# 1646 or 1689?



## AV1611 (Feb 24, 2007)

Do you hold to both London Confessions or just one and why?


----------



## JonathanHunt (Feb 24, 2007)

1689. Because if it was good enough for the Apostle Paul, its good enough for me!

JH


----------



## Ivan (Feb 24, 2007)

JonathanHunt said:


> 1689. Because if it was good enough for the Apostle Paul, its good enough for me!
> 
> JH



Yeah, and it's the most modern too....you know, 1689 as opposed to 1646.


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 24, 2007)

Ivan said:


> Yeah, and it's the most modern too....you know, 1689 as opposed to 1646.




 how did the difference in theology sway you to the one and not the other?


----------



## Machaira (Feb 24, 2007)

I asked what the difference was years ago when I attended a RB church. I was told that the older version favors Covenant Theology more than the 1689. I have to admit though, that I never bothered to look into it. I'm not sure if what I was told is accurate or not.


----------



## Ivan (Feb 24, 2007)

Machaira said:


> I asked what the difference was years ago when I attended a RB church. I was told that the older version favors Covenant Theology more than the 1689. I have to admit though, that I never bothered to look into it. I'm not sure if what I was told is accurate or not.



Well, I'm with James here. I've only looked at the 1689 versions, so all I'm good for is humor.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Feb 24, 2007)

I am pretty sure the 1689 is MORE covenantal, not less. The first confession was 1644, revised 1646.

You will find 1644 HERE

You will find 1646 HERE

You will find 1689 HERE

Perhaps this will be of help - This is Dr Peter Masters' intro to his reprint of the 1689:



> The first confession of faith to be issued by Particular Baptists appeared in 1644, before the appearance of the _Westminster Confession_. It emphasised the immersion of properly-dressed people and distinguished Particular Baptists from General Baptists by including articles on election, particular redemption, the fallen state of man's will, and the perseverance of the saints. Known as the _London Confession_ it was revised in 1651 (with statements designed to counter the Quaker 'inner light' method of interpreting scripture, a teaching which has returned again in the 'higher-life' movement).
> 
> In 1643 the Long Parliament (having abolished the heirachy of the Church of England) called the Westminster Assembly of Divines to draw up the government, worship and doctrines of the church. That assembly of outstanding Puritans began to work on their _Confession of Faith_ at the beginning of 1645, sixty to eighty divines attending the sessions.
> 
> ...



Hope this helps.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Feb 24, 2007)

The first confession. Mainly because of the sabbatarian issue. I also like how is laid out into 52 statements.


----------



## satz (Feb 24, 2007)

Is it true that the confessions differ slightly in terms of eternal/incarnate sonship?


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 25, 2007)

After looking into the issue of baptism and reassessing my paedobaptist views I have been forced to change my position. From what I have read thus far of these London Confessions I would subscribe to the 1646 although I need to look again at the mode of baptism.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 25, 2007)

Is it known who the ministers and seven churches in London were that drew up the 1644/1646?


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 25, 2007)

joshua said:


> Mr. Sherratt, this is indeed interesting. So far as I know, you're the first on the PB to change from Peado to Credo.
> 
> Were you fairly steeped in Covenant Theology leading to your paedobaptist beliefs, or was it more on the basis of tradition?
> 
> ...



Will start a new thread.


----------



## Ivan (Feb 25, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> From what I have read thus far of these London Confessions I would subscribe to the 1646 although I need to look again at the mode of baptism.



It would be by immersion.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Feb 25, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Is it known who the ministers and seven churches in London were that drew up the 1644/1646?



Most were involved (it is believed) in the 1689 as well, but due to persecution they were anonymous. There is some fairly solid speculation on the topic, however.

JH


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Feb 25, 2007)

JonathanHunt said:


> Most were involved (it is believed) in the 1689 as well, but due to persecution they were anonymous. There is some fairly solid speculation on the topic, however.
> 
> JH



Concerning the authors of the 1644 London Baptist Confession:



> The churches subscribing to this _Confession_ were Devonshire Square; Broad Street, Wapping; Great St. Helen's; Crutched Friars; Bishopsgate Street; Coleman Street; and Glazier's Hall....The _Confession_ is signed, among others, by John Spilsbury, Samuel Richardson, William Kiffin, Thomas Patient, and Hanserd Knollys. -- _Bye-paths in Baptist History: A Collection of Interesting, Instructive, and Curious Information_ (1871), p. 111, by Joseph Jackson Goadby.



Benjamin Cox wrote the 1646 Appendix.

The 1689 London Baptist Confession was signed by Hanserd Knollys and William Kiffin, among others. It was originally published in 1677 anonymously.

This article on the differences between and origins of the 1644 and 1689 Baptist Confessions is useful to read.


----------



## KMK (Feb 25, 2007)

Since I have been a Baptist I have been 1689 mostly because I did not know there were others. Blueridge Reformer seems to be faily knowledgable and has been teaching me about the differences. Perhaps he will post some of the resources he has shared with me. (I would do it myself but I do not know how)

Blueridge Reformer has informed me that I am perhaps 'Continental Reformed' in my Sabbath/4th commandment views. I am still 'scrupling' as a good Presbyterian would say.  (Is that the proper 'scrupling' emoticon?)


----------



## tellville (Feb 26, 2007)

I've never read the 1646 confession. Thus, the only reason I can give you is that I am ignorant!


----------



## JM (Mar 19, 2007)

check it out


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Mar 19, 2007)

New Covenant Theologians(which are usually baptist) hold to 46.

Me personally, (from what i've seen thus far) I hold to 1689. It reflects alot of the WCF, except of course for baptism(and a few other things).


----------



## Robert Truelove (Mar 19, 2007)

As a former Reformed Baptist...I used to hold the 1689.

The key differences between the 1689 and the 1646 is that the 1689 is sabbatarian whereas the 1646 is silent on that issue. Also notice the following comparison regarding the administration of the 'ordinances' (we presbyterians don't mind calling them sacraments).

1689
"These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ."

1646
"The person designed by Christ to dispense baptism, the Scripture holds forth to be a disciple; it being no where tied to a particular church officer, or person extraordinarily sent the commission enjoining the administration, being given to them as considered disciples, being men able to preach the gospel."


----------



## elnwood (Mar 20, 2007)

prespastor said:


> As a former Reformed Baptist...I used to hold the 1689.
> 
> The key differences between the 1689 and the 1646 is that the 1689 is sabbatarian whereas the 1646 is silent on that issue. Also notice the following comparison regarding the administration of the 'ordinances' (we presbyterians don't mind calling them sacraments).
> 
> ...



The 1689 has to be read in contrast to the confessions it was revising.

WCF
"There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the gospels, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any but a minister of the Word, lawfully ordained."

Savoy Declaration
"There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the gospel, that is to say, Baptism and the Lord's Supper; neither of which may be dispensed by any but a minister of the Word lawfully called."

The 1689 deliberately removes the requirement of a "minister of the Word" and ordination, replacing it with "qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ."

I would think that the commission of Christ referred to is Matthew 28:19-20, and thus all Christians are commissioned to baptize. I don't see any difference between the 1646 and the 1689 on that issue.

[BIBLE]Matthew 28:19-20[/BIBLE]


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Mar 20, 2007)

1644 ON SANCTIFICATION:

XXIX.
That all believers are a holy and107 sanctified people, and that sanctification is a spiritual grace of the108 new Covenant, and effect of the109 love of God, manifested to the soul, whereby the believer is in110 truth and reality separated, both in soul and body, from all sin and dead works, through the111 blood of the everlasting Covenant, whereby he also presseth after a heavenly and Evangelical perfection, in obedience to all the Commands,112 which Christ as head and King in hits new Covenant has prescribed to him. 


XXX.
All believers through the knowledge of113 that Justification of life given by the Father, and brought forth by the blood of Christ, have this as their great privilege of that the new114 Covenant, peace with God, and reconciliation, whereby they that were afar off, were brought nigh by115 that blood, and have (as the Scripture speaks) peace116 passing all understanding, yea, joy in God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, by117 whom we have received the Atonement. 


XXXI.
That all believers in the time of this life, are in a continual warfare, combat, and opposition against sin, self, the world, and the Devil, and liable to all manner of afflictions, tribulations, and persecutions, and so shall continue until Christ comes in his Kingdom, being predestinated and appointed thereunto; and whatsoever the Saints, any of them do posses or enjoy of God in this life, is only by faith.118 


XXXII.
That the only strength by which the Saints are enabled to encounter with all opposition, and to overcome all afflictions, temptations, persecutions, and trials, is only by Jesus Christ, who is the Captain of their salvation, being made perfect through sufferings, who hath engaged his strength to assist them in all their afflictions, and to uphold them under all their temptations, and to preserve them by his power to his everlasting Kingdom.119



1689 ON SANCTIFICATION:

Chapter 13: Of Sanctification
1. They who are united to Christ, effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, are also farther sanctified, really and personally, through the same virtue, by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them; the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified, and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, to the practice of all true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.
( Acts 20:32; Romans 6:5, 6; John 17:17; Ephesians 3:16-19; 1 Thessalonians 5:21-23; Romans 6:14; Galatians 5:24; Colossians 1:11; 2 Corinthians 7:1; Hebrews 12:14 ) 

2. This sanctification is throughout the whole man, yet imperfect in this life; there abideth still some remnants of corruption in every part, whence ariseth a continual and irreconcilable war; the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.
( 1 Thessalonians 5:23; Romans 7:18, 23; Galatians 5:17; 1 Peter 2:11 ) 

3. In which war, although the remaining corruption for a time may much prevail, yet through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part doth overcome; and so the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God, pressing after an heavenly life, in evangelical obedience to all the commands which Christ as Head and King, in His Word hath prescribed them.
( Romans 7:23; Romans 6:14; Ephesians 4:15, 16; 2 Corinthians 3:18; 2 Corinthians 7:1 )


----------



## Robert Truelove (Mar 21, 2007)

The 1646 explicitly states that it is NOT tied to any particular church officer, and even goes so far as to say that it is not to to a "person extraordinarily sent the commission enjoining the administration".

In contrast, the 1689 states the sacraments are to be "administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ". While the 1689 does not specify explicitly who it is that is 'qualified thereunto and called', it (should) lead to a different conclusion than the 1646.

You may want to consult Samuel Waldron's book, "A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith" (pages 340-343). He has some rather profitable things to say about the wording of the two confessions.



elnwood said:


> The 1689 has to be read in contrast to the confessions it was revising.
> 
> WCF
> "There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the gospels, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any but a minister of the Word, lawfully ordained."
> ...


----------



## elnwood (Mar 21, 2007)

I still don't see them as incompatible. I think the 1689 is saying that all Christians are qualified and called (just as all Christians are called to participate in the Great Commission) in contrast to the Savoy and Westminster, which specify "minister of the Word" and have no reference to the Great Commission.



prespastor said:


> The 1646 explicitly states that it is NOT tied to any particular church officer, and even goes so far as to say that it is not to to a "person extraordinarily sent the commission enjoining the administration".
> 
> In contrast, the 1689 states the sacraments are to be "administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ". While the 1689 does not specify explicitly who it is that is 'qualified thereunto and called', it (should) lead to a different conclusion than the 1646.
> 
> You may want to consult Samuel Waldron's book, "A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith" (pages 340-343). He has some rather profitable things to say about the wording of the two confessions.


----------



## KMK (Mar 21, 2007)

Blueridge reformer said:


> 1644 ON SANCTIFICATION:
> 
> XXIX.
> That all believers are a holy and107 sanctified people, and that sanctification is a spiritual grace of the108 new Covenant, and effect of the109 love of God, manifested to the soul, whereby the believer is in110 truth and reality separated, both in soul and body, from all sin and dead works, through the111 blood of the everlasting Covenant, whereby he also presseth after a heavenly and Evangelical perfection, in obedience to all the Commands,112 which Christ as head and King in hits new Covenant has prescribed to him.
> ...



I am not seeing the major differences between the two. I assume there is one since you posted them side by side but I am not seeing it.  Could you elaborate?


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Mar 21, 2007)

KMK said:


> I am not seeing the major differences between the two. I assume there is one since you posted them side by side but I am not seeing it.  Could you elaborate?




The 1689 teaches progressive sanctification and the 1644 does not.


----------



## elnwood (Mar 21, 2007)

joshua said:


> Don, are you saying that all Christians are to baptize?



I'm saying that this is what the two London Baptist Confessions appear teach.


----------



## JM (May 30, 2007)

*Article 12*:
CONCERNING His mediatorship, the Scripture holds forth Christ's call to His office; for none takes this honor upon Him, but He that is called of God as was Aaron, it being an action of God, whereby a special promise being made, He ordains His Son to this office; which promise is, that Christ should be made a sacrifice for sin; that He should see His seed, and prolong His days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand; *all of meer free and absolute grace towards God's elect*, and without any condition foreseen in them to procure it. Heb.5:4 - 6; Isa.53:10,11; John 3:16; Rom.8:32.


----------



## KMK (May 30, 2007)

JM said:


> *Article 12*:
> CONCERNING His mediatorship, the Scripture holds forth Christ's call to His office; for none takes this honor upon Him, but He that is called of God as was Aaron, it being an action of God, whereby a special promise being made, He ordains His Son to this office; which promise is, that Christ should be made a sacrifice for sin; that He should see His seed, and prolong His days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand; *all of meer free and absolute grace towards God's elect*, and without any condition foreseen in them to procure it. Heb.5:4 - 6; Isa.53:10,11; John 3:16; Rom.8:32.



This thread has been dead awhile. Could you elaborate on your post?


----------

