London Baptist Confession 1689

In a near thread, it was suggested that I post areas of disagreement with the London Baptist Confession of 1689.

My first inclination is to not do so, because, I consider two outcomes.

First, that there will be a lot of posts, but little agreement - but that isn't untypical of most of the interaction on the BB, so that reason is forlorn in a lack of support.
Second, that there will be some misunderstanding that the nuance I take is some manner discrediting the whole document. Not so, but an attempt to display my own thinking. What the respondent take of that thinking is of their own desire.
Third, that I would have in the next days, very little time to respond to those who would inquire. But, again, as the Lord allows, I figure I will make the attempt.​

So, it is the emphasis of this thread to begin and mark areas of disagreement with the respondents understanding that what I don't mark as an area of disagreement, then I agree.

Perhaps the first area concerns the statement on free will.

"God has indued the will of man, by nature, with liberty and the power to choose and to act upon his choice. This free will is neither forced, nor destined by any necessity of nature to do good or evil."​

I disagree that there is any "free will" abiding in the unregenerate humankind, and most certainly that the will is not by nature destined to do good or evil. Such free will is highly overrated, and in my opinion non - existent.

I consider the will of unregenerate humankind corrupted to the point that any "good decisions" are only corrupt decisions that are made to appear good, for the time, but ultimately result in decay and ruin. That the unregenerate humankind will is subject to the god of this world, and of the demands of the impulses of this world and worldly.

Of course, because I hold such, then any suggestion that the work of God "renews their wills," elsewhere in the document, I must restate as that new will in which God instills in the believer as part of the giving of a new nature.

It remains my opinion that the new nature contains NOTHING of the old so there is no old will renewed, rather a completely and separate will that takes up residence and battles against all that the old nature and will continues to support.

We are a "New creature created in Christ" not some old renewed.


Ok, so that is a start.

I will either start other threads or continue with other areas of disagreement in this one. It depends on pages. After all, I am old, and not nearly as smart as some others on the board.

 

A second area of concern is the broad area of the Sabbath, and in particular these later parts:

He has particularly appointed one day in seven for a Sabbath to be kept holy for Him. From the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ this was the last day of the week, and from the resurrection of Christ it was changed to the first day of the week and called the Lord's Day. This is to be continued until the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath, the observation of the last day of the week having been abolished.​

Followed by this:

The Sabbath is kept holy to the Lord by those who, after the necessary preparation of their hearts and prior arranging of their common affairs, observe all day a holy rest from their own works, words and thoughts about their worldly employment and recreations, and give themselves over to the public and private acts of worship for the whole time, and to carrying out duties of necessity and mercy.​

Do not mistake that I am for dismantling the view of keeping a holy day of worship. What I disagree is that the day must be what some consider the "Lord's day."

Many people work at worship on the "Lord's day" and they are exhausted by the end of the day. I consider that placing the stress that the "Sabbath" must be on the "Lord's day," is neglecting the statement of Paul when He spoke of how some regard a day, and others another. (Romans 14:5)

What is important is not the day, but the type of worship of the day chosen. The LBC places emphasis upon both the day and the worship.

I place it upon the worship, and regard a specific day as within the freedom of the believer to choose.

 

Rippon, I don't know what you are using, but I copied and pasted from HERE.

That you would consider me dishonest is using poor judgment.

 

I thought I would squeeze in another area, but it matters very little.

At the last day, those of the saints who are still alive shall not sleep but shall be changed. And all the dead shall be raised up with their own, same bodies, and none other, although with different qualities, and these bodies shall be united again to their souls for ever. ​

I consider this a bit of a problem with the statement of John (1 John 3:2):

Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is.​

Like I said, it remains a small area, but then folks didn't have organ transplant back in the late 1600's and today we do. So, I don't think the eye will spend eternity in hell because it ends up on the body of a reprobate heathen unbeliever. Or my kidney, my heart, my lungs, my ...

You get the idea.

 

Anytime someone uses the term "free" and "will" together, I have difficulty.

You are correct, that within the confines of the fallen nature the will of man freely makes a choice but such choice is and must be conformed to desires of that fallen nature, and therefore the choice itself leads to nothing of eternal value.

This is why, I don't see the old will being renewed, but the installation of a new will in which the old resists and desires to overthrow. Hence the continued battles and need to die daily.