1689 confession vs. 2000 baptist faith & message

The 1742 Philadelphia Baptist Confession which is the Americanized version of the 1689 and essentially the same except for two additional articles on the Laying on of Hands and Hymn Singing is personally my favorite.

The Article on the Scripture (Bible) in the 1742 is the best I think that has ever been written.

 

I'm reading a book now that talks at length about the Chicago Statement of inspiration and inerrancy. Some of the people involved in the dialogue are Paige Patterson, Fisher Humphreys, Clark Pinnock (the book is from 1987, so it was before he got into openness theology), and several others.

It is entitled, "The Proceedings of the Conference on Biblical Inerrancy," and so far it is turning out to be a very good book.

Massdak, what would you say are the key differences between the 1689 version and today's that cause you to lean more towards the former?

 

Actually, the London Confession is not, strictly speaking, a Baptist confession. Rather, it is a "Baptized" version of the Presbyterian Westminster Confession purposed, not so much as an exposition of Baptist views, as it was to show just how close the Baptists could slavishy approximate the Calvinist scheme of doctrine.

One thing I note is that while the Westminster Confession declared that some men were,

"foreordained to everlasting death"

the Baptists couldn't quite go that far and thus watered down that article to,

"others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation."

Mark Osgatharp

 

massdak, I'll bet you wouldn't get much disagreement at all. We must always endeavor to search out the correct interpretation of scripture. I am sure all of us have read creeds and confessions that we cannot figure out how anybody would have believed that. Of course over time we have discovered or found other docuemnts that shed light on the historical and social context of scripture. The one thing that never changes is scripture. What powerful words Luther made in defense of scripture when examined and interrogated by the RCC. I am challenged by his words. Scripture alone is sufficient instruction for faith and practice. Faith in Jesus Christ is all we need to please God (Heb 11:6).

Thanks massdak for the post and the references

 

Massdak,

I'm not a Calvinist at all. I was only making the observation that the London Confession of Faith was not composed by Baptists. It was a Baptist revision of the Presbyterian Westminister Confession.

Mark Osgatharp

 

I notice the older confessions have no problem asserting the preservation and purity of Scripture.

Westminster 1646

V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.

Baptist 1689

5._____We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church of God to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scriptures; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, and the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, and many other incomparable excellencies, and entire perfections thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

8._____The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them.

Philadelphia 1742

5. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church of God to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scriptures; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, and the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, and many other incomparable excellencies, and entire perfections thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

8. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.

 

True but that's because the confessions don't mean what most Onlies think they mean.

The Westminster Assembly and the Inspiration and Preservation of the Word of God

 

Obviously they weren't speaking of any particular English translation.

But,

and the entire perfection thereof
by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages

is very simple English, and no modernist argument can change what these simple words mean. The modern faith in critical texts and methods is a departure from historic belief.

 

It is actually an affirmation of that principle. We believe in the pure and perfect word of God, kept by his singular care and providence. That is not imcompatible with modern versions and the eclective text in any way.

 

Pastor Larry,

That just ain't so.

Picking and choosing from various widely divergent manuscripts according to secular man-made principles in a hopeful expectation of assembling a nice Bible which is very much like the perfect, God-breathed original is clearly not what they had in mind.

"and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God:"

Note they were calling what they actually had, not the originals, the entirely perfect Word of God. Obviously - only something you actually posses can evidence anything.

Modern critical text advocates need to drop the historical revisionism and simply admit the relatively recent vintage of their innovative doctrine.

 

Historic Position (Westminster 1646):

V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.

Modern Position (Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy 1978):

Article X.
     We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

I don't see how anyone could read this and not admit to a change in doctrine.

 

Did you read Doug's article at all? He didn't present a modernist argument, he presented historical research. It really isn't a matter of opinion.

Andy

 

Andy, I went back and read his article. As I thought, his arguments neither had the power to change what English words mean nor what the authors originally said.

He also didn't deal with the strongest passage. I guess even he would have trouble pretending that "and the entire perfection thereof" meant anything other than what it unequivocally says.

I am truly amazed at the inability of people to come to consensus concerning what a text literally says (and granted that isn't always the whole story, but it's certainly where we should start). I've seen it in Bible debates, and now here. Has this always been the case? Is our society so messed up that people think words can mean whatever they like?

"It depends on what your definition of 'is' is" - Bill Clinton

[ October 01, 2003, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: timothy 1769 ]