2nd London vs. Philadelphia Confession

[Herald]

Not sure if this is the right forum to post this. I suppose I will be re-directed if I am in the wrong place.

For those Baptist's who frequent this board: which of these confessions (if any) do you find yourself more in line with? A) Both B) 2nd London C) Philadelphia D) Neither.

I would appreciate hearing your reasons why.

Thanks.

[Edited on 9-19-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]

 

[Puritanhead]

London 1689... I've never really read Philadelphia confession, and I only heard of it this past year, so it's kind of hard to adhere to a confession I have never read.

 

[Herald]

Originally posted by Puritanhead
London 1689... I've never really read Philadelphia confession, and I only heard of it this past year, so it's kind of hard to adhere to a confession I have never read.

Philadelphia Confession of Faith

Above is the link for the Philadelphia Confession of Faith. It is almost and exact repeat of the 2nd London Confession except for two additions: Chapter 23 and Chapter 31.

 

[Herald]

Oh...and my question is not just for Baptists. If you are of a different denominational persuasion and find yourself ameniable to either confession, please comment.

 

[Puritanhead]

I don't like singing enough to enunciate it in my confessional creed of faith. Oh well, I'm sticking with my anachronistic London 1689 creed!

:bigsmile:

 

[Herald]

Originally posted by Puritanhead
I don't like singing enough to enunciate it in my confessional creed of faith. Oh well, I'm sticking with my anachronistic London 1689 creed!

:bigsmile:

Gee whiz. What a baptistic stick in the mud you are!

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Just out of curiousity for those who adhere to either confession, do you do without exceptions?

Specifically, I was wondering about the statement on the identity of Antichrist as found in chapter 26, sec. 4 of the 1689 London Confession and chapter 27, sec. 4 of the 1742 Philadelphia Confession.

 

[Puritanhead]

No, Andrew. I make an exception to chapter 26, sec. 4 of the 1689... Everyone knows that Nicholas Carpathia is the Anti-Christ and he resides in Romania.
:bigsmile:

 

[Herald]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Just out of curiousity for those who adhere to either confession, do you do without exceptions?

Specifically, I was wondering about the statement on the identity of Antichrist as found in chapter 26, sec. 4 of the 1689 London Confession and chapter 27, sec. 4 of the 1742 Philadelphia Confession.

Andrew - the common understand of these two chapters is not that the Pope is THE antichrist, but that he is the spirit of anitchrist (it would have helped if the language was tighter). There is no doubt in my mind that the 1689 2nd Confession was written partly as a refutation of Catholicisim. That said, I do not consider the R.C.C. to be a part of the visible church. As such, it is part of the system of this world. I would then be sympathetic to the "spirit of antichrist" view.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Just out of curiousity for those who adhere to either confession, do you do without exceptions?

Specifically, I was wondering about the statement on the identity of Antichrist as found in chapter 26, sec. 4 of the 1689 London Confession and chapter 27, sec. 4 of the 1742 Philadelphia Confession.

Andrew - the common understand of these two chapters is not that the Pope is THE antichrist, but that he is the spirit of anitchrist (it would have helped if the language was tighter). There is no doubt in my mind that the 1689 2nd Confession was written partly as a refutation of Catholicisim. That said, I do not consider the R.C.C. to be a part of the visible church. As such, it is part of the system of this world. I would then be sympathetic to the "spirit of antichrist" view.

Thanks. I am familiar with the meaning of the text since I hold to it myself (via the 1646 WCF from which the other two confessions were borrowed almost verbatim except for Baptist distinctives). It does in fact teach that the Papacy is the Antichrist, which is what Charles Spurgeon, for example, believed.

[Edited on 9-19-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[Herald]

It does in fact teach that the Papacy is the Antichrist, which is what Charles Spurgeon, for example, believed.

Well that would be a nightmare for dispensationalists...wouldn't it?

 

[rgrove]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Just out of curiousity for those who adhere to either confession, do you do without exceptions?

Specifically, I was wondering about the statement on the identity of Antichrist as found in chapter 26, sec. 4 of the 1689 London Confession and chapter 27, sec. 4 of the 1742 Philadelphia Confession.

I do and one of our two pastors does.

 

[rgrove]

Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis
Not sure if this is the right forum to post this. I suppose I will be re-directed if I am in the wrong place.

For those Baptist's who frequent this board: which of these confessions (if any) do you find yourself more in line with? A) Both B) 2nd London C) Philadelphia D) Neither.

I would appreciate hearing your reasons why.

Thanks.

To answer the original question, I don't believe the laying on of hands to be an ordinance. I also see no reason to add singing of hymns to the confession. The 1689 was fine the way it was... If a local church body chooses to sing psalms only, then I believe that is their prerogative without being out of step with the confession. These two additions came about because of the influence of Keach's son and Keach was a big proponent of hymns. In his day hymns weren't sung in Baptist churches.