What constitutes a Baptist church?

[Iconoclast]

What are the main differences?

why don't you read them and find out...do you get everything second hand?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

If you mean the 1644/46 was based on a paedobaptist confession I would like the see the proof as I know of no paedobaptist confession previous to the 1644/46 that embraced the same ecclesiology but I do know of previous Anabaptist confessions prior to Calvin that embraced divine election.

It is pretty well known that the 1644/46 confession was chiefly based on a confession by a prominent Congregational leader. There are a couple of other sources, both paedobaptist. One of them was called the 'True Confession.' If my memory wasn't so bad these days I would quote you chapter and verse now, but as it is, you'll have to wait until next Monday.

There is nothing wrong with Baptists adapting paedobaptist material. Why would they want to re-invent the wheel when faithful Congregationalists had done the heavy lifting for them?

 

[rsr]

The Second London Confession drew upon the Westminster Confession and the Savoy Declaration (1658), a version of the Westminster adapted and expanded for Congregationalists.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I take it Martin is referring to the Brownists' True Confession of 1596, some of whose articles and language were incorporated (largely, though not necessarily word for word) into the 1644/1646 London Baptist confessions. In addition, the First London Confession was indebted to Williams Ames' Marrow of Sacred Divinity. Both sources were paedobaptist.

Yep! Thanks for this RSR. The 1644 Confession owes a huge debt to William Ames' document and a fair amount to the True Confession.' Thanks for the reminder. 'Biblicist,' if you want some meaty quotes to prove this, you can have them when I get home.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Let's see, 1720's seems to be after 1689 and just another step in "a growing apostasy" begun in 1689 instead of what happened in 1640-1660? Yes, "growing apostasy" from 1689 when even you admit there was a major shift from the 1644/46 confessions. So how in the world can you pin a "growing apostasy" on the 1644/46 Baptists??????

You are showing your ignorance of Particular Baptist history. The 1644/46 Confession was signed initially by just seven churches, all in London. After 1646, Particular Baptist theology spread rapidly, but the Confession didn't. In the West of England, a man named Thomas Collier was responsible for spreading the P.B. message, but around 1650, he went Arminian and was disowned by Kiffin, Knollys and Co. It was around this time that it was realised that a stronger, more detailed Confession was needed, as many Arminian and some Calvinist Baptist churches were turning to Quakerism, and in 1677 the 2nd London Baptist Confession was produced, though it was not formally adopted until 1689 when limited freedoms were allowed to non-conformists.

But even then, many Baptist churches refused to adopt any confession. The 'Test Acts' during the reigns of Charles II and James II required everyone to conform to the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England, and non-conformists of all types hated these Test Acts so much that they felt that there should be no confessions required by churches. Unfortunately this led to a period of dreadful apostasy in the early 18th Century within all the non-conformist churches, chiefly among the Presbyterians and General Baptists, but it affected all churches, including the PBs.

So I don't 'blame' the 1644/46 Confession for anything. It was a fine document in its way, but it was insufficient to meet the challenges of the times. However, any confession will prove useless if associating churches are not required to conform to it. This is where Bernard Foskett was so important after 1720 because he brought the P.B.s back to the 1689 Confession.

 

[Yeshua1]

You are showing your ignorance of Particular Baptist history. The 1644/46 Confession was signed initially by just seven churches, all in London. After 1646, Particular Baptist theology spread rapidly, but the Confession didn't. In the West of England, a man named Thomas Collier was responsible for spreading the P.B. message, but around 1650, he went Arminian and was disowned by Kiffin, Knollys and Co. It was around this time that it was realised that a stronger, more detailed Confession was needed, as many Arminian and some Calvinist Baptist churches were turning to Quakerism, and in 1677 the 2nd London Baptist Confession was produced, though it was not formally adopted until 1689 when limited freedoms were allowed to non-conformists.

But even then, many Baptist churches refused to adopt any confession. The 'Test Acts' during the reigns of Charles II and James II required everyone to conform to the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England, and non-conformists of all types hated these Test Acts so much that they felt that there should be no confessions required by churches. Unfortunately this led to a period of dreadful apostasy in the early 18th Century within all the non-conformist churches, chiefly among the Presbyterians and General Baptists, but it affected all churches, including the PBs.

So I don't 'blame' the 1644/46 Confession for anything. It was a fine document in its way, but it was insufficient to meet the challenges of the times. However, any confession will prove useless if associating churches are not required to conform to it. This is where Bernard Foskett was so important after 1720 because he brought the P.B.s back to the 1689 Confession.

Since the Brother takes so much offense at the 1689 Confession of Faith, as it was drawn upon ans used Westminster so much, would he be saying Westminster articles are of apostasy, as well as any Baptists holding to 1689 version too?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Since the Brother takes so much offense at the 1689 Confession of Faith, as it was drawn upon ans used Westminster so much, would he be saying Westminster articles are of apostasy, as well as any Baptists holding to 1689 version too?

Any affiliation with Infant baptists would be considered a heresy and therefore apostate. Don't you know this by now?

 

[Yeshua1]

why don't you read them and find out...do you get everything second hand?

No, But those here who are Reformed should know the differences?

 

[Salty]

Time to close this thread - as it is nowhere near what the OP was all about.

 

[HankD]

Thanks, but I already know that Brother. I was just having fun with Tom. He has no real patience with people so I'm playing "the Idiot" to see his reaction. Honestly he takes the bait every single time.

Thanks again though,

Prince Mishkin LOL!

Don't feel alone.

But in my case I often do not have to play the role of IDIOT, it sometimes comes naturally

HankD

 

[Yeshua1]

Time to close this thread - as it is nowhere near what the OP was all about.

Are any of our threads though really?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning

This thread will be closed sometime after 2 pmPacific.

Time to close this thread - as it is nowhere near what the OP was all about.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

No, But those here who are Reformed should know the differences?

Define REFORMED for me would you...I mean your interpretation of the term

 

[Salty]

Define REFORMED for me would you...I mean your interpretation of the term

I would recommend you star a new thread for that question.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is closed.

Six Hour Warning

This thread will be closed sometime after 2 pmPacific.