1646 WCF & 1689 LBC Comparison

[puritanhope]

I found this helpful resource documenting the differences between the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith and the 1689 London Baptist Confession.

Comparison of the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith and the 1689 London Baptist Confession

I was always under the impression that there were only a few differences, however, there are really quite a few differences between the two documents.

 

[rbcbob]

The 1644 London Baptist Confession Of Faith was produced by seven churches in that great city for the express purpose of denying the charge of being Anabaptists.

Remember that the Westminster Assembly (Puritan/Presbyterian) was, by appointment of Parliament, still in session and in the previous year (1643) had produced the Westminster Confession of Faith.

The ministers of the seven churches drafting the 1644 Confession, including William Kiffin, were eager to show to Parliament and its Presbyterian leadership that they were not to be feared and despised as the notorious Anabaptists which had come into England in the previous century.

The 1644 LBCF is drawn largely from the Congregational Aberdeen Confession of 1616. The primary changes made were specifically those of Baptist doctrine.

The 1644 was severely criticized by Daniel Featley who published a book in 1645 in which he charged the authors of this new Baptist Confession with, of all things, being Anabaptists! Featley dedicated his book to Parliament to the chagrin of Kiffin and his fellow Baptists.

It was this that prompted the revision of 1646. The purpose of the revision was to address each of Featley’s charges with language that would mollify the Presbyterian Parliament.

One example of those changes is in article 39 which, in the 1644 reads thus:

“That Baptisme Is An Ordinance Of The New Testament Given By Christ, To Be Dispensed Onely Upon Persons Professing Faith …”

Whereas in the revision of 1646 it reads:

“That Baptisme Is An Ordinance Of The New Testament Given By Christ, To Be Dispensed Upon Persons Professing Faith …”

Another is in article 38 wherein the 1644 reads:

“That the due maintenance of the Officers aforesaid should be the free and voluntary communication of the Church, that according to Christ’s Ordinance, they that preach the Gospel should live on the Gospel and not by constraint to be compelled from the people by a forced law.”

The 1646 revision reads:

“The ministers of Christ ought to have whatsoever they shall need, supplied freely by the church, that according to Christ’s ordinance, they that preach the Gospel, shall live of the gospel by the law of Christ.”

In these and other places the 1646 weakens its Baptist doctrine.
Clearly the 1646 revision sought to appease the hostile opponents in power at the time.

The 1689 took as its baseline the Savoy Declaration and the WCF. The authors clearly sought to agree, even in whole paragraphs, wherever conscience would allow them with their non baptist brethren. They nonetheless articulated the most distinctive Baptist ecclesiology that had been printed to that day.

 

[puritanhope]

Just to be clear: my motive in posting the above comparison was simply because I found a lot of the subtle (and not so subtle) differences between the two Confessions interesting, not to spark a debate.

It is helpful to have the differences between these two Confessions side-by-side and highlighted.

 

[dudley]

It is very helpful, while I am Presbyterian and follow the WCF I agree with many of the positions in the LBC also.

 

[rbcbob]

Just to be clear: my motive in posting the above comparison was simply because I found a lot of the subtle (and not so subtle) differences between the two Confessions interesting, not to spark a debate.

It is helpful to have the differences between these two Confessions side-by-side and highlighted.

I was always under the impression that there were only a few differences, however, there are really quite a few differences between the two documents.

Bryan, I appreciate the clarity. I just thought that you would benefit from the background.

Isn't it interesting that the men drafting the 1689 copied so much from Savoy and WCF rather than the 1646 LBC revision? I believe that speaks of the high esteem in which they held men like Owen and Manton.

 

[southern]

I would encourage you to be careful as you examine those showing the 'differences' between the documents as many have made some profound and unwarranted conclusions based on flimsy evidence. For example, some assert that the 1689 differed with the 1644 on the law of God. For a detailed refutation of this revisionist attempt, see Belcher and Mattia's "A Discussion of the Seventeenth Century Particular Baptist Confessions of Faith".

Also, here is a good article by James M. Renihan discussing the fact that there is no 'substantial theological difference' between the two as asserted by men like those addressed by Dr. Belcher.

 

[rbcbob]

I would encourage you to be careful as you examine those showing the 'differences' between the documents as many have made some profound and unwarranted conclusions based on flimsy evidence. For example, some assert that the 1689 differed with the 1644 on the law of God. For a detailed refutation of this revisionist attempt, see Belcher and Mattia's "A Discussion of the Seventeenth Century Particular Baptist Confessions of Faith".

Also, here is a good article by James M. Renihan discussing the fact that there is no 'substantial theological difference' between the two as asserted by men like those addressed by Dr. Belcher.

Greetings Bobby,
I assume that your post was directed at me. Actually the material I quoted was taken from A Discussion of Seventeenth Century Baptist Confessions of Faith by Richard P. Belcher and Anthony Mattia.

As you can see the differences are what they are. I have quoted them exactly. I appreciate the caution but, brother, do notice that I have said nothing about the position of either on the Law. Reread what I said and note the point of emphasis.

 

[KMK]

From Renihan's article:

they relied very heavily on a book called The Marrow of Theology, written by a very famous and important puritan, William Ames. They brought together this material from the sources available to them, for one specific purpose: to prove that they had a great deal in common with the churches and ministers around them.

Too many nominally reformed Baptists treat their confession as if it was written as a polemic against our Presbyterian brothers. Just because the wording may be different, does not necessarily mean the theology is different. A good rule of thumb is this: unless there are Puritan sources to the contrary, just assume the writers of the 1689 agreed with the WCF.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Just a correction. The WCF was published in 1646/47.

The 1644 London Baptist Confession Of Faith was produced by seven churches in that great city for the express purpose of denying the charge of being Anabaptists.

Remember that the Westminster Assembly (Puritan/Presbyterian) was, by appointment of Parliament, still in session and in the previous year (1643) had produced the Westminster Confession of Faith.

 

[eqdj]

That site looks similar to James Anderson's (copyrighted) Tabular Comparison of the 1646 and 1689 Tabular Comparison of 1646 WCF and 1689 LBCF
He also has a Tabular Comparison of the 1646, Savoy, and the 1689 Tabular Comparison of 1646 WCF, 1658 Savoy Declaration, the 1677/1689 LBCF, and the 1742 PCF

A Particular Baptist (I can't recall his name, though I believe it was Hercules Collins' father) stood outside and handed the 1644 Baptist CoF to the Westminster men as they walked in. He was jailed for doing so.

 

[puritanhope]

Bryan, I appreciate the clarity. I just thought that you would benefit from the background.

Isn't it interesting that the men drafting the 1689 copied so much from Savoy and WCF rather than the 1646 LBC revision? I believe that speaks of the high esteem in which they held men like Owen and Manton.

Yes, it certainly is. I have a great respect for our Baptist brethren - it is nice to know that the feeling is often mutual. I noticed that a few of the additions that I did not know about previously are really quite good.

 

[southern]

I would encourage you to be careful as you examine those showing the 'differences' between the documents as many have made some profound and unwarranted conclusions based on flimsy evidence. For example, some assert that the 1689 differed with the 1644 on the law of God. For a detailed refutation of this revisionist attempt, see Belcher and Mattia's "A Discussion of the Seventeenth Century Particular Baptist Confessions of Faith".

Also, here is a good article by James M. Renihan discussing the fact that there is no 'substantial theological difference' between the two as asserted by men like those addressed by Dr. Belcher.

Greetings Bobby,
I assume that your post was directed at me. Actually the material I quoted was taken from A Discussion of Seventeenth Century Baptist Confessions of Faith by Richard P. Belcher and Anthony Mattia.

As you can see the differences are what they are. I have quoted them exactly. I appreciate the caution but, brother, do notice that I have said nothing about the position of either on the Law. Reread what I said and note the point of emphasis.

Pastor Bob,

Hello brother. My words were actually directed to the first post (Puritahope). I only scanned the responses and didn't catch that you had already referenced this work. Sorry for the misunderstanding!

I am still trying to figure out some of the technical aspects of responsind to particular posts!

May the Lord bless you.

 

[puritanhope]

I would encourage you to be careful as you examine those showing the 'differences' between the documents as many have made some profound and unwarranted conclusions based on flimsy evidence. For example, some assert that the 1689 differed with the 1644 on the law of God. For a detailed refutation of this revisionist attempt, see Belcher and Mattia's "A Discussion of the Seventeenth Century Particular Baptist Confessions of Faith".

Also, here is a good article by James M. Renihan discussing the fact that there is no 'substantial theological difference' between the two as asserted by men like those addressed by Dr. Belcher.

Greetings Bobby,
I assume that your post was directed at me. Actually the material I quoted was taken from A Discussion of Seventeenth Century Baptist Confessions of Faith by Richard P. Belcher and Anthony Mattia.

As you can see the differences are what they are. I have quoted them exactly. I appreciate the caution but, brother, do notice that I have said nothing about the position of either on the Law. Reread what I said and note the point of emphasis.

Pastor Bob,

Hello brother. My words were actually directed to the first post (Puritahope). I only scanned the responses and didn't catch that you had already referenced this work. Sorry for the misunderstanding!

I am still trying to figure out some of the technical aspects of responsind to particular posts!

May the Lord bless you.

I too am trying to understand the quoting, etc., so I can certainly understand the misunderstanding. I'll be happy to read the article you provided. Thanks for providing the link, I'm looking forward to checking it out.

---------- Post added at 05:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:54 PM ----------

I would encourage you to be careful as you examine those showing the 'differences' between the documents as many have made some profound and unwarranted conclusions based on flimsy evidence. For example, some assert that the 1689 differed with the 1644 on the law of God. For a detailed refutation of this revisionist attempt, see Belcher and Mattia's "A Discussion of the Seventeenth Century Particular Baptist Confessions of Faith".

Also, here is a good article by James M. Renihan discussing the fact that there is no 'substantial theological difference' between the two as asserted by men like those addressed by Dr. Belcher.

Greetings Bobby,
I assume that your post was directed at me. Actually the material I quoted was taken from A Discussion of Seventeenth Century Baptist Confessions of Faith by Richard P. Belcher and Anthony Mattia.

As you can see the differences are what they are. I have quoted them exactly. I appreciate the caution but, brother, do notice that I have said nothing about the position of either on the Law. Reread what I said and note the point of emphasis.

Pastor Bob,

Hello brother. My words were actually directed to the first post (Puritahope). I only scanned the responses and didn't catch that you had already referenced this work. Sorry for the misunderstanding!

I am still trying to figure out some of the technical aspects of responsind to particular posts!

May the Lord bless you.

I too am trying to understand the quoting, etc., so I can certainly understand the misunderstanding. I'll be happy to read the article you provided. Thanks for providing the link, I'm looking forward to checking it out.