Quote:
Originally Posted by satz  Just a thought:
Due to their views regarding church government - I believe most baptists would not admit that there is even such a thing as The Church', but rather that there were churches thoughout history. Doesn't it logically follow that a baptist would not hold the LBCF in the same regard as a presbyterian would hold the WCF?
It seems for a baptist the LBCF would have been just the result of a bunch of godly men getting together. There would be nothing particularly 'special' about that gathering to make it any different from if we were to get some faithful, godly baptist pastors to come together to discuss theology today. |
Mark - you're attempting to mesh confessionalism with church polity (or maybe you're trying to distance them?). There is no disputing the fact that Baptist churches have been historically independent. As brother Rich pointed out, Baptists came into being expressly because of the baptism issue. One way of countering that was local church autonomy (independency). But even though Baptist churches have always been independent it does not mean there was a lack of unity in doctrine. That is the reason the LBC was constructed.
Also, reformed Baptist churches believe in the universal church. There is one church manifested in local fellowships (congregations). We use the word 'church' to describe these local fellowships because they are part of the called out assembly of believers.