# 2nd London vs. Philadelphia Confession



## Herald (Sep 18, 2005)

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 (Sep 18, 2005)

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 (Sep 18, 2005)

> _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 (Sep 18, 2005)

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 (Sep 18, 2005)

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 (Sep 18, 2005)

> _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 (Sep 19, 2005)

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 (Sep 19, 2005)

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 (Sep 19, 2005)

> _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 (Sep 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



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 (Sep 19, 2005)

> 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 (Sep 19, 2005)

> _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 (Sep 20, 2005)

> _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.
> ...


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.


----------

