Featured Baptists are not Reformed

I wish more folks would consult the Canons of Dort instead of merely simply speaking of TULIP. That acrostic was coined in 1905 by Cleland Boyd McAfee.So it's history is rather recent. It's helpful but not expansive enough.

 

So you believe that the Preface was a lie?

I believe that the men who signed their names to the 1689 document actually endorsed the doctrines contained therein. It was really closer to the Savoy Declaration, and yes --the 1689 was Protestant in nature. It's an historical fact.

How in the world are you coming up with that remark? I made no reference to Roman Catholicism and its linkage to the Baptist Faith and Practice statement.

Good. I like it too.

 

Kind of flimsy patchwork on your part OR. Because the WCoF and the 1689 are similar you would come to the conclusion that Roman Catholicism is behind it all?!
As I have demonstrated before, most Baptists who are indeed Christians would agree substantially with the Westminster Confession of Faith --even some of the most ardent Non-Calvinists. And when it comes to the London Confession of Faith that percentage rises even higher.

 

So what are the big differences between the ole 44 & the 89....45??? JK...seriously don't know....have studied both Westminster and the 1689 so I have comparitive knowledge but 1644 seem kinda vague from what ive read. I know the New Covenant Theology crowd uses it to justify their stance. And that is why I don't pay it no nevermind...I'm not interested in NCT either. So who did I offend :laugh: or is that whom?

 

Why are you suddenly concerned with proper grammar at this late stage EW&F?
;-)

 

Ewf, here's a difference to chew on:

Westminster 24:3 has "the true reformed religion"

Baptist has "the true religion"

 

I predicted this from you Rippon.. correction of spelling & punctuation is another advantage for having you on the board. :laugh:

PS: I'm sure you would add penmanship to your skill sets if they were visible. :tongue3:

 

Believe me --I have let you slide way too often. You are in competition with another BB member with the distinction of poor grammar and spelling.

Remember EdSutton? He was the true grammar cop. He caught me a few times.

No,I'm afraid not. My penmanship is not good at all. I'm amazed how neatly Chinese students write English cursive so well.

 

Jerome in the section on Effectual calling,point #4 --both the WCF and LBCF have "Christian religion."

 

Me too, and most other PBs.

"When compared to the 1689 Confession the first London document is said to present a more accurate biblical perspective of God's law. The editors of Backus Books Publishers, who reprinted the 1646 edition of the London Confession with Benjamin Cox's Appendix, offer this observation. "There are other baptistic statements of faith already available in our day, such as the Second London Confession of 1689, which is a modification of the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646. Although these confessions agree on the fundamentals of Christian faith, there is a distinctive New Covenant emphasis concerning biblical law in the 1644 and 1646 editions of the First London Confession that is regretfully lacking in the Old Covenant emphasis of the Westminster and Second London Confessions. This difference has far reaching theological implications."

In the general conference of 1646 Elder Benjamin Cox, pastor of Abington Church, presented an appendix to the Confession. The existence of this document indicates that at least one church in London, of the original seven, considered the Confession either too vague or else inaccurate in presenting the doctrine of regeneration. Lumpkin describes Cox's work as characterizing a "higher Calvinism than the second edition."

Particularly, Elder Cox took exception to the Pelagian implications of Gospel agency in regeneration. In article seven of his appendix he wrote;

Though we confess that no man doth attain unto faith by his own good will; John 1:13, yet we judge and know that the Spirit of God doth not compel a man to believe against his will, but doth powerfully and sweetly create in a man a new heart, and make him to believe and obey willingly, Ezekiel 36:26,27; Psalms; 110:3. God thus working in us both to will and to do, of His good pleasure, Philippians 2:13.

I have been unable to find any evidence that the Cox appendix was ever formally accepted and added to the first London Confession. From this, it may be assumed that others were satisfied with the positions taken in the Confession and saw little need to adjust it doctrinal tenor.

Apparently, the distinguishing theology of the First London Confession did not go unnoticed by the Arminian General Baptists. Elder Cox's appendix is, for the most part, a polemic response to Arminian theology. The content and tone of his work indicates the General Baptists were not pleased with the appearance of the London Confession. Until 1644 John Helwys' very Arminian 1610 Confession was the principle statement of Baptist theology in England. The London Confession served to undermine the influence of the Helwys document. It revealed that his 1610 Confession was not endorsed by a significant portion of the Baptist community in London."
http://www.pb.org/pbdocs/chhist5.html

 

Still consider it to simplistic....it allows for lax scriptural interpretation. But lean on what you want to. I will use the Bible and the HS.

 

That sounds pious and all but...why are you so anti-creedal?

 

I'm not....I'm just moving into deeper waters I'm thinking.

 

Dr. John T. Christian disproved the theory that Baptists originated from groups that sprinkled in 1640's conclusively in several books he wrote. He personally went to England and researched the Bodleian papers and proved that in 1640 the change of law allowing dissenters to print what they believe, was the reason for the pouring forth of literature to defend immersion rather than proof of the origin of Baptists from pedobaptists as Whitsitt imagined. Indeed, he proved that even pedobaptists immsered rather than poured in England from the early 1500's to 1640. Furthermore, Baptists had clear historical existence long before 1640 as they are frequently mentioned by pedobaptists. The archeological proof of Baptists can be seen in their oldest historical meeting places such as the "church in the hop Garden" and Hillcrest Church and several others back to the late 1300's before either the European or English reformations.

 

Feeding minister - preacher
Begetting minister - missionary

This is certainly a very interesting to me read: http://particularbaptistlibrary.org/LIBRARY/History/The Abington Association.pdf

 

:thumbs::thumbs: