What do you think of this view on the 1689 Confession?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I always thought that it would be good to update that by adding specific language regarding issues like same sex, evolution, and other current trends.

In one sense, however, the confessions already address these and most other issues.

Marriage: WCF Chapter XXIV
Creation: Chapter IV
 
I am all for Baptist churches exercising their God-given autonomy to fashion their confession according to what they think best. ;)
 
I am all for Baptist churches exercising their God-given autonomy to fashion their confession according to what they think best. ;)
I am all for Baptist churches exercising their God-given autonomy to fashion their confession according to what they think best. ;)
What gets really interesting is when those in the SBC, who are not holding to one of the formal Confessions such as the 1689, in their meetings try to hammer out a statement of doctrines and practices, and running beneath that are the current issues between Calvinists and non Calvinist in the SBC. This causes all sorts of fireworks when they try to get a consensus on what they believe and why.
 
Likewise, as a practical note, what is the real difference between spending 12 months in a membership process, only to be told that you will not be received into membership, versus spending a month being examined and being disciplined 11 months later for whatever reason? In either case the church is making a statement regarding your profession of faith. The only difference is that, in the latter, the church actually received your profession, as it should, and ends up disciplining you as a professing believer. In the prior case the church does not recognize your profession at all but instead says "we will see" for a year before saying "we don't believe you." I know that nobody would put it exactly the way I have stated, but when the church does not receive a lay member into its communion that is essentially what it is saying - "we don't believe you."

It doesn't always take a year--a church transfer from another solid church usually takes less time. We transferred to our Baptist church from a faraway (gasp!) Presbyterian church, and were not held off that long. But the point is, since the NT church is supposed to be made up of believers only (in Baptist ecclesiology), the elders want to be convinced of an applicant's profession before allowing them to the solemnity of the Table, or serving in various functions, like all members at our church are expected to do according to ability.
Often someone will visit for six months before applying for membership, and by then they'll have a healthy dose of the confession drummed into them anyway--but again, it varies from case to case.
 
The distinctive Baptist views regarding this would allow for an individual to be onder a Confession, or the entire church, but also to have it that one can hold to a statement of beliefs as sufficient to being a Confession of faith.
So would be Reformed baptists under the 1689/1833 Confessions
Calvinist Baptists could be under those 2, or the Baptist statements of faith 1925/1963/2000. or none at all
David, I am having a difficult time understanding you. Are you saying that the 1689 LBC, 1833 New Hampshire Confession, and various iterations of the Baptist Faith and Message are all acceptable confessions/statements for Reformed Baptists?
 
David, I am having a difficult time understanding you. Are you saying that the 1689 LBC, 1833 New Hampshire Confession, and various iterations of the Baptist Faith and Message are all acceptable confessions/statements for Reformed Baptists?
No, what I was trying to state was that in my understanding, those Baptist churches who call themselves reformed would be content to use either the 1689/1833 Confessions, while those churches who would see themselves as say SBC non Confessing would tend to use things such as the 1963/2000 baptist statement of doctrines and practices.
 
My two cents: this is one reason why I love Presbyterian polity. Wright's congregational views presuppose that every member of the church must hold strictly to the church's confession of faith - in essence, every member an elder.

Emphasis on Wright's congregational views. This is not an issue of presbyterianism per se. Even the Dispensationalist (!) Baptist church I attend recognizes that all those who [credibly] profess faith in and obedience to Christ, repentance from dead works, and love to the brethren should be admitted to communion; whereas the elders must concur at great length in doctrine & practice in order to exercise the power of their offices well.

But of course, the Baptist Catechism teaches as much anyways:

Q. 103. Who are the proper Subjects of this Ordinance [the Lord's Supper]?
A. They who have been baptized upon a personal Profession of their Faith in Jesus Christ, and Repentance from dead Works.
So in sum, I'm not sure whether it makes any sense to bring in the supposed necessity of formal unity of all congregations via a hierarchy of church courts into a discussion about what is necessary to be admitted to the sacraments other than a desire to score points in Reformed polemics.

If the author would distinguish between the bar set by Christ for his flock, and those wisely implemented by and for church officers, he would not have the conundrum on his hands that he does.
 
Emphasis on Wright's congregational views. This is not an issue of presbyterianism per se. Even the Dispensationalist (!) Baptist church I attend recognizes that all those who [credibly] profess faith in and obedience to Christ, repentance from dead works, and love to the brethren should be admitted to communion; whereas the elders must concur at great length in doctrine & practice in order to exercise the power of their offices well.

But of course, the Baptist Catechism teaches as much anyways:

Q. 103. Who are the proper Subjects of this Ordinance [the Lord's Supper]?
A. They who have been baptized upon a personal Profession of their Faith in Jesus Christ, and Repentance from dead Works.
So in sum, I'm not sure whether it makes any sense to bring in the supposed necessity of formal unity of all congregations via a hierarchy of church courts into a discussion about what is necessary to be admitted to the sacraments other than a desire to score points in Reformed polemics.

If the author would distinguish between the bar set by Christ for his flock, and those wisely implemented by and for church officers, he would not have the conundrum on his hands that he does.

The type of congregationalism I am familiar with is that kind promoted in OP's link - 9 Marks.

I am not sure about other congregational settings, but in most of these churches the elders do not rule but lead. Meaning that the congregation itself is the church court. Each member holds the keys of the church in much the same manner as the elders. Thus, the bar is typically set pretty high for receiving members.

I am not speaking of the presbytery part of Presbyterianism - i.e. presbyteries, synods, general assemblies, etc. What I am speaking of is how the church is ruled locally and how members are received.

Thus, in the 9 Marks churches I have been in or have experience with, every member has to affirm and uphold the confession of said church, whether that be the LBCF or some other confession. If they cannot affirm said confession than they are not received as members and, by extension, are kept from communion. The only exception is if you are a visitor and hold membership in some other gospel preaching church elsewhere.

I have already been corrected earlier in the thread, and that is fine. I am happy to hear that not all Reformed Baptist and/or congregational churches follow this practice. I am not trying to earn points with anyone. I was simply addressing the OP and gave thanks for the way that most Presbyterian/Reformed churches practice membership compared to what I have experienced with 9 Marks.
 
The type of congregationalism I am familiar with is that kind promoted in OP's link - 9 Marks.

I am not sure about other congregational settings, but in most of these churches the elders do not rule but lead. Meaning that the congregation itself is the church court. Each member holds the keys of the church in much the same manner as the elders. Thus, the bar is typically set pretty high for receiving members.

I am not speaking of the presbytery part of Presbyterianism - i.e. presbyteries, synods, general assemblies, etc. What I am speaking of is how the church is ruled locally and how members are received.

Thus, in the 9 Marks churches I have been in or have experience with, every member has to affirm and uphold the confession of said church, whether that be the LBCF or some other confession. If they cannot affirm said confession than they are not received as members and, by extension, are kept from communion. The only exception is if you are a visitor and hold membership in some other gospel preaching church elsewhere.

I have already been corrected earlier in the thread, and that is fine. I am happy to hear that not all Reformed Baptist and/or congregational churches follow this practice. I am not trying to earn points with anyone. I was simply addressing the OP and gave thanks for the way that most Presbyterian/Reformed churches practice membership compared to what I have experienced with 9 Marks.

The only church I've ever been excluded from communion because of confessional subscription was a Reformed Presbyterian church. The argument they used was that church members have some form of authority in the church (i.e., congregation has keys). I was simply addressing the OP and gave thanks for the way that most Reformed Baptist churches practice membership compared to what I have experienced with Presbyterians.
 
The only church I've ever been excluded from communion because of confessional subscription was a Reformed Presbyterian church. The argument they used was that church members have some form of authority in the church (i.e., congregation has keys). I was simply addressing the OP and gave thanks for the way that most Reformed Baptist churches practice membership compared to what I have experienced with Presbyterians.

Well then perhaps I am speaking from ignorance. My understanding of the very nature of elder-lead-Congregationalism versus elder-rule-Presbyterianism is what I have said throughout the thread. Of course, there will be exceptions in each context, as you have pointed out.

Every particular local church session has the ability to make membership more stringent. But in my experience and knowledge of the OPC, PCA, etc. members are simply interviewed by the session for evidence of a credible profession and, after affirming the five membership questions, they are received into membership. With my experience in 9 Marks churches, a full affirmation of the church's confession was required to be received. I was almost brought under church discipline simply because my understanding of baptism changed from credo-only to paedo.
 
The only church I've ever been excluded from communion because of confessional subscription was a Reformed Presbyterian church. The argument they used was that church members have some form of authority in the church (i.e., congregation has keys). I was simply addressing the OP and gave thanks for the way that most Reformed Baptist churches practice membership compared to what I have experienced with Presbyterians.
Most baptist churches would require a profession of faith by applicant, be believers baptized, and agree to whatever statement of belief that the church held with.
 
But as we have seen, the 9marks people have obvious problems since they're so down on the LBCF. And they want to leave the door open for the idiocy of day-age nonsense and other creation peccadillos.
 
^^The article was against the LBCF partly because the confession requires belief in the literal 6-day creation taught by the Bible. To me that says that the 9-marker that wrote that wants to leave the door open for people to believe foolishness such as old-earth creation or theistic evolution. All of which are nonsense and unconfessional.
 
^^The article was against the LBCF partly because the confession requires belief in the literal 6-day creation taught by the Bible. To me that says that the 9-marker that wrote that wants to leave the door open for people to believe foolishness such as old-earth creation or theistic evolution. All of which are nonsense and unconfessional.
That makes sense to me now, as would not be seeing either Old Universe/Earth or theistic evolution as being scriptural.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top