allows for the possibility of other gods’ existence? Again, the Confession gets its wording directly from Scripture. A proof text, Jer 10:10 states, “But YHWH is the true God; he is the living God and the everlasting King . . . .”[7] Based on a previous article explaining the clear monotheism in Jeremiah (2:11; 16:20), one has no reason to think Jer 10:10 expresses anything different. Thus, when Jeremiah affirms that YHWH is the true and living God, one is hard-pressed to think he leaves the door open for his audience to believe other gods exist.
Modern expositions of the confessions affirm that the Confession intends to state the singularity of God. Waldron writes, “The unity of singularity or oneness refers to the fact that there is only one God, a frequent assertion of both the Old and New Testaments.”[8] Renihan equally states, “In contrast to idols or other claimants to divinity, the Scripture and the Christian tradition follow the faith of the Old Testament in asserting that the God of heaven and earth is unique and alone as deity. The supporting texts, 1 Corinthians 8:4 and Deuteronomy 6:4, make this abundantly clear. There is one God, and no other.”[9]
We may also compare the Second London on this point to Westminster, Savoy, and the First London Confession. WCF and Savoy both state, “There is but one only living and true God. . .” In regard to Westminster, at least, we know what the divines meant by these modifiers, and it was not to allow the possibility of the existence of other gods.[10] Westminster Larger Catechism asks in Question 8, “Are there more gods than one?” The answer is, “There is but one only, the living and true God.”[11] The answer leaves no room for ambiguity. There are not more gods than one. The one God is also the living and true God, according to this Catechism. Furthermore, Westminster divine Edward Leigh articulates the non-existence of other gods, explaining, “Some places of Scripture simply deny other gods; and others exclude all but this one God; Though there be gods many, and lords many; that is, that are so called, and reputed by men, who deceive themselves in their own imaginations, yet to us (in the Church) there is but one God . . . .”[12] Surely we are to understand the Westminster Standards in the manner Leigh explains. Therefore, when looking at the Second London Baptist Confession, we should interpret the statement in the same sense that Westminster intended their statement about God.[13]
Puzzlingly, Moffitt claims that the Westminster Assembly allows for his view.[14] Citing Session 829 of the Assembly, he makes it appear as if the Assembly affirms only one God, so long as that God is defined as living and true. He points to the next question the Assembly resolved, “What are the properties of God?” In other words, Moffitt holds that the Assembly affirms the existence of only one God, so long as that God is the one who has those properties mentioned.[15]Moffitt reads into the Assembly something he wants to find. Imagine this scenario. I ask a scientist, “Does planet earth have more than one moon?” He says, “It has but one only, the crater-filled moon.” I then ask, “What are the moon’s properties?” The man says, “It has a thin atmosphere, less gravity than earth, rotates around earth, etc.” Would this conversation then lead me to conclude, “Maybe planet earth has other moons. They just may be moons with no craters, much oxygen, and a lot of gravity”? Such a conclusion is far-fetched. The scientist has earlier clearly already denied the existence of other objects existing under the category of “moon.” Yet this is the kind of claim Moffit makes based on the Westminster Assembly session about “gods.”
Next, we can compare the First and Second London Baptist Confessions. First London 2.1 says, “The Lord our God is but one God. . .”[16] Notably, the First Confession does not include the modifiers “living and true.” The Second London adds the words, “only living and true.” The Second Confession was not written, however, to correct the theology of the First. Its addition and further precision do not intend to contradict the First Confession. Therefore, we can use the First London to interpret the Second. The First London Confession affirms that YHWH is “but one God.” In other words, only one God exists, and he is YHWH our God. Are we to believe that by adding the modifiers “living and true” to the Second Confession, that those writers intended to leave room for belief in other gods? Much more likely, the Second Confession desired simply to reflect the language of WCF, Savoy, and the Scriptures. Since the Westminster Catechism explicitly denies that there is more than one God, one must stretch his imagination to think the Second London made the change both to sound like Westminster and simultaneously to disagree with them. Again, the burden of proof lies heavily on one who wishes to make much of the change from the First to the Second London Baptist Confession.
Finally, in our examination of the phrase, we must consider the Baptist catechisms, which again are very similar to Westminster. The Baptist (Keach’s) Catechism of 1695 asks in Question 8, “Are there more gods than one?” The answer, “There is but one only, the living and true God.”[17] Again, the similar language between the Confession and Catechism shows that they agree in doctrine. Yet by answering the question, the Catechism leaves no room for doubt. There are not more gods than one. There is but one only. This one God (YHWH) is the living and true God. In his Tropologia, Keach states his view on the definition of an “elohim,” writing, “Elohim, when taken properly, belongs to none, but the only true and eternal God . . . . But metaphorically this name is attributed to creatures also, as, 1. To Angels . . . 2. To men of eminent dignity . . . .”[18] Moreover, Benjamin Beddome’s exposition of the Catechism buttresses this interpretation. In answering Question 8, Beddome writes, “And are all other gods false gods? Yes . . . Are there many Gods in name? Yes. . . . 1 Corinthians 8:5. But are these gods by nature? No. . . . Galatians 4:8. Are they then to be reputed of? No. . . . 1 Corinthians 8:4.”[19] Beddome even uses the English “lower-case g” to clarify that the “gods” do not have a divine nature and therefore are not to be “reputed of” or considered to be gods.
The Orthodox Catechism from the Baptist leader Hercules Collins also contains relevant questions and answers. Question 103 asks, “What does God require in the first commandment?” Part of the answer states, “. . . [I] should rightly acknowledge the only and true God. . .”[20] Collins does not say, “only true,” but “only and true.” Therefore, Collins sets forth God as having two distinct properties—“only” and “true.” YHWH is the only God. The next question also sheds light on the issue. Question 104 asks, “What is idolatry?” The answer, “It is in place of that one God, or besides that one true God who has manifested Himself in His word and works, to make or imagine, and account any other thing in which I rest my hope and confidence.”[21] Again, within this answer Collins affirms the reality of only one God.
Therefore, considering the Scriptural language used, the comments of modern expositions of the Confession, the comparison with sister Confessions, the comparison with its predecessor of a Baptist Confession, and comparison with the Baptist catechisms, Second London’s meaning unambiguously stands. The framers clearly intended to assert that only one God exists. He is YHWH, he is our God, and he is both living and true God.
Misunderstanding the Confession?
While we have just examined how Moffitt misunderstands the Second London Baptist Confession, here we respond to some of Moffitt’s contention that others misunderstand the Confession. Moffit holds, “[N]one of the historical Reformed confessions explicitly discuss the existence of gods or demons. The section most commonly referenced to deny the existence of other gods is found under ‘God and the Holy Trinity’ in the confessions.”[22] Moffitt claims the confusion comes from blending Theology Proper with theology of the spiritual realm. However, Moffit himself repeatedly mixes the terms “spiritual beings” and “real gods.” If one wants to argue that beings exist in the spiritual realm, he will not find opposition. The opposition comes when one claims that spiritual beings are gods. By definition, the declaration of the existence of gods impinges on one’s doctrine of God. If one’s theology proper states that only one God exists, that rules out the existence of other gods![23]
In multiple places, Moffitt uses faulty reasoning when interacting with his opponents. For example, he says, “As previously mentioned, our confessions offer no guidance on the broader biblical use of elohim beyond defining the nature of Yahweh.” The first part is true enough—the Confession does not mention the use of elohim in a place like Psalm 82. The second part begs the question. Moffitt’s claim is only true if one assumes his view that other gods (elohim) truly exist as god. By defining the nature of YHWH as the only God, the Confession speaks about the meaning of the word elohim.
As another example, he writes, “Whether one believes that all other gods are merely idols or that they are real spiritual beings, such as angels and demons, is not anticonfessional, as the confession remains silent on the matter.” Here, Moffitt sets up a false dichotomy. Either one agrees with him that the angels and demons are “real gods” or you believe all other gods are “mere” idols. What about the conclusion that angels and demons are real spiritual beings, but not that they are “all [the] other gods”? If the Confession states that only one God exists and that angels exist, then the Confession is not silent on the question of whether angels are gods.
Further issues arise when Moffitt says, “Nothing in the confessions suggests that the term ‘gods’ refers exclusively to idols or imaginary beings.”[24] Again, Moffitt commits some fallacies. First, he uses the “no true Scotsman” fallacy, the fallacy of excluding counterexamples to prove your conclusion. Moffitt excludes the one clear example in the Confession that uses the term “God” in an exclusive manner, namely 2LCF 2.1, and then makes this claim that the Confession does not use the term “God” in an exclusive manner. One can admit the Confession does not discuss the elohim per se. But the Confession does not discuss them because it excludes them as deities when it propounds YHWH as the only deity. Consider, analogically, that if one denies the existence of any water on Mars, he does not need to also discuss whether one finds oceans on Mars. Second, Moffitt presents the false dichotomy again. He says that since the Confession does not affirm the existence of elohim as either idols or imaginary beings, we can believe elohim (real gods) exist. Where is the option that the elohim refer to real spiritual, non-divine beings in an analogical manner? Why is the only other option besides his view to believe elohim are imaginary? The Confession has not spoken directly on elohim as idols or imaginations, but it has spoken on elohim as other real gods. The Confession speaks with a clear denial.
A final point to respond to is his “shifting of the goalposts” in the doctrine he asserts. At the conclusion of his article, he says, “Believing in lowercase gods who exist on a divine council does not contradict our history or confession.”[25] Here, his argument is for the existence of “lowercase gods.” The present author differs with Moffitt, showing that the Confession does contradict the existence of gods.[26] But only a few sentences later, Moffitt writes, “Believing that spiritual beings exist in the spiritual realm and are sometimes referred to as gods is not anti-confessional . . . . Once again, acknowledging the existence of created beings described as gods (such as Satan being called the ‘god of this world’ in 2 Corinthians 4:4) is not an attack on the nature of God.”[27] Here, his assertion is an entirely different one. He merely asserts that Satan is called the god of this world, that spiritual beings exist in the spiritual realm, and that these beings are sometimes referred to as gods. Framing the assertion in this way is unclear, if not duplicitous, since his opponents have no argument with these assertions. No, the disagreement arises when one claims spiritual beings are actual gods.
Conclusion
Having examined the Scriptures as our supreme authority, we have now looked at our subordinate standard, the Second London Baptist Confession. An honest reading of the Confession reveals that the Confession disallows the existence of other spiritual beings as “real gods,” while it certainly affirms the existence of angels. We can say, then, that even the demons believe the first phrase of Chapter 2. A demon can say, “The Lord, the God of Christians, is but one only living and true God.” Even the demons believe that they are not gods.
[1] Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1677), 1.10.
[2] https://www.jonmoffitt.com/post/do-reformed-confessions-reject-the-other-gods-part-one.
[3] Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1677), 2.1.
[4] https://www.jonmoffitt.com/post/do-reformed-confessions-reject-the-other-gods-part-one. By “each confession” he includes others like Westminster and Savoy.
[5] James M. Renihan, To the Judicious and Impartial Reader: A Contextual-Historical Exposition of the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, Baptist Symbolics 2 (Cape Coral, FL: Founders, 2022), 83.
[6] Cf. Paul’s similar wording in 1 Cor 8:6, “yet for us [ἀλλ᾽ ἡμῖν] there is one God.” Seeing that he quotes the Shema in 1 Cor 8:4, Paul likely does this to identify Christians with the people of God who confessed Deut 6:4.
[7] See also 1 Thessalonians 1:9.
[8] Sam Waldron, “Chapter 2: Of God and the Holy Trinity,” Pages 61–86 in A New Exposition of the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689, ed. Rob Ventura (Ross-shire, UK: Mentor, 2022), 65. Waldron’s own Modern Exposition does not address this first phrase of chapter 2.
[9] Renihan, To the Judicious and Impartial Reader, 83.
[10] David Dickson, Truth’s Victory Over Error: A Commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith, does not say much directly about the question of other gods. However he does make this statement in the section, “Of Religious Worship, Q. 3, Answer, 7th, “Because the worshipping of saints and angels is like a Polytheismus, the having of many gods. For the Papists attribute to each of the saints and angels, a proper power, as the heathens did of old to their idols and false gods.”
[11] Westminster Larger Catechism, Q & A 8.
[12] Edward Leigh, Body of Divinity, II.vi, 188–189. Cited in Richard A. Muller, Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 2nd ed., Vol. III (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2003), 243–244.
[13] Sadly, the seventeenth-century Reformed also encountered among the Socinians the faulty interpretation of similar texts related to “the gods.” The Socinians’ Catechism deals with the issue in two places (Anonymous, The Racovian Catechism, trans. Thomas Rees [London, UK: Richard & Arthur Taylor, 1818], 26–27, 35–36). I quote the Catechism in full. First, Racovian Catechism, 26–27 (emphasis mine) says, “But do not the Scriptures teach that there are ‘many Gods?’ Though they do indeed assert this, yet it is not in that sense in which they proclaim and declare that there is one only God, —namely, he who possesses supreme dominion, derived from no other being, and consequently circumscribed by no limits.But by Gods they mean to designate those who received what divinity they had from that one God, upon whom, as their head, they depended: thus in the following passages. Psalm Ixxxii. 1. and 6: ‘God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the Gods.’ ‘I have said ye are Gods, and all of you are children of the Most High.’ John x. 34, 35: ‘Is it not written in your law, I said ye are Gods? If he called them Gods unto whom the word of God came,’ etc. For nothing forbids but that the one God may communicate, and may have communicated, of his dominion and authority to others, notwithstanding the Scriptures assert that he is the only potentate and king, 1 Tim vi. 15. But why do the Scriptures thus speak? Because that he alone has dominion of himself, and is the head of all things ; while all other beings are dependent upon him, and exercise their derived dominion solely through his kindness . . . .” The Socinians affirm one supreme Deity (the Father) while admitting that other beings received their divinity from God. They even using language of God communicating some of his attributes to these beings, making them “gods” in some sense.
Next, Racovian Catechism, 34–36, says, “The term God is employed in the Scriptures chiefly in two senses. The former of these is, when it designates Him who so rules and presides over all things in heaven and on earth, that he acknowledges no superior; and is in such respects the author and head of all things, that he depends upon no other being, and possesses power which is absolutely infinite: and in this sense the Scriptures assert that God is One. The latter sense is, when it denotes a Being, who has received from that one God some kind of superior authority either in heaven, or on earth among men, or power superior to all things human, or authority to sit in judgement upon other men; and is thus rendered in some sense, a partaker of the Deity of the one God. Hence it is that in the Scriptures the one God is styled the ‘God of Gods,’ Psalm cxxxvi. 2; and it is in this latter sense that the Son of God is called God in some passages of Scripture.” Here the Socinians use references to other gods to claim that, in some sense, other beings partake of Deity. They used this argument to say that the Son could be “god” in some sense but not consubstantial with the Father.
The reason for these lengthy quotations to demonstrate the high likelihood that the Confessional standards were addressing, at least in part, the Socinian error. The Reformed would not admit the possibility that YHWH was a unique Creator God while other deities of some sort must exist. Leigh’s quotation above indicates awareness of the issues. Muller, PRRD, Vol. III, 267 explains, “. . . the Reformed agree . . . in general in terms of the identification of angels, false gods, and other heavenly beings as Elohim. Nonetheless, in those cases in which the word must be translated as referring to the true God . . . it is not at all applied analogically, but is used as a reference to the absolute rule or dominium of God . . . .” Muller indicates the same understanding as us, that the Reformed saw the term as analogical when referring to other beings besides the Lord.
[14] https://www.jonmoffitt.com/post/do-reformed-confessions-reject-the-other-gods-part-one.
[15] Alex F. Mitchell and John Struthers, eds., Minutes of the Sessions of the Westminster Assembly of Divines (Edinburgh, UK: William Blackwood and Sons, 1874), 350.
[16] First London Confession of Faith (1646), 2.1.
[17] The Baptist Catechism (1695).
[18] Benjamin Keach, Tropologia, (London: City Press, 1858), 97.
[19] Benjamin Beddome, A Scriptural Exposition of the Baptist Catechism (Birmingham, AL: Solid Ground, 2006), 18–19.
[20] The Orthodox Catechism.
[21] The Orthodox Catechism.
[22] https://www.jonmoffitt.com/post/do-reformed-confessions-reject-the-other-gods-part-one.
[23] Moffitt also says, “The confusion in this discussion largely stems from how English words are used in biblical translation.” (https://www.jonmoffitt.com/post/do-reformed-confessions-reject-the-other-gods-part-one.) As demonstrated in this series of articles, no confusion exists with the present author over the use of Hebrew & Greek terms for God and their English translation. The confusion arises from lack of clarity in Moffitt’s definition of a god.
[24] https://www.jonmoffitt.com/post/do-reformed-confessions-reject-the-other-gods-part-one.
[25] https://www.jonmoffitt.com/post/do-reformed-confessions-reject-the-other-gods-part-one.
[26] He also says, “. . . asserting that the Bible is silent on or hardly addresses the subject is also inaccurate. . .” (https://www.jonmoffitt.com/post/do-reformed-confessions-reject-the-other-gods-part-one). This is a red herring. Who has actually said such a thing?
[27] https://www.jonmoffitt.com/post/do-reformed-confessions-reject-the-other-gods-part-one.