What kind of Confession does your church embrace?

[Erinwilcox]

I was just wondering how many Calvinists hold to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. If you do not, what confession does your church hold to?

[edb19]

I was just wondering how many Calvinists hold to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. If you do not, what confession does your church hold to?

We ascribe to the LBC - currently going through it in our adult study.

It's solely an adjunct though - obviously, if the confession is in disagreement w Scripture - we hold w Scripture.

[StAnselm]

Is the confession in disagreement with Scripture? :P

[edb19]

Is the confession in disagreement with Scripture? :P

Not that I've noticed (and I've read it through at least a couple of times). I was actually quoting my pastor - if an extraBiblical source is in conflict w Scripture, we hold w Scripture.

[Erinwilcox]

One place where I do not fully agree is where it says that the Pope is THE Antichrist. It said that hundreds of years ago. Therefore, I believe that those popes were antichrists, but not The Antichrist. The new Pope could be, however, but it is too soon to tell.

[StAnselm]

My denomination holds to the Westminister Confession of Faith, read in the light of a declaratory statement that "clarifies" certain issues, and allows liberty of opinion on matters not essential to the WCF's system of doctrine.

I believe that "subordinate standards" are indeed confessions - that is, they are an expression of what we understand Scripture to be teaching.

[FivePointCalvinist]

The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion (http://www.acl.asn.au/39articles.html) of the Anglican Church and the 1962 Canadian Revision of the Book of Common Prayer (http://www.prayerbook.ca/bcp.html) are the subordinate standards of my denomination.

I am also one of those crazy Puritan Anglicans who believes that the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith is part of our Anglican heritage as well.

[PaladinValer]

To which you'd be historically incorrect.

For a longer period of time, Anglicans have historically never even had the 39 Articles, which are progressively being thrown out of door, at least in terms of a Calvinist interpretation of them or blatantly Calvinist ones.

In reality, the Anglican Church adheres to:

1. The Bible [Scripture]
2. The Seven Ecumenical Councils [Tradition]
3. The Three Great Creeds (plus the Formula of Chalcedon, of course) [Tradition]
4. The Early Fathers (and those Early Mothers too, of course) [Tradition]
5. The Holy Spirit's influence on our own genius [Reason]

[StAnselm]

I don't see how it is even possible to interpret the 39 Articles in a non-Calvinist way...

[FivePointCalvinist]

I don't see how it is even possible to interpret the 39 Articles in a non-Calvinist way... Me neither...:P

[PaladinValer]

The fact is, at the time, most Anglicans weren't Calvinist. On the contrary, they were either arminian or (especially those still loyal to Holy Tradition) theosis.

Of course, most Calvinists don't like that.

[FivePointCalvinist]

The fact is, at the time, most Anglicans weren't Calvinist. On the contrary, they were either arminian or (especially those still loyal to Holy Tradition) theosis.

Of course, most Calvinists don't like that. Most Calvinists, rightly, think that is blasphemy. We are not accepted as righteous on the basis of our good works done in grace, as theosis would have us believe, but on the basis of Christ's perfect righteousness.

[StAnselm]

I don't even know what theosis is. Would you be able to explain it to me?

[PaladinValer]

FPC, then tell me why the Church has always taught theosis?

Or does the Holy Spirit lie?

The Gnostics and the Manicheans taught otherwise, of course. They taught double predestination.

[FivePointCalvinist]

The Gnostics and the Manicheans taught otherwise, of course. They taught double predestination. Gnostics and Manicheans were not Christian groups....and they were dualists.

Double predestination is a logical outworking of single predestination. I would be quite happy to affirm single predestination (to Life), but I don't see how it would functionally make a difference, since the unelect are passed over by God's good pleasure, they automatically form the massa damnata. They are a group unto themselves. Therefore, by virtue of the fact of God's passing them over, they are a category unto their own "the reprobate"

As for the "the Church has always taught it" argument - if the Church had 'always taught' that Peter was a gay hippy with one eye, would you believe it? NO! I would believe what the Bible says!

[PaladinValer]

The Gnostics and Manicheans taught a soteriology that is Calvinistic.

Gnosticism teaches that God chooses only a few to learn of the gnosis necessary for salvation, for example. Once you had it, you could never loose it. All others were doomed for eternity.

At least theosis is open to all.

[Jon_]

The Gnostics and Manicheans taught a soteriology that is Calvinistic.

Gnosticism teaches that God chooses only a few to learn of the gnosis necessary for salvation, for example. Once you had it, you could never loose it. All others were doomed for eternity.

At least theosis is open to all.

FPC, then tell me why the Church has always taught theosis?

Or does the Holy Spirit lie?

The Gnostics and the Manicheans taught otherwise, of course. They taught double predestination.
Wow. You, my friend, get the Darwin Award for the most fallacious argument of the century.

If I were you, I would be outright ashamed of the inference you are trying to draw here.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

[FivePointCalvinist]

Gnosticism teaches that God chooses only a few to learn of the gnosis necessary for salvation, for example. Once you had it, you could never loose it. All others were doomed for eternity. And Jesus taught that....

"....no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." (John 6:65b)

and

"....No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. 45It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.'[a (http://www.bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=6&verse=43&end_verse=45&version=31&context=context#fen-NIV-26292a)] Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me..." (John 6:44-45)

and

27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[a (http://www.bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=10&verse=27&end_verse=29&version=31&context=context#fen-NIV-26500a)]; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.

(John 10:27-29)

Jesus taught that those who come are taught and drawn by the Father. Obviously, not all come, so not all are drawn by the Father's sovereign grace. Jesus also taught eternal security (viz. the John 10 verses).

I guess that makes Jesus Christ a gnostic. :D :D :D :D

At least theosis is open to all. And Biblical salvation is offered to all men. But not all men are drawn by the Father. This isn't even counting Paul's theology of Election - all I'm going on here is the words of Our Lord.

[StAnselm]

Again I ask, what is theosis?

[HiredGoon]

I was just wondering how many Calvinists hold to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. If you do not, what confession does your church hold to?

In the OPC, the Westminster Standards, we also highly value the Three Forms of Unity.

[Jon_]

we also highly value the Three Forms of Unity.
That a PRC phrase if I have ever heard one. Have you been moonlighting on your OPC consistory? ;) :D

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

[HiredGoon]

That a PRC phrase if I have ever heard one. Have you been moonlighting on your OPC consistory? ;) :D

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

:) Being in MI, we have a lot of former CRC members, like the PRC.

[FivePointCalvinist]

In the OPC, the Westminster Standards, we also highly value the Three Forms of Unity. The Creeds (Athanasian, Nicene, Apostles?)

Of course. Anglicans value those too - I thought those went without saying, though.

[Jon_]

The Creeds (Athanasian, Nicene, Apostles?)

Of course. Anglicans value those too - I thought those went without saying, though.
The three forms of unity are the Dutch Reformed creeds: The Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dordt.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

[PaladinValer]

All humanity is drawn to God. Many simple reject it (their own fault) or never hear of it (blessed ignorance).

I suggest a few years' study of patristics.

[FivePointCalvinist]

All humanity is drawn to God. Many simple reject it (their own fault) or never hear of it (blessed ignorance).

I suggest a few years' study of patristics. If this is your position, interact with the words of Jesus and Saint Paul I provided above. If we put all the data together...

"No one can come unless the Father has enabled him..."

"No one can come unless the Father draws him..."

"No one can snatch them out of the Fathers hand"


If all humanity were drawn, then all humanity would be saved.

As for Patristics, I study the Fathers along with my study of Scripture. What I find in the Scripture of the Church Father's teaching, I value. What I do not find, I reject. If the Fathers exegesis of one place of Scripture is such that it is repugnant to another place, as yours is, then I reject that exegesis.

[FivePointCalvinist]

Bumped for PaladinValer

[PaladinValer]

1. Grace isn't limited to simply faith. Grace is bestowed through other means, largely through the Sacraments, sacramentals, and good works. Even if you don't want to believe in the latter, the former two cannot be denied.
2. Grace again. See above
3. Baptism may seal, but we can still forsake it. And those in Romans 1 did.

[Jon_]

3. Baptism may seal, but we can still forsake it. And those in Romans 1 did.
What? Romans 1 talks about the state of unregenerate man. It says nothing of baptized believers forsaking the faith.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

[PaladinValer]

You forgot that, back then, Baptism was the entrance into the Church. And that doctrine is still in play in all the Apostolic churches.

It is a story of apostates, and a clear rejection of Calvinism.

[FivePointCalvinist]

1. Grace isn't limited to simply faith. Grace is bestowed through other means, largely through the Sacraments, sacramentals, and good works. Even if you don't want to believe in the latter, the former two cannot be denied. Certainly, grace is bestowed to beleivers through the sacraments, especially Holy Communion whereby those who partake with a lively faith recieve the Body and Blood of Christ by faith (see the AoR, Art XXVIII, and the 1962 Canadian Book of Common Prayer, Order for Holy Communion, see the words whereby the minister gives the Holy Communion to the Communicant '

Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving.)

And if by 'sacramentals' you mean 'holy water' and other such Popish inventions, these I reject outright2. Grace again. See above Huh?
3. Baptism may seal, but we can still forsake it. And those in Romans 1 did. Romans 1 has nothing to do with baptism!!!

[FivePointCalvinist]

You forgot that, back then, Baptism was the entrance into the Church. And that doctrine is still in play in all the Apostolic churches.

It is a story of apostates, and a clear rejection of Calvinism. I should also note that the Reformed believe that baptism is entrance into the Church. I quote two Reformed Anglican documents for your perusal.

XXVII. Of Baptism.
Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed, Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.
The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.

The 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith
Chapter XXVIII

Of Baptism

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/XXVIII_fn.html#fn0) not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;[2] (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/XXVIII_fn.html#fn1) but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/XXVIII_fn.html#fn2) of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/XXVIII_fn.html#fn3) of regeneration,[5] (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/XXVIII_fn.html#fn4) of remission of sins,[6] (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/XXVIII_fn.html#fn5) and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.[7] (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/XXVIII_fn.html#fn6) Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.[8] (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/XXVIII_fn.html#fn7)


II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto.[9] (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/XXVIII_fn.html#fn8)


III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.[10] (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/XXVIII_fn.html#fn9)


IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,[11] (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/XXVIII_fn.html#fn10) but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.[12] (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/XXVIII_fn.html#fn11)


V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,[13] (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/XXVIII_fn.html#fn12) yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it:[14] (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/XXVIII_fn.html#fn13) or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15] (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/XXVIII_fn.html#fn14)


VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[16] (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/XXVIII_fn.html#fn15) yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.[17] (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/XXVIII_fn.html#fn16)


VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.[18] (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/XXVIII_fn.html#fn17)

[Royalist]

Glad to see you think the 39 Articles are reformed! :)

[FivePointCalvinist]

Glad to see you think the 39 Articles are reformed! :)Indeed I do, Royalist. It's hard to believe anyone would think otherwise.

Bumped for PaladinValer to respond.

[Royalist]

Indeed I do, Royalist. It's hard to believe anyone would think otherwise.

Bumped for PaladinValer to respond.

I agree but I have been reading a commentary on them by E.J.Bricknell who takes a very arminian line. :mad:

[FivePointCalvinist]

I agree but I have been reading a commentary on them by E.J.Bricknell who takes a very arminian line. :mad: Oh please...you've got be kidding me. Can a person really be Arminian with the 39 Articles?

Can this commentary be found online?

[rnmomof7]

The fact is, at the time, most Anglicans weren't Calvinist. On the contrary, they were either arminian or (especially those still loyal to Holy Tradition) theosis.

Of course, most Calvinists don't like that.

So then the men that ascribed to the 39 articles but did not believe them were liars?

[FivePointCalvinist]

Bumped for PaladinValer.

[5solas]

The London Baptist Confession of 1689

You can find it here (http://www.grace.org.uk/faith/bc1689/1689bc00.html) or here (http://www.ccel.org/creeds/bcf/bcf.htm)
or here (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bcof.htm) (with slight revisions by C.H. Spurgeon)

It's similar to the Westminster Confession (except concerning baptism of course)

There are some articles other denominations do not like especially #4 in Chapter 26 - but we still consider it to be biblically based and are not going to change it. That's just one of the reasons why we reject ecumenism very strongly (of course there are many other reasons as well (concerning soteriology, Bible etc.)).

Chapter 26, Article 4.
The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.
( Colossians 1:18; (http://www.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NASB&passage=Colossians+1:18)Matthew 28:18-20; (http://www.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NASB&passage=Matthew+28:18-20)Ephesians 4:11, 12; (http://www.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NASB&passage=Ephesians+4:11-12) 2 Thessalonians 2:2-9 (http://www.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NASB&passage=2Thessalonians+2:2-9) )

[edb19]

There are some articles other denominations do not like especially #4 in Chapter 26 - but we still consider it to be biblically based and are not going to change it. That's just one of the reasons why we reject ecumenism very strongly (of course there are many other reasons as well (concerning soteriology, Bible etc.

The Westminster says the same thing. I'm not saying I disagree, but in this day of "ecumenism" and the whole "evangelicals and Catholics together" issue, I'm a little surprised that there hasn't been a push to edit the confessions. Or maybe there has been and I live is such a bubble that I never noticed.

[FivePointCalvinist]

ECT constitutes nothing less than apostasy on the part of evangelicals who are willing to abandon the reformational recovery of the Gospel.

Bumped for PaladinValer.

[FivePointCalvinist]

My opponent has obviously abandoned his argument. I rest my case.

[Erinwilcox]

ECT constitutes nothing less than apostasy on the part of evangelicals who are willing to abandon the reformational recovery of the Gospel.

Amen. I couldn't believe that JI Packer signed that. Big disappointment. How many protestants died during the Reformation (due to martyrdom) for the very beliefs that the ECT now compromises?

[FivePointCalvinist]

J.I. Packer signed the ECT statement?

Where is this statement?

[FivePointCalvinist]

J.I. Packer signed the ECT statement?

Where is this statement? Whoa..I found it.

I feel sick. J.I. Packer goes to my church and until just a few minutes ago, I respected him as a pretty incredible man of God.

Not if he commits this kind of blasphemy, though.

[StAnselm]

If he goes to your church - why don't you talk to him about it? I'm sure he has his own reasons...

[PuritanLady]

Whoa..I found it.

I feel sick. J.I. Packer goes to my church and until just a few minutes ago, I respected him as a pretty incredible man of God.

Not if he commits this kind of blasphemy, though.
What is the ECT?

[JJB]

Announced at a press conference on 3/29/94 was an ecumenical declaration titled "Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium" (ECT (http://incolor.inetnebr.com/mdavis/evandcat.shtml))

That was my question, too, PuritanLady. I did a google on Packer and came across this paragraph. Now, I'm off to google Evangelicals and Catholics Together.

[JJB]

http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9405/articles/mission.html

[Erinwilcox]

The ECT was the Evangelicals and Catholics Together document that many evangelical and Roman Catholic leaders. This might be helpful too-http://www.leaderu.com/ect/ect3.html-since it tells of a meeting since the signing.

[PuritanLady]

Thank you...off to do some research.

[Foundthelight]

R. C. Sproul has written at least two books blasting the ECT statement.

Getting the Gospel Right and Faith Alone.

I strongly recommend them.

[Paleoconservatarian]

R. C. Sproul has written at least two books blasting the ECT statement.

Getting the Gospel Right and Faith Alone.

I strongly recommend them.

I have read Faith Alone and also recommend it. Sproul's writing has helped a great deal in steering me away from the dangers of modern evangelical thought while I was yet a baby Christian.

[moretap]

So, Did/will you ask J.I. Packer why he signed it?

[Erinwilcox]

I don't know that I'd want to be in that position. . .but I'd be curious to know what you are going to do, too.

[McWilliams]

The book, Getting the Gospel Right by R.C. Sproul is from reports a great book on explaining the dangers and objections to the ECT. I just ordered one from Amazon, used for $2.44 and am most anxious to read it and know all the fine points of this issue! I was glad to read all the above post on this and have never really learned too much about it!

[McWilliams]

J.C. Ryle was a most favorite Anglican author of mine! His book 'Holiness' is just superb and his 'Warnings to the Churches' you'd think was written today!!
We did a study of John Bunyan's book, Prayer, which is his refuting of the Book of Common Prayer, or any kind of "form" prayer for that matter!
Our church holds to the LBC. We are reformed baptist and just last week changed our name to Founders Baptist to clarify who we are!
Blessings on your day today!

[pjw]

why the fuss over ECT? it just states the facts as they are. does the fact that Evangelical Christians are talking to Vatican-Catholic Christians about the issues that divide and unite us make them cease to be Christians?

[Iosias]

We hold fast to the 39 Articles :)

[Jeshu]

Belgic Confession.
The Heidelberg Catechism.
The Canons of Dort.
================

[5SolasinKY]

We hold to the 1689 London Baptist Confession.

[Iosias]

Belgic Confession.

The Heidelberg Catechism.
The Canons of Dort.

================


Nice and Reformed! :thumbsup:

[rnmomof7]

I was just wondering how many Calvinists hold to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. If you do not, what confession does your church hold to?


We use the Westminister Confession

[picnic]

39 articles

[Iosias]

39 articles

Which church is that? Pray tell :)

[synger]

The Thirty-nine Articles (http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/articles_39_1572.html) are a historic confession of the Anglican church.

Obligatory Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-Nine_Articles)link.

[Iosias]

The Thirty-nine Articles (http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/articles_39_1572.html) are a historic confession of the Anglican church.

Obligatory Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-Nine_Articles)link.

I was thinking more which congregation but I PMed her and found out...but thanks anyway :hug:

[MeanieCalvinist]

Our church holds to the LBC. We are reformed baptist and just last week changed our name to Founders Baptist to clarify who we are!
Blessings on your day today!

Wow! I take it your church is a "Founders Friendly" Church?

Our Church holds to the 1689 LBC ! So I guess you could say I am a 1689er! I also enjoy the WCF and both the Shorter and Larger Catechisms (what a great source for biblically sound definitions of theological terms) However, I differ with my Presbyterian brothers concerning the nature of the New Covenant.

In Christ
MC

[Christiangal01]

WOw,
I"m LBC too

[edb19]

WOw,
I"m LBC too

Lots of folks here use theLBC:thumbsup:

Oh, and welcome - glad to have you here:wave:

edie

[Theophorus]

So which confession holds the truth?

[Paleoconservatarian]

So which confession holds the truth?
The Second Helvetic (http://www.ccel.org/creeds/helvetic.htm), of course. :D

[strengthinweakness]

My church officially holds to the revised New Hampshire Confession of Faith from 1853. From what I can tell though, most members do not seem to hold to Article XV, "Of The Christian Sabbath." :( This section sets forth the understanding of the Lord's Day as the Christian Sabbath, "to be kept sacred to religious purposes by preparation for that rest that remaineth for the people of God." I agree with this Article, as well as Article XII, "Of The Harmony Of The Law And The Gospel," (the subject of which I have had occasion to debate on SR at times, to my surprise!) and all other, less "controversial" Articles in this great, historic Confession. :thumbsup:

[Iosias]

From what I can tell though, most members do not seem to hold to Article XV, "Of The Christian Sabbath." :(

A growing epidemic that is sweeping through Calvinistic and Reformed churches.

[rockytrails]

One place where I do not fully agree is where it says that the Pope is THE Antichrist. It said that hundreds of years ago. Therefore, I believe that those popes were antichrists, but not The Antichrist. The new Pope could be, however, but it is too soon to tell.
uhm?

did you know any one who believes in Jeus his merits alone for their salvation .are still damned to hell by the popes?
what could be more anti Christ in the church than that?

Why do the popes accept worship? When even Gods holy angels dared not?

here is a non reformed a lutheran site that say's also that the papacy is the very Antichrist
I SUGGEST THE PDF FILE AS IT IS ADOBE READER AND DOES NOT DOWN lOAD AS APERMANT FILE AND IT DOWN LOADS IN JUST A SECOND OR SO ON A FAIRLY NEW COMPUTER.
http://www.wlstheologia.net/subject/A/Antichrist

[Augustinus51]

I was just wondering how many Calvinists hold to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. If you do not, what confession does your church hold to?

Hi, I do not hold the London Baptist confession. As French, the confession of my Church is the "Confessio Gallicana" (Confession de La Rochelle :cool:) of 1559, almost totaly drafted by Calvin himself ;)
I'm also very attached to the Augsburg confession (1530) to which subscribed J. Calvin when he was at Strasburg and Bucer, Capito, etc; (This last document is probably the most irenic and orthodox confession I know, even if it doesn"t talk about everything, like the "sola scriptura" --it is only suggested at the 21st article--, and it is because of this that I add the Gallicana)...
About baptism, I'm not sure that this theology can be really compatible with calvinism. In any case, I don't think that we should receive confessions drafted after the 16th century (and it concerns also the confession of Westminster. But, you will say, it is only my opinion... :doh::sorry::blush:)

[xapis]

In any case, I don't think that we should receive confessions drafted after the 16th century (and it concerns also the confession of Westminster. But, you will say, it is only my opinion... :doh::sorry::blush:)

Why would you draw that line and not include the Westminster Standards? Certainly, it's not due to theological problems, or is it? I'd like to understand your reasons for taking this position.

[Theognome]

I was just wondering how many Calvinists hold to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. If you do not, what confession does your church hold to?

Officially, my church holds to the Belgic Confession of 1561, and uses the Heidelberg Catechism for instruction as well. Although we don't use the Westminster Confession, we are sympathetic to it.

Theongome