Featured Baptist London Confession?

rsr,

You are not presenting an accurate picture of the intention of the English Particular Baptists in the 17th-century. Have you read the preface to the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith?

The preface to the 1689 LBC makes it clear that 17th-century Engish Particular Baptists sought peace with their Presbyterian brethren and not contention. It was not "galling" (your words) for these Baptists to consider themselves in the Reformed tradition. They displayed grace and humility even though they were misunderstood and maligned at the time.

 

Maybe in your tiny corner of the world, but since you are not a Reformed or Particular Baptist, how would you know?

 

Without a doubt the majority of Baptists in Britain would be unaware of the Confession. that is because most of them are in Baptist Union churches which are mostly apostate (with some honourable exceptions). I don't know if you have ever been on the Puritan Board (I'm not recommending that you do) you would have found people who know the 1689 back to front.

There are also some Reformed Baptist churches (my own included) that have found the 1689 to be overly long and complicated and have joined the FIEC rather than the Grace Baptists and follow the FIEC Basis of Faith which is sound but much shorter.

Personally, I like the 1689, but my church is where God has called me, so I don't make an issue over it.

ARBCA churches in America seem to be growing fast, though from a very small base..

 

You made comments about those who reference the 1689 that are inaccurate in the Reformed and Particular Baptist arena. You gave me ample cause to assume you are not properly informed. If I was wrong here is your opportunity to correct your comments.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

Martin, maybe this question isn't too far afield from the OP. Are you saying the complicated statement of faith of the Grace Baptists versus the sound but shorter one of the FIEC is the reason these Baptists have joined the FIEC?

Thanks!

 

The FIEC came into being in 1922 as a result of E.J. Poole-Connor on deputation from the North Africa Mission finding their supporters included isolated groups of believers who had come out of the denominations because of modernism. These were unaware of each other.

He drew them together as the "Federation of Undenominational & Unattached Churches & Missions" which later became the "Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches."

The unifying factor was the belief in the inspiration & sole authority of the Holy Bible, & the Gospel of salvation by repentance & faith in Christ. Those coming together included baptists & paedobaptists, with a range of church governments & attitudes to prophecy.

The doctrinal basis was drawn up so that such differences did not become a barrier to fellowship. Our church is a Baptist Church with its own statement of faith including immersion baptism of believers, & membership only of those so baptised. There are charismatics & anticharismatics in the FIEC.

Our church accepts the FIEC basis of faith & in practise accepts as members Christians baptised in infancy, some of whom have been faithful Christians for many years. And some who have challenged by beliefs concerning the nation of Israel as antisemitic. Fellowship continues, though I have not made an issue of prophecy - I'm leaving the area & don't want to be divisive. Our Pakistani pastor needs to maintain unity of folk from a variety of South Asian countries - his wife is from a Kenyan Sikh family. When we leave, there will be 3 ethnic English to 30-40 Asians.

I doubt if any of the other members could discuss the FIEC basis of faith & its doctrinal relevance - & certainly not the 1689. Obviously they are not familiar with European church history.

I did preach on baptists in the Reformation a few weeks ago, pointing out that it took nearly 200 years from 1517 for baptists & other non-conformists to be able to worship freely & publish the basis of faith.

 

Very wise. Mark Dever who served under Roy Clements at Eden Baptist Church Cambridge before returning to the U.S. to pastor, gives similar counsel:

Founders Journal - Mark Dever, "Which Confession":

"we want to have enough in the document to be essential for us to be a biblically-faithful church, and yet not so much that we needlessly divide, or cause young Christians to stumble"

"Many men I know, love, respect and learn from would say that the 1689 Confession is the best to do this. I once thought so. Now, having pastored a congregation for a little more than 10 years. . .I think the New Hampshire Confession actually serves us better....to stand clearly for the truth, but to do so often without the 17th-century labels, to center on the biblical truths themselves"

 

Each church would have to answer for itself.
Covenanter has given an accurate account of the origins of the FIEC. My church has been affiliated to it since its inception 52 years ago. Most of the members have never heard of the 1689 Confession, but doctrinally we are pretty much in line with it.

Although the FIEC basis of faith is sound, it has not kept charismatic churches from joining; the 1689 is very clearly cessationist. I also worry that the leadership in FIEC is becoming too pally with leaders in groups that are mixed in doctrine.

However, the only Grace Baptist Church within10 miles of us is ultra-conservative, being KJV-only and hymns written by dead people only. I couldn't be doing with that.

 

Actually, for most American Reformed Baptists the 1689 LBC is the dominant confession. This is the case with ARBCA churches. There are differences between the two confessions with the New Hampshire confession generally seen as less Calvinistic and detailed than the 1689 LBC.

 

If Wikipedia is to be believed* there were 16,000 Reformed Baptists in 400 congregations in the United States in the year 2000. Could that number be double or triple? Possibly. The 1689 LBC is still the primary confession of this group.

*I have my doubts about almost everything on Wikipedia. I am only using it as a point of reference for the sake of argument.

 

The source for the number is HERE. The source/book looks legit, but unfortunately the author did not footnote his source of that number.

 

I guess I see it differently because I am in the Reformed Baptist world where the 1689 LBC is ubiquitous.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

While the New Hampshire is not as Calvinistic as the 1689 LBC, it is a Calvinistic document. I cannot imagine that being acceptable to non-Calvinistic churches but I may be wrong.