# What kind of exceptions do churches take to the LBCF?



## Krak3n (Jun 25, 2017)

This question is regarding churches that subscribe to the London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689). I'd expect churches that don't claim subscription to have many exceptions. 

This is an honest question and I'm not trying to cause any discord whatsoever. This is why I am asking about exceptions that _churches _have. I'll happily and thankfully read anyone's personal exceptions where they believe it a good example, but I'm not trying to "out" anyone on the board for their disagreements or reservations.

I recently visited a church with my family and part of their "visitor's packet" contained a copy of the London Baptist Confession of Faith. I was surprised by this because it is a newer large church in my area. The teaching was faithful and so I am seeking insight as to what kind of flags to look for, and questions to ask, when we visit again.

I went home and checked on the church's website and they are up front about their belief that the LBCF is good theologically, historically, polemically, and in pastoral sense. However, the site also states, "We don’t claim perfection for the 1689 Confession. Scripture alone is our final authority, and if our elders find it necessary to distinguish secondary points of doctrine, they will." I can appreciate that, if _secondary points of doctrine_ are things not specifically stated, or if it is referring to different valid interpretations of what it contains. Every church should affirm Sola Scriptura, but deviate from our historic confessions with great care.

So, what exceptions have you all noticed in churches that claim subscription to the LBCF?

(I'm definitely curious to their view on the Sabbath myself.)


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 25, 2017)

It will depend entirely on the specific congregation. As soon as exceptions are allowed, the opinion of the majority at any given moment becomes the standard.


----------



## Krak3n (Jun 25, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> It will depend entirely on the specific congregation. As soon as exceptions are allowed, the opinion of the majority at any given moment becomes the standard.



This is true on both counts. It's my hope that any exceptions made are for good reason and very specific. For instance, I have seen that some take exception to chapter 26 part 4 because of the Pope being called "that antichrist":


> The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.



So, as long as it's specific and a valid interpretation of Scripture, I can see where a congregation could make an exception. Again, we ought not deviate from these things without much consideration.

I hope everyone understands that I didn't start this thread to encourage anyone to consider making their own exceptions apart from their church.


----------



## KMK (Jun 25, 2017)

There are different degrees of confessional subscription. These are sometimes referred to as 'absolute', 'full', and 'loose'. 

The most prominent association of confessional Baptist churches is the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America. They are decidedly 'full' in their confessional subscription. This means, for example, that they subscribe to the entire LBC as a system of doctrine without exception. However, they do not subscribe to each and every individual word. Nor do they confess/teach that each doctrine of the LBC is of equal importance.

As an example, some/all? ARBCA churches offer grape juice for the Lord's Supper even though the LBC uses the word 'wine'.

So, to answer your question, confessional churches might practice their confessionalism differently, not because they take exceptions, but because there are different degrees of confessional subscription.


----------



## Krak3n (Jun 25, 2017)

KMK said:


> There are different degrees of confessional subscription. These are sometimes referred to as 'absolute', 'full', and 'loose'.
> ...
> So, to answer your question, confessional churches might practice their confessionalism differently, not because they take exceptions, but because there are different degrees of confessional subscription.



Oh, I didn't know this. After a quick trip to DuckDuckGo I see that there is more to this than I thought.

So it's possible that some churches take exceptions (rejection of specific clauses) and others differ because of varying degrees of subscription?

This is starting to remind me of Pirates of the Caribbean, "...the code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules."


----------



## KMK (Jun 25, 2017)

Krak3n said:


> Oh, I didn't know this. After a quick trip to DuckDuckGo I see that there is more to this than I thought.
> 
> So it's possible that some churches take exceptions (rejection of specific clauses) and others differ because of varying degrees of subscription?
> 
> This is starting to remind me of Pirates of the Caribbean, "...the code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules."



All I am saying is that different confessional churches/associations/denominations might differ in practice without necessary claiming 'exceptions', per se. Their differences might be due to different degrees of confessionalism.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Jun 25, 2017)

Krak3n said:


> After a quick trip to DuckDuckGo



Until I read your post, I had never heard of DuckDuckGo... what a peculiar name (in a world of increasingly peculiar names: Yahoo!, Google, Twitter, etc.). I guess I need to get out more...

Carry on.


----------



## Krak3n (Jun 25, 2017)

KMK said:


> All I am saying is that different confessional churches/associations/denominations might differ in practice without necessary claiming 'exceptions', per se. Their differences might be due to different degrees of confessionalism.



Sorry, I misunderstood.

So would it be correct to say that, in the example above about the Pope being "that" antichrist, that churches with reservations concerning chapter 26 part 4 to instead hold to him as "an" antichrist? They could then maintain subscription to the whole with a variation in part?

I'm not trying to be argumentative. As you can see, I'm new to this.


----------



## Krak3n (Jun 25, 2017)

kainos01 said:


> Until I read your post, I had never heard of DuckDuckGo... what a peculiar name (in a world of increasingly peculiar names: Yahoo!, Google, Twitter, etc.). I guess I need to get out more...



It's my preferred alternative to Google. After Google's celebration of homosexual marriage and the re-theme you get if you search "queer" on their page I decided to take my searches elsewhere. Does DuckDuckGo support sodomy as well? Probably. It's "hip" to do that for tech companies. They haven't appropriated God's sign to Noah after the flood to celebrate it though, at least not yet.


----------



## KMK (Jun 25, 2017)

Krak3n said:


> Sorry, I misunderstood.
> 
> So would it be correct to say that, in the example above about the Pope being "that" antichrist, that churches with reservations concerning chapter 26 part 4 to instead hold to him as "an" antichrist? They could then maintain subscription to the whole with a variation in part?
> 
> I'm not trying to be argumentative. As you can see, I'm new to this.



Different churches might view "that" differently without necessarily calling it an 'exception'.

In Baptist circles this is all pretty moot since there are very few confessional Baptist churches and associations. This comes more into play in the Presbyterian world.


----------



## VictorBravo (Jun 25, 2017)

KMK said:


> As an example, some/all? ARBCA churches offer grape juice for the Lord's Supper even though the LBC uses the word 'wine'.



I hadn't heard of an ARBCA church using grape juice. I'd say that would be very unusual, at least among our sister churches.

Our church subscribes fully. 



Krak3n said:


> "We don’t claim perfection for the 1689 Confession. Scripture alone is our final authority, and if our elders find it necessary to distinguish secondary points of doctrine, they will."



That comment is consistent with Chapter 1 of the Confession, especially paragraph 10.


----------



## Krak3n (Jun 25, 2017)

VictorBravo said:


> That comment is consistent with Chapter 1 of the Confession, especially paragraph 10.



Thank you for pointing that out, and I hope it didn't sound like I was trying to speak ill of the church in my first post. You've all been encouraging for me so far.

The lack of "exceptions" and horror stories is good to hear. The next time we visit I'll speak with an elder there to confirm the hope you've given me!

*Edit: Incorrectly wrote "exemptions" instead of "exceptions".


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 28, 2017)

Krak3n said:


> Sorry, I misunderstood.
> 
> So would it be correct to say that, in the example above about the Pope being "that" antichrist, that churches with reservations concerning chapter 26 part 4 to instead hold to him as "an" antichrist? They could then maintain subscription to the whole with a variation in part?
> 
> I'm not trying to be argumentative. As you can see, I'm new to this.


Is it mandatory though to view the papacy as being the Antichrist though? As I thought that the scriptures would see the Antichrist as being more akin to a person who was not identified as being any religious figure, as there is the false prophet for that?


----------



## KMK (Jun 28, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Is it mandatory though to view the papacy as being the Antichrist though?



Whether it is 'mandatory' or not depends upon the degree of confessional adherence.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 28, 2017)

KMK said:


> Whether it is 'mandatory' or not depends upon the degree of confessional adherence.





KMK said:


> Whether it is 'mandatory' or not depends upon the degree of confessional adherence.


How much is required then to still be considered holding to the Confessional?


----------



## KMK (Jun 28, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> How much is required then to still be considered holding to the Confessional?



Holding to the confessional? What are we, Roman Catholics? 

Seriously, see post #4.


----------

