London Baptist Confession of 1689: Do you hold to it?

Obviously, none of the free-willers can say "yes". :laugh:

 

Didn't know there was one.

However....That document was written by and for people who were from a culture significantly different from ours. Education was almost non existant among the comman people. There were still issues going on between the Anglican and the Catholics and the various groups that were still splitting off from them(including us Baptists). Transportation and communication and therefore discussion and debate, were slow and awkward. So many differences would likely leave a document less than pertinant to my life today.

Somewhere along the line it seems that folk have gotten the idea that if someone believed/tranlated/had an opinion on a religious issue and they lived "in the good old days" or they lived centuries ago that those ancient opinions/doctrines/interpetations have more authority than those made by people of today. I don't get it. Why would someone/some church hold to a faith and doctrine message that was intended for people who lived 400 years ago?

 

You can find copies all over the Internet. Here's one:

http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc00.html

 

Don't know of anything in there off top my head that I don't hold to. Maybe I'll re-read it.

 

LOL! While the link Npet gave is a version that was updated 200 hundred years (approximately) later by Spurgeon and in light of certain conversations going on across our board, I must say that in spite of myself I really like point number 8:

(emphasis mine)

 

LOL, indeed. I noticed that shortly after I posted it and edited the post to include the correct link (after making a second mistake, no less). I even edited it quick enough to avoid the "edited by" tag, although not soon enough for you.

 

I'm just fast, what can I say?

Back to the OP: having read through about the middle of section 8, nope don't hold to all of it, not that that is a surprise, I daresay I don't hold to every point the current reigning SBC document of it's type (BF&something 2000) not that I've read all of it either. That's the nice thing about Baptists, we can all be different and still call ourselves "Baptist".

However this particular point just jump right out there and smacked me in the head. It comes from section 4:

Again emphasis is mine. The problem here is it's just illogical. If Adam and Eve didn't know the difference between good and evil(this understanding only came about in Gen 3:7 after the eating of the fruit), why would they need the law or have need to fulfill it? The absolute only thing they needed to do to stay in good standing with God was to NOT EAT THE FRUIT. No where are we shown that either of them was given any other rule or law and God didn't "write it on their hearts", He spoke it into Adam's ear. This is the plain reading of scripture.

Another thing that bothers me is why aren't there scripture references included in this document? Oh, nevermind, I answered that question in my own post earlier. They didn't need to provide scripture references to back up their opinions cause the folks it was written to either couldn't read or didn't have access to a Bible.

 

I believe the LBCF to be a very good statement of faith, maybe even the best we as Baptists have produced. However, it's easy to see that it was born in a time when the church of Rome was not highly thought of

 

I agree with the 1689 in the main . It was really a modification of the Savoy Declaration --which was largely the Westminster Confession of Faith .

I'm into the lean and stripped-down 1644 model myself . That was Calvinistic , but did not have to lean on the 1646 WCoF .

 

Give me a pen. I'll sign in agreement.

I feel it shows just how much many Baptist have changed. Some have changed so much, it is hard to call them by this name any more.

 

There are scriptural proofs, the version given just doesn't have them. Here's a link to a version that includes them: THE BAPTIST CONFESSION OF FAITH OF 1689 WITH SCRIPTURE PROOFS

 

I think when it says Adam and Eve had the law written on their hearts and the power to fulfill it, it means that they naturally desired the right things, and they had the power to keep on doing the right things. They always told the truth; they always loved God and honored him; they didn't get angry with each other. Those things came naturally to them, both in desiring the right thing and in doing it, ie, those things were written on their hearts and they had the power to fulfil them.

 

A coworker gave me a copy of that confession back in 1986. It was my first exposure to five-point Calvinism in Baptist life.

And no, I do not "hold to" it (or any confession for that matter).

The Baptist confession I agree with the most is the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message of the SBC. I also strongly appreciate the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message.

 

Rippon, I agree with what you said, although I do think the 1689 is a superior document to the 1644 in a lot of ways. But if we're talking about what I'm going to be "held to", then give me a few less details, thank you! The 1644 covers the essentials very well but stays out of the weeds IMO.

 

Ah, thanks for the link, I'll check it out later.

This doesn't quite convince me. Why? Because both were naked. When they ate the fruit this was their first, biggest concern. They then knew it was not right/good to be naked. If they had a built in sense of what was right, they wouldn't have been naked.

No, I believe that for them in that time before they ate the fruit there WAS NO right or wrong for them as we know things today. There was no "law" only a warning not to eat the fruit. Not eating of the fruit was in essence the only rule they had and that rule was given verbally to Adam, not written in his heart. This one rule was all that mattered.

 

Do you think truth changes?

 

Are you saying that prior to the fall, it was wrong for Adam and Eve to be naked?