Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Kiffin, Mar 7, 2002.
What Baptist Confession do You Rank as the Best?
I voted for the New Hampshire Confession of 1833, but have reservations regarding articles XII and XV. The only confession of faith that I totally agree with is the one I wrote for myself.
I notice you voted for the Midland Confession. My problem with the Midland confession is not what it says, but what it doesn't say.
I voted "liberal/moderate", but as a moderate I would have liked to have these two distinct categories listed separately (at least for accuracy's sake). Most people outside Baptist life consider me moderate to conservative. Most Baptists I know think I'm moderate, although a few consider me liberal.
I think that Thomas may be right. All of these confessions have points that cause me/us (our church) some concern. That is the reason why ours is the only one that we could totally agree with.
Maybe, we(Baptists)need to concentrate more on the really hot and pertinent issues for today and write confessions that clarify those points and just copy the points that are absolutely clear for other dated sources. This would show continuity with the past and apt knowledge with relevancy of the present.
Can somebody help me with this?
I would be curious what that would be? The Midland's strength and weakness is that it is brief and may not be as comprehensive as it should be. I would agree with you on that.
The 1689 London I believe is the most comprehensive and I am in basic agreement with it but it is so wordy I believe that many would not read it through. I like the Midland because it is brief and to the point and I am in complete agreement with it but that does not mean that an appendix could be added if a local church chose it as their confession to clarify contemporary concerns.
David Cooke, Jr,
Your point is well taken.
Bro. John Willis,
Good point though I think a confession could have a Comprehensive doctrinal statements and then have an appendix that deals with contemporary issues or heresises. I think that is the problem with all the various manifestations of the Baptist Faith and Message. Why not just stick with the New Hampshire (which it is a revision of) and add contemporary issues in an appendix.
I would say this, that even the best confession has strengths and weaknesses. That's why the Bible in the end is the final authority.
Kiffin, my concern with the Midland is that it does not clarify the identity of Christ's New Testament churches. The Philadelphia starts right off in article 1 with the "catholic or universal church." New Hamshire corrects this in Article XIII by identifying the church of Jesus Christ as a visible congregation of baptized believers. The Midland makes no statement at all concerning the nature and identity of the Lord's churches.
The Midland states,
The New Hampshire states,
I think the New Hampshire strongly emphasizes the local church though I would say the Midland also does strongly (and is a favorite of Primitive Baptists)though I know Landmarkers prefer the New Hampshire definition. I don't have a problem with the Philadelphia or London's definition either I just wish it was not the primary definition.
Mine creed here was not specified. I from Russia. Myself I attribute to Arminian Baptists. Others creeds Baptists are not known for me yet.
Thomas, can you tell us your reservations concerning no. Xll and XV? I am learning much from you bible scholars.
I have a problem with Article XII due to the statement "and to restore them through a Mediator to unfeigned obedience to the holy Law, is one great end of the Gospel, and of the means of grace connected with the establishment of the visible Church." I am not certain what they mean by "the Law of God." They say it is His "eternal and unchangeable rule of moral government." I see two distinct laws in the bible, the OT Law (603 Mitzvot (Commandments) and 10 Devarim (words) inscribed on the tablets), and the NT law, or "the Law of Christ." Although I do not entirely embrace New Covenent theology, as I still tend to be an historic premillenialist and a very mild dispensationalist, I do agree the OT Law is no more, and the NT law is ours in Christ.
Article XV deals with what they call "the Christian Sabbath." They say it is the first day of the week, or Lord's Day and it is to be kept sacred to religious purposes. I could not disagree more! Christ is our Sabbath. We entered into our sabbath rest when we were saved. We rest in Him. One day is just as another.
I'm a Primitive Baptist and am not really sure weather it is the London Baptist Confessional of 1644 or 1689 as its been awhile since I've read either. What would be of benefit to all that are interested is a thread that would have the web sites to all those articles mentioned. I've posted our Articles of Faith here on another post... I have an idea for Baptist History... Brother Glen
My “The Statement of Faith of The Evangelical Christian-Baptists” look
Hello all. I think the best theolgical document is the 2nd London / Philadelphia / Charleston Confession. I think every age needs to address the issues of its day. What was important in the past may not be an issue today. What is important today may not have been an issue in the past.
Undoubtedly, the 1689LBCF is the best
The 1689 confession of faith is the best!!! Here it is:
It is because of this that I have come to see Systematic Theology as an evolutionary kind of discipline. Issues pertaining to the Person of Christ (Christology) were settled first. Then, as we come into the Reformation period issues concerning Soteriology and Ecclesiology were delved into and systematized. As we came up to the turn of the last century (c.1900), Bibliology became the issue that needed some thought and exposition. For the last hundred years or so, Separation or Practical Ecclesiology has been the issue on the front burner. Mind you, I use the word evolutionary in a fairly strict sense. E.g. the Volkswagen "Beetle" continusly evolved from 1930s through the 1970s. In the case of SysThe, the doctrines are there in God's Word but some times it takes man a liitle while to get his mind around them (if he ever does).
We ran into a problem c.1949. Issues arose that had not been previously dealt with by the brethren. Some reacted in line with previously held principles. Many took the stand that since these were not "historic" issues no action should be taken.
Anyone familiar with the Baptist version of the Shorter Catechism?
Anyone know of a modern-language form of the LBC 1689?
Our church still publishes copies of Spurgeon's Baptist Catechism (which really the Shorter Catechism with two questions added).
John Piper has prepared a Baptist Catechism which is also based on Westminster. You can find it at Desiring God Ministries
I'm not sure where I got it, but there is a modern language version of the LBC 1689 that's titled "A Faith to Confess."
If you could check on that for me, I'd appreciate it. I'd love to get hold of a copy.