LBCF and the WCF

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, All

I have finished reading the LBCF, and look forward to reading the WCF "I just need it in book form". Here is a link to a tabular "side by side" comparsion.

http://www.rblist.org/1689vWCF.html

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[Jon_]

Interesting. The London Baptist Confession omits the section on reprobation (III.7), the federal view of the imputation of original sin (VI.6), the covenant of works (VII.2), the covenant of grace (VII.4), the chapter on the covenants (XX), and many other sections, while adding sections on congregationalist church government (XXVI.5-15) and removing all language of church censures, synods, and councils (XXX, XXXI). And, of course, there is a difference in the method, mode, and subjects of baptism.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Proeliator]

But Jon_, what did you say in english?

 

[JM]

Interesting. The London Baptist Confession omits the section on reprobation (III.7), the federal view of the imputation of original sin (VI.6), the covenant of works (VII.2), the covenant of grace (VII.4), the chapter on the covenants (XX), and many other sections, while adding sections on congregationalist church government (XXVI.5-15) and removing all language of church censures, synods, and councils (XXX, XXXI). And, of course, there is a difference in the method, mode, and subjects of baptism.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

When it comes to meat, the LBCF is well written. For the newbie interested in Baptistic Confessions, the 1644 verison is a little easier to understand, it doesn't contain the theologically loaded terms.


Peace,

JM
PS:
Some points on why some may believe the earlier confession to be 'more' baptist:http://victorian.fortunecity.com/dadd/464/confession.html

Download a confession for study: http://www.vor.org/rbdisk/1646.htm

 

[JM]

Here's something to listen to:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?currSection=sermonstopic&keyworddesc=Confession%2C+Baptist+1689&keyword=baptist+confession

 

[JM]

Chp. XXVI
6. The members of these churches are saints by calling, visibly manifesting and evidencing (in and by their profession and walking) their obedience unto that call of Christ; and do willingly consent to walk together, according to the appointment of Christ; giving up themselves to the Lord, and one to another, by the will of God, in professed subjection to the ordinances of the Gospel.
7. To each of these churches thus gathered, according to his mind declared in his word, he hath given all that power and authority, which is in any way needful for their carrying on that order in worship and discipline, which he hath instituted for them to observe; with commands and rules for the due and right exerting, and executing of that power.
8. A particular church, gathered and completely organised according to the mind of Christ, consists of officers and members; and the officers appointed by Christ to be chosen and set apart by the church (so called and gathered), for the peculiar administration of ordinances, and execution of power or duty, which he intrusts them with, or calls them to, to be continued to the end of the world, are bishops or elders, and deacons.
9. The way appointed by Christ for the calling of any person, fitted and gifted by the Holy Spirit, unto the office of bishop or elder in a church, is, that he be chosen thereunto by the common suffrage of the church itself; and solemnly set apart by fasting and prayer, with imposition of hands of the eldership of the church, if there be any before constituted therein; and of a deacon that he be chosen by the like suffrage, and set apart by prayer, and the like imposition of hands.
10. The work of pastors being constantly to attend the service of Christ, in his churches, in the ministry of the word and prayer, with watching for their souls, as they that must give an account to Him; it is incumbent on the churches to whom they minister, not only to give them all due respect, but also to communicate to them of all their good things according to their ability, so as they may have a comfortable supply, without being themselves entangled in secular affairs; and may also be capable of exercising hospitality towards others; and this is required by the law of nature, and by the express order of our Lord Jesus, who hath ordained that they that preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel.
11. Although it be incumbent on the bishops or pastors of the churches, to be instant in preaching the word, by way of office, yet the work of preaching the word is not so peculiarly confined to them but that others also gifted and fitted by the Holy Spirit for it, and approved and called by the church, may and ought to perform it.
12. As all believers are bound to join themselves to particular churches, when and where they have opportunity so to do; so all that are admitted unto the privileges of a church, are also under the censures and government thereof, according to the rule of Christ.
13. No church members, upon any offence taken by them, having performed their duty required of them towards the person they are offended at, ought to disturb any church order, or absent themselves from the assemblies of the church, or administration of any ordinances, upon the account of such offence at any of their fellow members, but to wait upon Christ, in the further proceeding of the church.
14. As each church, and all the members of it, are bound to pray continually for the good and prosperity of all the churches of Christ, in all places, and upon all occasions to further every one within the bounds of their places and callings, in the exercise of their gifts and graces, so the churches, when planted by the providence of God, so as they may enjoy opportunity and advantage for it, ought to hold communion among themselves, for their peace, increase of love, and mutual edification.
15. In cases of difficulties or differences, either in point of doctrine or administration, wherein either the churches in general are concerned, or any one church, in their peace, union, and edification; or any member or members of any church are injured, in or by any proceedings in censures not agreeable to truth and order: it is according to the mind of Christ, that many churches holding communion together, do, by their messengers, meet to consider, and give their advice in or about that matter in difference, to be reported to all the churches concerned; howbeit these messengers assembled, are not intrusted with any church-power properly so called; or with any jurisdiction over the churches themselves, to exercise any censures either over any churches or persons; or to impose their determination on the churches or officers.

 

[lmnop9876]

Interesting. The London Baptist Confession omits the section on reprobation (III.7), the federal view of the imputation of original sin (VI.6), the covenant of works (VII.2), the covenant of grace (VII.4), the chapter on the covenants (XX), and many other sections, while adding sections on congregationalist church government (XXVI.5-15) and removing all language of church censures, synods, and councils (XXX, XXXI). And, of course, there is a difference in the method, mode, and subjects of baptism.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

summed up by...
"The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience,"
the LBCF is so different from the WCF, and differs so much from traditional Reformed teaching that I wonder if it should even be called Reformed? it rejects Reformed teaching on the authority of Scripture, the authority of the Church, the invisible and visible Catholic Church, the sacraments, the role and efficacy of sacraments, baptism (not just the recipients but the actual meaning of baptism), the Lord's Supper, public repentance, even the resurrection of the body (the WCF says that the bodies of all that are found alive will not change, the LBCF says the bodies of the saints that are found alive will not change).

 

[JM]

summed up by...
"The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience,"
the LBCF is so different from the WCF, and differs so much from traditional Reformed teaching that I wonder if it should even be called Reformed? it rejects Reformed teaching on the authority of Scripture, the authority of the Church, the invisible and visible Catholic Church, the sacraments, the role and efficacy of sacraments, baptism (not just the recipients but the actual meaning of baptism), the Lord's Supper, public repentance, even the resurrection of the body (the WCF says that the bodies of all that are found alive will not change, the LBCF says the bodies of the saints that are found alive will not change).

And that's where I'd say the LBC is "fully and more thoroughly" Reformed.

 

[lmnop9876]

And that's where I'd say the LBC is "fully and more thoroughly" Reformed.

well, imho, reformed refers to a particular mindset, the mindset of the "reformed" national Churches of the lowlands, scotland, france, &c., who did not discard all tradition and church decisions and councils, as the LBC does, but accepted what was good and in accord with Scripture. "reformed" does not refer merely to tulip, but to a whole system of thought, in line with that of Calvin, who accepted tradition as authoritative, but to be accepted only in so far as it was in accord with Scripture. thus, a Reformed Church holds to the ancient Church creeds, not merely because they are in accord with Scripture, but also because they summarize the apostolic and catholic faith of the Church.

 

[JM]

Yes, I understand your point of view and we can pray that one day we'll be of like mind.

peace.
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][/FONT]

 

[lmnop9876]

Yes, I understand your point of view and we can pray that one day we'll be of like mind.

peace.

amen. not that i agree with everything in the WCF anyway. but i do agree with all the 39 articles (the american version) and virtually all of the westminster shorter catechism (i don't like the inclusion of "not after a corporal or carnal manner" in the Lord's Supper question, but besides that i don't think i have any problem with it. [not that i agree with a corporal presence of Christ, but it would have been enough just to say "by faith," as there is no explicit Scriptural rejection of a corporal presence of Christ in the Sacrament.] )

 

[Proeliator]

in line with that of Calvin,

Correct me if I am wrong, but from what I have been told, WCF, heck, even the Synod of Dort when they came up with the 5 pointsd vs the Remonstrants, isn't totally in line with Calvin. So then how can anyone try to talk about being in line with him?

 

[lmnop9876]

Correct me if I am wrong, but from what I have been told, WCF, heck, even the Synod of Dort when they came up with the 5 pointsd vs the Remonstrants, isn't totally in line with Calvin. So then how can anyone try to talk about being in line with him?

what i'm talking about is a specific system of thought, held by all of the traditional Reformers, which holds the Church and its tradition as being authoritative, so long as it agrees with Scripture. we don't abandon what is old and start from scratch. we build on the foundation of the holy apostles and prophets (with Christ as the cornerstone), and we build on the work and teachings of the Church Fathers. but the work the Reformers were primarily concerned with was removing the hay and stubble and straw that had been added to this building, while not destroying the original foundation and what had already been built. some went too far, and damaged the structure of the building with far-reaching consequences. others didn't go far enough, and now we are left with some parts of the building still containing the hay and stubble and straw of the mediaeval times. today, very little of the building is being built with silver and gold and precious stones, while so many continue (or worse, have begun) to build with the destructible hay and stubble and wood that caused so much damage to Christ's temple.
i disagree with calvin on a lot of things, and wouldn't call myself a calvinist. but when a Church calls itself "reformed", it generally means holding to the traditional creeds and confessions of the Reformed Churches, including an emphasis on upholding Scripture as the written words of God and maintaining the ancient Church tradition as a tried and true interpretation of Scripture.

 

[AndOne]

Correct me if I am wrong, but from what I have been told, WCF, heck, even the Synod of Dort when they came up with the 5 pointsd vs the Remonstrants, isn't totally in line with Calvin. So then how can anyone try to talk about being in line with him?

Actually - I used to think this a well until I read Calvin's "The Bondage and Liberation of the Will." He doesn't lay out the doctrines of grace systematically like Dort does but they are all there. If you spend a lot of time with Calvin you will see that he is a hard core five-pointer with the best of em. I'm seeing this in his commentary as well.

I think Calvin's differences with WCF revolve around the sacraments - what they mean and how they are used.

 

[5SolasinKY]

Concerning Scripture, salvation, the person and work of Christ, the attributes of God, etc. the LBC is very much like the WC, ... on purpose, except for the doctrines that are obviously distinctive for each. There are specific places where there was either some disagreement with the wording, or a feeling that the support of Scripture was inadequate to be dogmatic (though it may be agreed upon generally). Baptists did not feel that Christian consciences should be held subject on those doctrines. As an example, please note the difference under the heading of Marriage where the LBC omits any discussion on divorce and remarriage. The position of the WC is generally accepted, but omitted due, we believe, to insufficient scriptural support for dogmatism on the subject. I have even read some Presbyterian writers disagree on this subject.

There is some confusion in the posts here on where Reformed Baptists stand on certain historic facts concerning the church. That the visible did embody most of the invisible church for many years is understood. The abandonment of the gospel was not overnight and universal. Only a Landmark Baptist would disagree with that and possibly certain Independent churches.
For the comment on a doctrine being accepted (the corporal presence of Christ in the cup I believe) based on the fact it is not expressly prohibited, Baptists DO hold to the sufficiency of Scripture. Everything necessary in doctrine, everything and only what should be taught, must be scriptural, thus sola scriptura. If it is not there, the danger is that it is an addition, and suggests that scripture is insufficient. In fact many Reformed Baptists are regulative in worship for pretty much the same reason.
Tradition as it agrees with scripture is the understanding of Reformed Baptists. An excellent book, which isn't Baptist but is agreeable, is The Shape of Sola Scriptura by Matheson. Tradition is not necessarily something exclusive or 'aside of' scripture. Tradition as defined in scripture is the gospel taught in it. Otherwise, there is liberty.