London Baptist Confession of Faith

[Jared]

I probably should have posted this earlier. When I applied for membership with the Puritan Board, I said that I affirmed the LBCF. I had read the confession before I sent in my application. Since some of you may have noticed some apparent inconsistency between the LBCF and what I have said in some of my posts, I would like to address this issue.

Regarding Covenant Theology, I did not realize that the confession explicitly affirmed the position of Covenant Theology. I saw that the covenants were mentioned, but since I am somewhere near NCT and NCT makes use of the covenants I did not object to what I read in the confession and did not realize that one could not hold to NCT and affirm the LBCF. However, I am not entirely persuaded of NCT since I have not studied these issues enough. One thing that I can say is that I am not a dispensationalist.

The other issue that I should probably mention is sabbatarianism. I should note that since I do not work on Sunday at my current job, that I keep the Sabbath. However, I am not fully convinced of sabbatarianism. Again, I am undecided regarding this issue. When I was reading the Confession, I did notice the statement concerning Sunday being the Lord's Day. I do believe that Sunday should be the day of worship for Christians, rather than Saturday since Jesus was raised from the dead on Sunday and the early church gathered on the first day of the week.

I wanted to be honest when it comes to my doctrinal positions as I understand that there are doctrinal standards here on the Puritan Board that are important to its members.

Thanks you.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Jared Hanley

 

[tburus]

Apparently the Baptist Faith and Message is not an allowed confession to hold to for this board, no matter how big an Al Mohler fan you are! I guess then we are trapped into affirming dogged old confessions which still retain some flavoring that was more cultural than biblical. Lest I forget though, the guys who wrote those confessions had some sort of special revelation that has not been allotted to anyone else in the 400 years since.

 

[Blueridge Believer]

I was once where you at at a few years ago brother and as recently as a year ago concerning the sabbath. May God bless in your search for truth. Take the time to read this short booklet by A.W. Pink and let me know what you think:

THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH

Also listen to Sam Waldron on the law and NCT:

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=10180662149
The Law and New Covenant Theology.
Definition of New Covenant Theology.
The law written on the heart of Adam
Question: How can men sin, let alone perish, without the law?
Answer: (A) The reality of their confrontation with the Law.
(B) The means of their confrontation.
The identity of the law is made clear.
The law in view is substantially the same as the Ten Commandments.
The Ten Commandments were in effect before Sinai.
The Ten Commandments remain in effect in the New Testament.
The Ten Commandments do not exhaust the moral law.

 

[JonathanHunt]

Apparently the Baptist Faith and Message is not an allowed confession to hold to for this board, no matter how big an Al Mohler fan you are! I guess then we are trapped into affirming dogged old confessions which still retain some flavoring that was more cultural than biblical. Lest I forget though, the guys who wrote those confessions had some sort of special revelation that has not been allotted to anyone else in the 400 years since.

"Plato? Aristotle? Socrates? - Morons!"*

Brother Todd, you appear to be taking the mantle of resident PB Vizzini*. I'd love you to tell me what in the 1689 is 'cultural rather than biblical' so that I can have a look into it.

JH


*Ref The Princess Bride. If you don't know it, watch it. Not knowing about it or watching it is like not knowing or reading your confessions of faith

 

[JM]

He's an article by John G. Reisinger :

baptist_sab

 

[VictorBravo]

Apparently the Baptist Faith and Message is not an allowed confession to hold to for this board, no matter how big an Al Mohler fan you are! I guess then we are trapped into affirming dogged old confessions which still retain some flavoring that was more cultural than biblical. Lest I forget though, the guys who wrote those confessions had some sort of special revelation that has not been allotted to anyone else in the 400 years since.

Brother, I'm pretty sure nobody trapped you and forced you to sign up. I'd suggest you read some of the discussion on the confessions we've had here before tossing out red herrings like the this. No knowledgeable subscriber to any of the confessions here thinks the authors had special revelation.

 

[tburus]

Brother, I'm pretty sure nobody trapped you and forced you to sign up. I'd suggest you read some of the discussion on the confessions we've had here before tossing out red herrings like the this. No knowledgeable subscriber to any of the confessions here thinks the authors had special revelation.

But that is my point, none of these authors had any more particular insight into God's Word and revelation for mankind than anyone today, yet there appears to be some kind of impulse to strap ourselves to centuries old rockets and all of their culture biases and language. To me the appropriate question seems to be if we are interested in using the reformed convictions which God has given us towards making his name known and building believers up in holiness, or if we want to hide away in towers constructed by men long ago and argue over whose divines were more right?

As far as being here, I wanted to come to this board, and I still want to discuss with you guys. I spent a period of time interacting with people on The Ooze and finally got tired of having to explain the most simplistic parts of the Bible to people and pass over the asanine comments about Calvin burning "heretics." I want to discuss the deeper parts of the refomed convictions with people here and I have never stated otherwise. I'm just curious if our methodologies will allow that. I respect all of you and your opinions, but I think we need to reassess if the questionning of fallible documents is a reasonable grounds for breaking fellowship with brothers?

 

[Ivan]

I respect all of you and your opinions, but I think we need to reassess if the questionning of fallible documents is a reasonable grounds for breaking fellowship with brothers?

It would be up to the administrator and moderators (I suppose) whether we would base this Board on other (or no) confessions. However, it has worked so far and normally quite well. Even with the confessions we adhere to I think there is a great freedom in discussion of various subject.

I guess the only thing I could suggest is try it out here and see what happens. I adhere to the LBCF and the Abstract of Priniciples and the Baptist Faith and Message.

 

[KMK]

Brother, I'm pretty sure nobody trapped you and forced you to sign up. I'd suggest you read some of the discussion on the confessions we've had here before tossing out red herrings like the this. No knowledgeable subscriber to any of the confessions here thinks the authors had special revelation.

But that is my point, none of these authors had any more particular insight into God's Word and revelation for mankind than anyone today, yet there appears to be some kind of impulse to strap ourselves to centuries old rockets and all of their culture biases and language.

I hold to the LBC because I believe it accurately teaches what the Bible teaches, not because it is centuries old.

That is not to say that all of the individual framers had more insight than 'anyone' today, but the Reformed confessions reflect a collective wisdom that has never been exhaustively and accurately duplicated since. Maybe, just maybe, that is because there is no need to reinvent the wheel.

BTW, where are the cultural biases in the LBC?

To me the appropriate question seems to be if we are interested in using the reformed convictions which God has given us towards making his name known and building believers up in holiness, or if we want to hide away in towers constructed by men long ago and argue over whose divines were more right?

How can you tell from your short time on the PB who is 'hiding away'?

As far as being here, I wanted to come to this board, and I still want to discuss with you guys. I spent a period of time interacting with people on The Ooze and finally got tired of having to explain the most simplistic parts of the Bible to people and pass over the asanine comments about Calvin burning "heretics." I want to discuss the deeper parts of the refomed convictions with people here and I have never stated otherwise. I'm just curious if our methodologies will allow that. I respect all of you and your opinions, but I think we need to reassess if the questionning of fallible documents is a reasonable grounds for breaking fellowship with brothers?

Discussing the 'deeper parts of the reformed convictions' is exactly what the PB methodology is intended to do. The Reformed confessions reflect what is Reformed 'convictions'. Stick to the confessions and you are sticking to the 'deeper parts of the reformed convictions'.

 

[Zenas]

But that is my point, none of these authors had any more particular insight into God's Word and revelation for mankind than anyone today, yet there appears to be some kind of impulse to strap ourselves to centuries old rockets and all of their culture biases and language. To me the appropriate question seems to be if we are interested in using the reformed convictions which God has given us towards making his name known and building believers up in holiness, or if we want to hide away in towers constructed by men long ago and argue over whose divines were more right?

As far as being here, I wanted to come to this board, and I still want to discuss with you guys. I spent a period of time interacting with people on The Ooze and finally got tired of having to explain the most simplistic parts of the Bible to people and pass over the asanine comments about Calvin burning "heretics." I want to discuss the deeper parts of the refomed convictions with people here and I have never stated otherwise. I'm just curious if our methodologies will allow that. I respect all of you and your opinions, but I think we need to reassess if the questionning of fallible documents is a reasonable grounds for breaking fellowship with brothers?

No one here claims that they had special insight into the Word of God, but that they did articulate, accurately and succintly, what we all agree to believe about what the Word of God says.

If they are not a summation of what you believe no one is putting a gun to your head and saying you have to. We are saying that, since this is a Reformed discussion board, one needs to believe, in large part, Reformed theology in order to participate. The easiest way to do this is ask if one holds to a Reformed Confession, because they are a summation of beliefs that if two people affirm them, then those two can presume to believe largely the same things.

I think you have misunderstood the purpose of this board, as well as what the confessions really are. You support abandoning them, or at least laxing requirements for adherance thereto, because people disagree and have disagreed. This is largely the attitude of the modern post-evangelical. "We can't all agree so let's take no public definitive stance." (If this isn't truly your attitude, then I apologize and ask you forgiveness.)

We as Christians refuse to to do that. God has spoken clearly and has given us new hearts and His Spirit that we can come to understand what He has told us. We are falliable humans, so we are prone to get things wrong, but this is no excuse to be cowardly and take no stance at all. Rather, Scripture requires us to take a stance, and not only that, but to defend that stance. Our stances are found in our respective Confessions. Nowhere therein do I find a cultural nuance specific to the time of their penning, and I hope you are not speaking about the Sabbath when you say this as I and others will go to the mat on that one and infalliable Scripture is on our side.

I echo Mr. Hunt above in wanting to know what cultural nuance you have found within the LBCF '89 that should be eradicated today. I am a Prebyterian, but the document by in large is substantially similar to my Confession so the purported nuance should translate, unless it's Baptism. I would, presumably along with Mr. Hunt, like to defend the falliable Confession in light of infalliable Scripture, as being true to the truths taught therein.

Grace and peace brother.

 

[VictorBravo]

But that is my point, none of these authors had any more particular insight into God's Word and revelation for mankind than anyone today, yet there appears to be some kind of impulse to strap ourselves to centuries old rockets and all of their culture biases and language. To me the appropriate question seems to be if we are interested in using the reformed convictions which God has given us towards making his name known and building believers up in holiness, or if we want to hide away in towers constructed by men long ago and argue over whose divines were more right?

Consider your assertions. Are you really saying that "anyone today" (as in any Tom, Dick, or Harry who has read a reference Bible) has as much insight into God's Word as the Puritans in general? Do you think that "anyone today" could even start to write a confession of faith?

If so, then I think you have missed the whole point of the Puritan Board. We are interested in these men, and the Confessions they wrote, precisely because they had a great deal more insight than the watered down, anything goes, "whatever I think is right" approach of modern evangelicalism.

As for hiding in towers, whatever is that supposed to mean? In the old days, towers were very useful when under attack. Shall we tear them down indiscriminately just to please a whim for the time?

Brother, I'm a pretty easy going type, generally, but I have to admit to seeing red at your comments. They come across as an immature desire to tear down what you don't understand.

 

[Zenas]

Who in here in particular is hiding? You sadly betray your assumptions and absolute ignorance here brother. There are many who participate here serving in foreign lands in a Biblical capacity, as well as those who might as well be, given the demographic make-up of their surroundings. I do believe you have not yet come to know what hiding is, lest you would silence yourself for fear of hypocrisy.

I don't mean to be sharp, but as iron sharpens iron friend.

 

[Herald]

Brother, I'm pretty sure nobody trapped you and forced you to sign up. I'd suggest you read some of the discussion on the confessions we've had here before tossing out red herrings like the this. No knowledgeable subscriber to any of the confessions here thinks the authors had special revelation.

But that is my point, none of these authors had any more particular insight into God's Word and revelation for mankind than anyone today, yet there appears to be some kind of impulse to strap ourselves to centuries old rockets and all of their culture biases and language. To me the appropriate question seems to be if we are interested in using the reformed convictions which God has given us towards making his name known and building believers up in holiness, or if we want to hide away in towers constructed by men long ago and argue over whose divines were more right?

As far as being here, I wanted to come to this board, and I still want to discuss with you guys. I spent a period of time interacting with people on The Ooze and finally got tired of having to explain the most simplistic parts of the Bible to people and pass over the asanine comments about Calvin burning "heretics." I want to discuss the deeper parts of the refomed convictions with people here and I have never stated otherwise. I'm just curious if our methodologies will allow that. I respect all of you and your opinions, but I think we need to reassess if the questionning of fallible documents is a reasonable grounds for breaking fellowship with brothers?

Todd, you're missing the point. The PB is a private board that is not meant to operate as a quasi-church. It was created and exists for those Christians who are confessional and wish to encourage/sharpen one another in that tradition. Many of us belong to churches where not everyone is confessional and we would not dream of breaking fellowship with them on that basis. The local church is God's plan for the fellowship of His sheep and we are to maintain fellowship even through theological disagreement. If you can abide by our rules you are welcome here. We want you to continue in our discussions. But it is incumbent on you to understand that this is a confessional board and that is not going to change. Now, can the confession be discussed? Certainly. While they can be discussed they cannot be attacked, maligned or impugned. We discuss them in order to understand them.

 

[staythecourse]

none of these authors had any more particular insight into God's Word and revelation for mankind than anyone today

No, brother, they did have more insight than most people that have walked the face of the earth. These were men who hashed this stuff out under persecution, deep and tried Biblical conviction, and ample Bible knowledge.

You need to sit under these men and listen. I made the same mistake, and we can't hold a candle to their insight.

 

[tburus]

I think you have misunderstood the purpose of this board, as well as what the confessions really are. You support abandoning them, or at least laxing requirements for adherance thereto, because people disagree and have disagreed. This is largely the attitude of the modern post-evangelical. "We can't all agree so let's take no public definitive stance." (If this isn't truly your attitude, then I apologize and ask you forgiveness.)

We as Christians refuse to to do that. God has spoken clearly and has given us new hearts and His Spirit that we can come to understand what He has told us. We are falliable humans, so we are prone to get things wrong, but this is no excuse to be cowardly and take no stance at all. Rather, Scripture requires us to take a stance, and not only that, but to defend that stance. Our stances are found in our respective Confessions.

And you have completely misread my comments. I would be the last one to argue that we need to buckle on our convictions because there are people who disagree with us. If it helps to make me into the liberal Christian bad guy then you may, but I think you would find that charge to ring hollow. What I am saying is that for a confession to be of any use people need to be able to understand it, and as such I challenge you to walk out on the street and share the Gospel and God's revealed Word with the common person using just the LBC or WCF or what not. You can't do it because these documents have no relational value to people in our culture today. The import does not lie within our adherence to a set of eloquently articulated prose but with our ability to live out and share the revealed convictions which God has placed in our hearts.

Nowhere therein do I find a cultural nuance specific to the time of their penning, and I hope you are not speaking about the Sabbath when you say this as I and others will go to the mat on that one and infalliable Scripture is on our side.

My first concern would be the language and articulation of these texts as I have already mentioned. And yes, I would question the extent to which believers are mandated to observe a strict sabbath, though not on the grounds of saying "Well Jesus eradicated the 10 commandments" as most sabbatarians would try and accuse. But that is a discussion for another thread.

I would, presumably along with Mr. Hunt, like to defend the falliable Confession in light of infalliable Scripture, as being true to the truths taught therein.

And I would like to defend infallible Scripture in light of infallible Scripture. I think that is the situation which would be of highest importance for us.

 

[tburus]

none of these authors had any more particular insight into God's Word and revelation for mankind than anyone today

No, brother, they did have more insight than most people that have walked the face of the earth. These were men who hashed this stuff out under persecution, deep and tried Biblical conviction, and ample Bible knowledge.

You need to sit under these men and listen. I made the same mistake, and we can't hold a candle to their insight.

But their insight could be duplicated today. That is what I'm getting at. We shouldn't hold these men on a pedestal of supreme holiness because they had no more power than God is capable of giving to any person today. Yet, I think we would be hard pressed to get such dyed-in-the-wool contenders to accept a modern confession with the same vigor that they accept these almost medieval documents. Why is that?

 

[tburus]

If you can abide by our rules you are welcome here.

But that's the rub! "Abide by our rules"? We want to limit Christian discussion because somebody questions the necessity of afixxing their allegiance to something that is not the Bible? I think we need to seriously consider our own level of legalism if our community cannot tolerate the remarks I made, which I think we would be hard-pressed to say expressed the "attacking", "maligning" and "imputing" that you claim they had. My comments were not against the authors, they were against the contemporary followers.

 

[Zenas]

I made it clear that I was reserving a disclaimer if what I wrote was not specifically what you believed. I thought it was sufficiently plain that if it wasn't what you believed, then it should have been of no note and restracted with my apologies. From that, I don't see how you could pull that I am trying to demonize you into a liberal Christian (oxymoron) so as to discredit you. I am not into fighting straw-men.

Your misunderstanding of the purpose of the Confessions is now in full light, I hope and believe. You advocate for their disposal because they cannot be understood by the common man.

I ask you then, why should they be of use to the common man? No one here has purported that they should be, and I will explain why.

The common man is an unbeliever. What use has an unbeliever of a confession of a faith he does not hold to? Moreover, the purpose of the confessions isn't to be of use to the unbeliever, but to the believer, as a summation and representation of his faith. Why should we then abandon the confessions when they don't serve a purpose they were never intended for and we ourselves don't use.

You act as if it is not good enough, i.e. the purpose that they do serve, ergo they must serve another purpose which you have formulated. They don't, because they were never intended to, and therefore they fail your self-proscribed test and now we should therefore abandon them, maybe not in belief, but in word.

I suppose my main question is why should they speak in the language of our culture today, to people they were never meant to speak to? I find their language sufficiently clear and understandable that I need no help in translation. They were written for me, the believer. Why should we abandon them to account for unbelievers, who they are not intended for, whose minds have degenerated so that they can no longer understand proper English?

I believe you have supplanted a prejudice on your part and attributed it to us. You act as if the Confessions take the place of Scripture. Scripture should be what is taken to the common man, Scripture and that alone. The Confession is for the mature believer, one who is secure in the faith and grown enough that they have an understanding of the truths therein communicated. It is for that person the Confessions are for my friend.

 

[Pilgrim]

If you can abide by our rules you are welcome here.

But that's the rub! "Abide by our rules"? We want to limit Christian discussion because somebody questions the necessity of afixxing their allegiance to something that is not the Bible? I think we need to seriously consider our own level of legalism if our community cannot tolerate the remarks I made, which I think we would be hard-pressed to say expressed the "attacking", "maligning" and "imputing" that you claim they had. My comments were not against the authors, they were against the contemporary followers.

Moderator note:

If freewheeling, unlimited discussion with no confessional base is what you're after, this isn't the place for it, as should be abundantly clear if you've bothered to read the board rules. After all, this is the Puritan Board. If you are unwilling to abide by these rules then maybe it's time to move along and perhaps go back to the "Ooze" or somewhere else where you have to defend the faith at the most basic level. That's what tends to happen when you jettison confessions.

On your blog you call yourself a "Reformed Baptist." Maybe it's time for a rethink if you're so against "the contemporary followers," who are defined by subscription to the 1689.

Besides, no one here or in the past is going to approach an unbeliever with the 1689. That is a ridiculous strawman. Regardless, many will reject reasoning from the infallible scriptures as being something out of date, etc. anyway. What difference will a new confession make?

 

[Hippo]

The bible is interpreted by the church, and an organ of that interpretation is through the confessions.

 

[KMK]

none of these authors had any more particular insight into God's Word and revelation for mankind than anyone today

No, brother, they did have more insight than most people that have walked the face of the earth. These were men who hashed this stuff out under persecution, deep and tried Biblical conviction, and ample Bible knowledge.

You need to sit under these men and listen. I made the same mistake, and we can't hold a candle to their insight.

But their insight could be duplicated today. That is what I'm getting at. We shouldn't hold these men on a pedestal of supreme holiness because they had no more power than God is capable of giving to any person today. Yet, I think we would be hard pressed to get such dyed-in-the-wool contenders to accept a modern confession with the same vigor that they accept these almost medieval documents. Why is that?

The pillar and ground of truth is not 'anyone', but the church. Since the Reformation there has not been a similarly unified group of such wisdom since that has systematized so exhaustively the truth of the Bible. (You may like the BFM but you must admit it is not as complete as the LBC)

 

[Zenas]

Besides, no one here or in the past is going to approach an unbeliever with the 1689. That is a ridiculous strawman. Regardless, many will reject reasoning from the infallible scriptures as being something out of date, etc. anyway. What difference will a new confession make?

Ditto.

 

[Herald]

If you can abide by our rules you are welcome here.

But that's the rub! "Abide by our rules"? We want to limit Christian discussion because somebody questions the necessity of afixxing their allegiance to something that is not the Bible? I think we need to seriously consider our own level of legalism if our community cannot tolerate the remarks I made, which I think we would be hard-pressed to say expressed the "attacking", "maligning" and "imputing" that you claim they had. My comments were not against the authors, they were against the contemporary followers.

Todd, you will never know the lengths I have gone to to speak well of you to the other moderators. I have PM'ed you and spoken to as an older man should speak to a younger man. You have displayed a serious lack of Christian charity and the ability to twist words to suit your own ends. If you read these words carefully

While they can be discussed they cannot be attacked, maligned or impugned. We discuss them in order to understand them.

you would have understood they were cautionary, not accusatory. You need to grow up, young man. You have the intellect but you do not posses the common sense or sound reason to be opposing other men the way you do.