Baptist London Confession?

[rsr]

But the Baptists dropped two of Westminster's overt references to papacy:

Westminster: "much less hath the Pope any power or jurisdiction"
Westminster: "And, therefore, such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, Papists, or other idolaters"

Baptists adapted the latter as: "and therefore such as profess the true religion, should not marry with infidels, or idolaters"
[also note they did not retain the reformed label]

By the time the Baptists printed the Second London it was established that the pope had no power or jurisdiction in England. Glorious Revolution and all that.

The "true reformed religion'" of the Westminster was, of course, Presbyterianism. Not surprising that the Baptists charted their own course since the Presbyterians considered the Baptists as heathen as the papists and persecuted them. It was a limited persecution because Cromwell was an independent, not Presbyterian.

As to marriage, this is an example of how the Baptists plowed their own furrows. They considered everyone outside the Baptist sect as infidels and idolaters. No Presbyterians need apply.

As I said, all confessions are reflections of their times. The Second London Baptists were willing to accept Presbyterian soteriology but colored with their own particular viewpoints.
Snip It must be galling to think that early English Baptists considered themselves in the Reformed tradition even if they were persecuted by the Presbyterians.

 

[Reformed]

rsr,

You are not presenting an accurate picture of the intention of the English Particular Baptists in the 17th-century. Have you read the preface to the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith?

Preface to the Second London Baptist Confession, 1677

To The Judicial and Impartial Reader

Courteous Reader: It is now many years since divers of us (with other sober Christians then living, and walking in the way of the Lord, that we profess) did conceive ourselves to be under a necessity of publishing a Confession, of our Faith, for the information and satisfaction of those that did not thoroughly understand what our principles were, or had entertained prejudices against our profession, by reason of the strange representation of them by some men of note who had taken very wrong measures, and accordingly led others into misapprehension of us and them. And this was first put forth about the year 1643, in the name of seven congregations then gathered in London; since which time divers impressions thereof have been dispersed abroad, and our end proposed in good measure answered, inasmuch as many (and some of those men eminent both for piety and learning) were thereby satisfied that we were no way guilty of those heterodoxies and fundamental errors which had too frequently been charged upon us without ground or occasion given on our part.

And forasmuch as that Confession is not now commonly to be had, and also that many others have since embraced the same truth which is owned therein, it was judged necessary by us to join together in giving a testimony to the world of our firm adhering to those wholesome principles by the publication of this which is now in your hand. And forasmuch as our method and manner of expressing our sentiments in this doth vary from the former (although the substance of this matter is the same), we shall freely impart to you the reason and occasion thereof. One thing that greatly prevailed with us to undertake this work was (not only to give a full account of ourselves to those Christians that differ from us about the subject of baptism, but also) the profit that might from thence arise unto those that have any account of our labors in their instruction and establishment in the great truths of the Gospel, in the clear understanding and steady belief of which our comfortable walking with God, and fruitfulness before him in all our ways, is most nearly concerned; and therefore we did conclude it necessary to express ourselves the more fully and distinctly; and also to fix on such a method as might be most comprehensive of those things we designed to explain our sense and belief of; and finding no defect in this regard in that fixed on by the Assembly, and, after them by those of the congregational way, we did readily conclude it best to retain the same order in our present Confession; and also when we observed that those last mentioned did in their Confessions (for reasons which seemed of weight both to themselves and others) choose not only to express their mind in words concurrent with the former in sense concerning all those articles wherein they were agreed, but also for the most part without any variation of the terms, we did in like manner conclude it best to follow their example in making use of the very same words with them both in these articles (which are very many) wherein our faith and doctrine are the same with theirs; and this we did the more abundantly to manifest our consent with both in all the fundamental articles of the Christian religion, as also with many others whose orthodox Confessions have been published to the world on the behalf of the Protestant in diverse nations and cities. And also to convince all that we have no itch to clog religion with new words, but do readily acquiesce in that form of sound words which hath been, in consent with the Holy Scriptures, used by others before us; hereby declaring, before God, angels, and men, our hearty agreement with them in that wholesome Protestant doctrine which, with so clear evidence of Scriptures, they have asserted. Some things, indeed, are in some places added, some terms omitted, and some few changed; but these alterations are of that nature as that we need not doubt any charge or suspicion of unsoundness in the faith from any of our brethren upon the account of them.

In those things wherein we differ from others we have expressed ourselves with all candor and plainness, that none might entertain jealousy of aught secretly lodged in our breasts that we would not the world should be acquainted with; yet we hope we have also observed those rules of modesty and humility as will render our freedom in this respect inoffensive, even to those whose sentiments are different from ours.

We have also taken care to affix texts of Scripture at the bottom, for the confirmation of each article in our Confession; in which work we have studiously endeavored to select such as are most clear and pertinent for the proof of what is asserted by us; and our earnest desire is that all into whose hands this may come would follow that (never enough commended) example of the noble Bereans, who searched the Scriptures daily that they might find out whether the things preached to them were so or not.

There is one thing more which we sincerely profess and earnestly desire credence in - viz., that contention is most remote from our design in all that we have done in this matter; and we hope that the liberty of an ingenuous unfolding our principles and opening our hearts unto our brethren, with the Scripture grounds of our faith and practice will by none of them be either denied to us, or taken ill from us. Our whole design is accomplished if we may have attained that justice as to be measured in our principles and practice, and the judgment of both by others, according to what we have now published, which the Lord (whose eyes are as a flame of fire) knoweth to be the doctrine which with our hearts we most firmly believe and sincerely endeavor to conform our lives to. And O that, other contentions being laid asleep, the only care and contention of all upon whom the name of our blessed Redeemer is called might for the future be to walk humbly with their God in the exercise of all love and meekness toward each other, to perfect holiness in the fear of the Lord, each one endeavoring to have his conversation such as becometh the gospel; and also, suitable to his place and capacity, vigorously to promote in others the practice of true religion and undefiled in the sight of God our Father! And that in this backsliding day we might not spend our breath in fruitless complaints of the evils of others, but may every one begin at home, to reform in the first place our own hearts and ways, and then to quicken all that we may have influence upon to the some work, that if the will of God were so, none might deceive themselves by resting in and trusting to a form of godliness without the power of it, and inward experience of the efficacy of those truths that are professed by them.

And verily there is one spring and cause of the decay of religion in our day which we cannot but touch upon and earnestly urge a redress of, and that is the neglect of the worship of God in families by those to whom the charge and conduct of them is committed. May not the gross ignorance and instability of many, with the profaneness of others, be justly charged upon their parents and masters, who have not trained them up in the way wherein they ought to walk when they were young, but have neglected those frequent and solemn commands which the Lord hath laid upon them, so to catechise and instruct them that their tender years might be seasoned with the knowledge of the truth of God as revealed in the Scriptures; and also by their own omission of prayer and other duties of religion of their families, together with the ill example of their loose conversation, having, inured them first to a neglect and the contempt of all piety and religion? We know this will not excuse the blindness and wickedness of any, but certainly it will fall heavy upon those that have been thus the occasion thereof; they indeed die in their sins, but will not their blood be required of those under whose care they were, who yet permitted them to go on without warning - yea, led them into the paths of destruction? And will not the diligence of Christians with respect to the discharge of these duties in ages past rise up in judgment against and condemn many of those who would be esteemed such now?

We shall conclude with our earnest prayer that the God of all grace will pour out those measures of his Holy Spirit upon us, that the profession of truth may be accompanied with the sound belief and diligent practice of it by us, that his name may in all things be glorified through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The preface to the 1689 LBC makes it clear that 17th-century Engish Particular Baptists sought peace with their Presbyterian brethren and not contention. It was not "galling" (your words) for these Baptists to consider themselves in the Reformed tradition. They displayed grace and humility even though they were misunderstood and maligned at the time.

 

[Reformed]

It is a densely packed statement of Calvinistic-Separatist-Congregationalist theology, unique in its own right, IMO, but discussions of it rarely range beyond TULIP.

Maybe in your tiny corner of the world, but since you are not a Reformed or Particular Baptist, how would you know?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

My experience is entirely limited to Internet message boards. I have never had a face-to-face discussion on the Second London. It is, in fact, a totally foreign document to the Baptists with whom I have regular dealings.

My experience is that folks quote the Second London to defend TULIP. The nuances, such as rejecting double predestination and denying original sin as leading to damnation, are never discussed.

And who knew that the Second London discarded "persons" in the description of the Trinity?

It is a densely packed statement of Calvinistic-Separatist-Congregationalist theology, unique in its own right, IMO, but discussions of it rarely range beyond TULIP.

Without a doubt the majority of Baptists in Britain would be unaware of the Confession. that is because most of them are in Baptist Union churches which are mostly apostate (with some honourable exceptions). I don't know if you have ever been on the Puritan Board (I'm not recommending that you do) you would have found people who know the 1689 back to front.

There are also some Reformed Baptist churches (my own included) that have found the 1689 to be overly long and complicated and have joined the FIEC rather than the Grace Baptists and follow the FIEC Basis of Faith which is sound but much shorter.

Personally, I like the 1689, but my church is where God has called me, so I don't make an issue over it.

ARBCA churches in America seem to be growing fast, though from a very small base..

 

[rsr]

The preface to the 1689 LBC makes it clear that 17th-century Engish Particular Baptists sought peace with their Presbyterian brethren and not contention. It was not "galling" (your words) for these Baptists to consider themselves in the Reformed tradition. They displayed grace and humility even though they were misunderstood and maligned at the time.

I said nothing to the contrary; I think you misunderstood the "galling" quote, which has been excised.

The early Particular Baptists indeed considered themselves within the Reformed tradition; you need only read the confessions to see how they were indebted to writers from that tradition.

Certainly the Baptists wanted peace — because they were always on the receiving end of persecution. They believed in religious liberty, while their fellow Puritans wanted the civil power to enforce the strictures of the church. Article 4 was purposely omitted from the Second London's article Of Christian Liberty and Liberty of Conscience.

 

[rsr]

Maybe in your tiny corner of the world, but since you are not a Reformed or Particular Baptist, how would you know?

Point taken. All of us, alas, are in some measure captive to our own places and outlooks. I would add that you apparently are assuming things about me without any evidence.

 

[Reformed]

Point taken. All of us, alas, are in some measure captive to our own places and outlooks. I would add that you apparently are assuming things about me without any evidence.

You made comments about those who reference the 1689 that are inaccurate in the Reformed and Particular Baptist arena. You gave me ample cause to assume you are not properly informed. If I was wrong here is your opportunity to correct your comments.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[rlvaughn]

There are also some Reformed Baptist churches (my own included) that have found the 1689 to be overly long and complicated and have joined the FIEC rather than the Grace Baptists and follow the FIEC Basis of Faith which is sound but much shorter.

Martin, maybe this question isn't too far afield from the OP. Are you saying the complicated statement of faith of the Grace Baptists versus the sound but shorter one of the FIEC is the reason these Baptists have joined the FIEC?

Thanks!

 

[Covenanter]

There are also some Reformed Baptist churches (my own included) that have found the 1689 to be overly long and complicated and have joined the FIEC rather than the Grace Baptists and follow the FIEC Basis of Faith which is sound but much shorter.

Martin, maybe this question isn't too far afield from the OP. Are you saying the complicated statement of faith of the Grace Baptists versus the sound but shorter one of the FIEC is the reason these Baptists have joined the FIEC?

The FIEC came into being in 1922 as a result of E.J. Poole-Connor on deputation from the North Africa Mission finding their supporters included isolated groups of believers who had come out of the denominations because of modernism. These were unaware of each other.

He drew them together as the "Federation of Undenominational & Unattached Churches & Missions" which later became the "Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches."

The unifying factor was the belief in the inspiration & sole authority of the Holy Bible, & the Gospel of salvation by repentance & faith in Christ. Those coming together included baptists & paedobaptists, with a range of church governments & attitudes to prophecy.

The doctrinal basis was drawn up so that such differences did not become a barrier to fellowship. Our church is a Baptist Church with its own statement of faith including immersion baptism of believers, & membership only of those so baptised. There are charismatics & anticharismatics in the FIEC.

Our church accepts the FIEC basis of faith & in practise accepts as members Christians baptised in infancy, some of whom have been faithful Christians for many years. And some who have challenged by beliefs concerning the nation of Israel as antisemitic. Fellowship continues, though I have not made an issue of prophecy - I'm leaving the area & don't want to be divisive. Our Pakistani pastor needs to maintain unity of folk from a variety of South Asian countries - his wife is from a Kenyan Sikh family. When we leave, there will be 3 ethnic English to 30-40 Asians.

I doubt if any of the other members could discuss the FIEC basis of faith & its doctrinal relevance - & certainly not the 1689. Obviously they are not familiar with European church history.

I did preach on baptists in the Reformation a few weeks ago, pointing out that it took nearly 200 years from 1517 for baptists & other non-conformists to be able to worship freely & publish the basis of faith.

 

[Jerome]

There are also some Reformed Baptist churches (my own included) that have found the 1689 to be overly long and complicated and have joined the FIEC rather than the Grace Baptists and follow the FIEC Basis of Faith which is sound but much shorter.

Very wise. Mark Dever who served under Roy Clements at Eden Baptist Church Cambridge before returning to the U.S. to pastor, gives similar counsel:

Founders Journal - Mark Dever, "Which Confession":

"we want to have enough in the document to be essential for us to be a biblically-faithful church, and yet not so much that we needlessly divide, or cause young Christians to stumble"

"Many men I know, love, respect and learn from would say that the 1689 Confession is the best to do this. I once thought so. Now, having pastored a congregation for a little more than 10 years. . .I think the New Hampshire Confession actually serves us better....to stand clearly for the truth, but to do so often without the 17th-century labels, to center on the biblical truths themselves"

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Martin, maybe this question isn't too far afield from the OP. Are you saying the complicated statement of faith of the Grace Baptists versus the sound but shorter one of the FIEC is the reason these Baptists have joined the FIEC?

Thanks!

Each church would have to answer for itself.
Covenanter has given an accurate account of the origins of the FIEC. My church has been affiliated to it since its inception 52 years ago. Most of the members have never heard of the 1689 Confession, but doctrinally we are pretty much in line with it.

Although the FIEC basis of faith is sound, it has not kept charismatic churches from joining; the 1689 is very clearly cessationist. I also worry that the leadership in FIEC is becoming too pally with leaders in groups that are mixed in doctrine.

However, the only Grace Baptist Church within10 miles of us is ultra-conservative, being KJV-only and hymns written by dead people only. I couldn't be doing with that.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

My English (I don't think there are any Scots, Welsh, Irish [Éire or Ulster), Manx, or Channel Islanders in on this thread) brethren should consider this. For most Americans, the London Confessions are at best historical and theological curiosities. For many of us, the New Hampshire Confession of Faith of 1833 is our working document.

 

[Reformed]

My English (I don't think there are any Scots, Welsh, Irish [Éire or Ulster), Manx, or Channel Islanders in on this thread) brethren should consider this. For most Americans, the London Confessions are at best historical and theological curiosities. For many of us, the New Hampshire Confession of Faith of 1833 is our working document.

Actually, for most American Reformed Baptists the 1689 LBC is the dominant confession. This is the case with ARBCA churches. There are differences between the two confessions with the New Hampshire confession generally seen as less Calvinistic and detailed than the 1689 LBC.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

True, but how many American Baptists, even those who style themselves as "Calvinist", consider themselves to be "Reformed"?

for most American Reformed Baptists the 1689 LBC is the dominant confession.

 

[Reformed]

True, but how many American Baptists, even those who style themselves as "Calvinist", consider themselves to be "Reformed"?

If Wikipedia is to be believed* there were 16,000 Reformed Baptists in 400 congregations in the United States in the year 2000. Could that number be double or triple? Possibly. The 1689 LBC is still the primary confession of this group.

*I have my doubts about almost everything on Wikipedia. I am only using it as a point of reference for the sake of argument.

 

[rlvaughn]

If Wikipedia is to be believed* there were 16,000 Reformed Baptists in 400 congregations in the United States in the year 2000. Could that number be double or triple? Possibly. The 1689 LBC is still the primary confession of this group.

*I have my doubts about almost everything on Wikipedia. I am only using it as a point of reference for the sake of argument.

The source for the number is HERE. The source/book looks legit, but unfortunately the author did not footnote his source of that number.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I can see I've been so terse in my comments as to be misunderstood. I'm not saying

• the LBC '89 is unknown among American Baptists.
• a sizable number of American Baptists do not use it, as you put it, "the primary confession."

I am saying to my English Brethren. It is not as well known and understood here in America as it seems to be in Great Britain and Ireland.

If Wikipedia is to be believed* there were 16,000 Reformed Baptists in 400 congregations in the United States in the year 2000. Could that number be double or triple? Possibly. The 1689 LBC is still the primary confession of this group.

 

[Reformed]

I can see I've been so terse in my comments as to be misunderstood. I'm not saying

• the LBC '89 is unknown among American Baptists.
• a sizable number of American Baptists do not use it, as you put it, "the primary confession."

I am saying to my English Brethren. It is not as well known and understood here in America as it seems to be in Great Britain and Ireland.

I guess I see it differently because I am in the Reformed Baptist world where the 1689 LBC is ubiquitous.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Squire Robertsson]

My point is most American Baptists live outside of the Reformed Baptist world. For us, the 1833 New Hampshire or one of its adaptations is the most familiar at best.

I guess I see it differently because I am in the Reformed Baptist world where the 1689 LBC is ubiquitous.

 

[Reformed]

My point is most American Baptists live outside of the Reformed Baptist world. For us, the 1833 New Hampshire or one of its adaptations is the most familiar at best.

While the New Hampshire is not as Calvinistic as the 1689 LBC, it is a Calvinistic document. I cannot imagine that being acceptable to non-Calvinistic churches but I may be wrong.