What constitutes a Baptist church?

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

 

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?

 

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.

 

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?

 

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

 

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

 

Don't feel alone.

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

HankD

 

Are any of our threads though really?

 

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