1st London Baptist Confe 1st London Baptist Confession (1644/1646)

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I just found out that Non- Denom Pastor down the road subscribes to the 1st London Baptist Confession (1644/1646) as his particular Church confession. I found that kinda odd cause I have only seen the 2nd Confession (1689) used.

What are the differences & why would this guy use the older confession?

 

[Tom Bryant]

Maybe he's really old school... :tongue3:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Maybe he's really old school... :tongue3:

you mean a wing nut?

 

[Tom Bryant]

you mean a wing nut?

pretty much... or maybe instead of being KJV only he's 1LBC only

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

pretty much... or maybe instead of being KJV only he's 1LBC only

Figures....only in NW New Jersey :laugh: Posing as a non denom church too! Wolf

 

[jbh28]

Maybe this will help. It has some things about some differences.

http://victorian.fortunecity.com/dadd/464/confession.html

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Maybe this will help. It has some things about some differences.

http://victorian.fortunecity.com/dadd/464/confession.html

Thanks but I was hoping for the crib notes. BTW, have you ever seen anyone do this?

 

[Herald]

Some RB churches subscribe to the 1st London Baptist Confession of Faith because it, in their opinion, allows them to old to New Covenant Theology. I don't have time to get into NCT in detail right now but suffice to say that I believe it is an error plagued systematic theology.

 

[TCassidy]

What are the differences & why would this guy use the older confession?

The 1st London Confession of Faith of 1644 was the basis of the Westminster Confession of 1646. The Westminster Confession was the basis for the 2nd London Confession of 1689 (the Second London Confession is just the Westminster Confession with a statement concerning believers baptism tacked on).

The 1st London Confession has a view of the Trinity that is more biblical than the later Westminster and London Confessions.

 

[AresMan]

I just found out that Non- Denom Pastor down the road subscribes to the 1st London Baptist Confession (1644/1646) as his particular Church confession. I found that kinda odd cause I have only seen the 2nd Confession (1689) used.

What are the differences & why would this guy use the older confession?

He could be a New Covenant Theologian. Most NCTs prefer the 1st confession over the 2nd because it agrees with a NCT view over a CT view.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

He could be a New Covenant Theologian. Most NCTs prefer the 1st confession over the 2nd because it agrees with a NCT view over a CT view.

That is pretty much correct. The 1644/46 Confession is much shorter than the 1689 and therefore allows some wriggle room over NCT.

[The 1646 Confession is a slight revision and improvement on the 1644]

The 1646 Confession may be found here:-

http://www.grace-gospel.org/bcftitlepg.htm

Some people try to drive a wedge between the Ist and 2nd Confessions, but William Kiffin and Hansard Knollys, who were the only two signatories to survive from 1644 until 1689, had no problem signing the later document.

There is a small number of churches in the UK that have adopted the 1646 Confession.

Steve

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Then Im sure this guy would want to influence people to a covenant theology....hmmm.

Then whats the difference between Covenant & New Covenant? I do not subscribe to either.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Then Im sure this guy would want to influence people to a covenant theology....hmmm.

Then whats the difference between Covenant & New Covenant? I do not subscribe to either.

And here Im giving someone (anyone) a golden opportunity to explain Covenant theology & no takers. :laugh: OK fine then!:smilewinkgrin: Aint that big of a deal then.

 

[Jerome]

Kenneth Good writing in 1986:

It is not strange, then, that the recent division among the American "Reformed Baptists" over law and grace should find the champions of the one conviction strongly adhering to the Westminster-oriented Second London Confession while the adherents of the other conviction firmly grasp the First London Confession. Nor would it be strange if the Baptists who are committed to the 1689 document cling tenaciously to the title "Reformed Baptists" while the others who have espoused the 1644 document become content to relinquish the ambiguous name. Those who find the earlier document more suitable to their concepts of ecclesiology and sanctification may be referred to as "Neo-Dispensationalists" by their brethren who cling tenaciously to the later document oriented to the Westminster Confession, but in this division of thought we may readily detect some of the age-old distinctions which have existed for centuries between the Reformed and the Baptists. An "immersed Presbyterian" is not necessarily a Baptist simply because he is able to defend believers baptism against the practice of paedobaptism.

Apparently there was some sort of acrimonious split between Reformed Baptist factions, with some following one Confession or another.
I seem to remember Iconoclast labeling these brethren as "Antinomians"?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Kenneth Good writing in 1986:



Apparently there was some sort of acrimonious split between Reformed Baptist factions, with some following one Confession or another.
I seem to remember Iconoclast labeling these brethren as "Antinomians"?

Hmmmm....I was told by an elder that they started out as Baptists & then went independent & began stating they now are Non -Denoms. Could they have really split over a Confessional stance?

 

[Iconoclast]

Kenneth Good writing in 1986:



Apparently there was some sort of acrimonious split between Reformed Baptist factions, with some following one Confession or another.
I seem to remember Iconoclast labeling these brethren as "Antinomians"?

Jerome,
There was somewhat of a split in the 70's and 80's over law and grace.
The issue boiled down to the ten commandments and the sabbath day in particular.
I am in the 1689 camp. I believe all Ten Commandments are in fact intact under a Nt administration....
The other camp says unless each commandment is specifically repeated in the Nt....it is no longer in effect. They do not see the sabbath command mentioned .although it is.
Most baptists have a wrong view of law/grace. They are holding to an antinomian position, although just like the arminian label....no one wants to be identified that way....nevertheless

As christians we should not be against law. The law was not given to save,and was used by God as a schoolmaster to lead persons to Christ.
The law is still used by God in our sanctification today. A christian is a law keeper, not a law breaker. This law keeping does not keep us saved as a work.
But saving faith ...works ...by law keeping toward those around us....
love is Fulfilling the law.

 

[Iconoclast]

Hmmmm....I was told by an elder that they started out as Baptists & then went independent & began stating they now are Non -Denoms. Could they have really split over a Confessional stance?

EWF,
This area takes alot of study as do the covenants.Many are not up to the task. It becomes easy for some to go non- denominational....they are afraid to lose people...so they stay non committed, to a doctrinal position.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

And here Im giving someone (anyone) a golden opportunity to explain Covenant theology & no takers. :laugh: OK fine then!:smilewinkgrin: Aint that big of a deal then.

If you are genuinely interested in [real] Covenant Theology, then I wrote seven articles on the subject on my blog a while ago. You can find the first one here:-

http://marprelate.wordpress.com/2009/09/05/the-covenants-part-1-the-covenant-of-works/

The main difference betwen C.T. and N.C.T. is that NCT does not believe in the perpetuity of the Ten Commandments except as they are repeated in the N.T. Practically, this reduces the number of commandments frpm ten to nine.

Steve

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

If you are genuinely interested in [real] Covenant Theology, then I wrote seven articles on the subject on my blog a while ago. You can find the first one here:-

http://marprelate.wordpress.com/2009/09/05/the-covenants-part-1-the-covenant-of-works/

The main difference betwen C.T. and N.C.T. is that NCT does not believe in the perpetuity of the Ten Commandments except as they are repeated in the N.T. Practically, this reduces the number of commandments frpm ten to nine.

Steve

I really have no interest in it....particularly after it was used to put my child in hell & give me & my wife responsibility for it however I am interested in how man can actually make it more deplorable.....now you got CT & "New" CT.......God help us! And this is what they teach in your churches.....:laugh:

 

[JesusFan]

I really have no interest in it....particularly after it was used to put my child in hell & give me & my wife responsibility for it however I am interested in how man can actually make it more deplorable.....now you got CT & "New" CT.......God help us! And this is what they teach in your churches.....:laugh:

Seems that at times those who wish to hold to Covenant theolgy in a sense have made a "protestant" RCC!