1646 Baptist Confession and the Law

[Glenn63]

I embrace the 1644/1646 First London Confession of Baptists as my profession of belief.  It is New Covenant in emphasis and I quote:

XXV. THE preaching of the gospel to the conversion of sinners, is absolutely free; no way requiring as absolutely necessary, any qualifications, preparations, or terrors of the law, or preceding ministry of the law, but only and alone the naked soul, a sinner and ungodly, to receive Christ crucified, dead and buried, and risen again; who is made a prince and a Saviour for such sinners as through the gospel shall be brought to believe on Him.
John 3:14.15.1:12; Isa.55:1; John 7:37; 1 Tim.1:15; Rom.4:5.5:8; Acts 5:30.31,2:36; 1 Cor.1:22,24.

The Ten Commandments and the Law of Moses are NOT taught in this confession for Jesus Christ fulfilled and completed those for all time:

"There is no question of our having sufficient power in ourselves: we cannot claim anything as our own. The power we have comes from God; it is he who has empowered us as ministers of a new covenant, not written but spiritual; for the written law condemns to death, but the Spirit gives life. The ministry that brought death, and that was engraved in written form on stone, was inaugurated with such glory that the Israelites could not keep their eyes on Moses, even though the glory on his face was soon to fade. How much greater, then, must be the glory of the ministry of the Spirit! If glory accompanied the ministry that brought condemnation, how much richer in glory must be the ministry that brings acquittal! Indeed, the glory that once was is now no glory at all; it is outshone by a still greater glory. For if what was to fade away had its glory, how much greater is the glory of what endures!"  (2Cor 3:5-11, REB)

"For he is himself our peace. Gentiles and Jews, he has made the two one, and in his own body of flesh and blood has broken down the barrier of enmity which separated them; for he annulled the law with its rules and regulations, so as to create out of the two a single new humanity in himself, thereby making peace. This was his purpose, to reconcile the two in a single body to God through the cross, by which he killed the enmity."  (Eph 2:14-16, REB)

There was a lot of questioning made by other faith communities, so an Appendix was issued in which we have stated:

IX. "Though we that believe in Christ, be not under the law, but under grace, Rom.6:14; yet we know that we are not lawless, or left to live without a rule; "not without law to God, but under law to Christ," 1 Cor.9:21. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is a law, or commanding rule unto us; whereby, and in obedience whereunto, we are taught to live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world, Titus 2:11,12; the directions of Christ in His evangelical word guiding us unto, and in this sober, righteous, and godly walking, 1 Tim.1:10,11."
X. "Though we be not now sent to the law as it was in the hand of Moses, to be commanded thereby, yet Christ in His Gospel teacheth and commandeth us to walk in the same way of righteousness and holiness that God by Moses did command the lsraelites to walk in, all the commandments of the Second Table being still delivered unto us by Christ, and all the commandments of the First Table also (as touching the life and spirit of them) in this epitome or brief sum, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, etc., Matt.22:37,38,39,40; Rom.13:8,9,10. "

The 1689 Second London Confession of Baptists, being a version of the Presbyterian Westminster Confession, included the Ten Commandments.  I find many things admirable in this confession, but because of this issue, I stay with the 1644/1646 which was the first Baptist Confession to my view because it was the first to emphasize immersion as baptism and religious liberty.

Many things in the New Covenant are quoted for us out of the Old Covenant.  Leviticus 19:18b "love your neighbor as yourself" is given to us 9 times in the New Testament.  I only accept as a rule of life what is stated in the New Covenant.  I do not accept the view that what is not explicitly annulled in the New Covenant, out of the Old Covenant, is still in force.  I also reject the idea that religious man can invent "faith and practice" for the church, which is not taught in the New Covenant. 

[grandma dolittle]

Glenn,
I still believe the Ten Commandments are still very important. If man lived by these, we would not have the crime, wars, law suits, etc. that we have now.

[neophyte]

There aren't any groups of non-Catholic Christians that have survived from the first century.
 First, the Catholic Church could admit the existence of other groups of Christians which had survived from the first century if any still existed, but none do. All of the heretical groups that split off in the first century died out. Anyone who claims that there was a line of doctrinally Protestant people going back through history to Jesus doesn't know Church history.

Second, while some groups, such as the Baptists, sometimes make this claim, they claim descent from heretical groups such as the Montanists (a false-prophecy movement that said the New Jerusalem would descend in Phrygia, on Montanus's home town), the Donatists (who said sacraments are efficacious only if they are administered by someone in a state of grace), and the Albigensians (who said there are two gods, a good god who loves us and an evil god who made the world). There is simply no way that these groups were Baptists under a different name.

Also incorrect is the notion, seriously offered by some Baptists, that the Baptists are descended from John the Baptist--otherwise, why else would they sport his title?

(This argument is analogous to the one given by ministers of the Protestant denomination that calls itself the Church of Christ. They say theirs must be the original Church because the name of the Church founded by Christ could be nothing other than "the Church of Christ." Naturally enough, this argument has not found favor with people who do not belong to that denomination.)

The Baptists are a late offshoot of the English Reformation. Their denomination was started in 1609 by a British man named John Smyth, who was living in Holland at the time. He and his congregation of expatriate Englishmen began the first Baptist church, which later relocated to England, which is why all the early Baptist confessions were drawn up in that country.

Incidentally, the original Baptists practiced baptism by pouring (affusion) instead of dunking (immersion), although most of them today vigorously deny the validity of baptism by pouring. The founder of the Baptist Church in America, Roger Williams, finding no one qualified to baptize him, decided to baptize himself in 1639.




Answered from Stephen K.Ray's "Upon This Rock" Mr.Ray is a "former"Baptist teacher of Biblical studies

[Glenn63]

Hello Sister Dolittle!  I agree wholeheartedly, if men obeyed the commandments, we'd be much better off.  I find 9 of the 10 commandments repeated for me in the New Covenant, the one I do not see is the 7th day sabbath.  Yet, our brethren the 7th-Day Baptists see that for today also.  We know the thing is, are we known and loved by Jesus Christ and are sure in our salvation.  I've been rather shaken this morning by news here in Florida.  A man seemingly safe at home in his bed at night.  The earth opens up and swallows him, the bed and the bedroom.  The earth has taken him and rescuers could do nothing.  It is enough to surely make us think when our last day may be.  We know there is "the last day" in the future, but when is my last day?  See the story I refer to...
http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/bn9/2013/3/1/brandon_house_collap.html

This seems to be a rather strange Forum here.  You proclaim your Baptist faith, Freewill Baptist.  I try to proclaim mine, Particular Baptist.  Yet, I do not see others doing the same.  It reminds me of what I found when coming to Florida, so many churches calling themselves, "xxx Community Church"... and when I look into their belief statements, they are Baptists.  Are they ashamed of the name Baptist?  I find it a great help to know what perspective a fellow believer has so I can understand his viewpoints easier.  When speaking with a Presbyterian, Lutheran, Anglican, Roman Catholic; I have some way to evaluate some statements he/she may make in light of their denominational affiliation.  Communication can be difficult as it is, without trying to figure out someone's theological stance from little snippets which I may take totally of the context in which they meant it.  Nice to see you again, Sister! 

[Glenn63]

The buildings in Rome are not the church.  The apostate hierarchy of Roman Catholics in those buildings is not the church.  Those leaders in the Vatican are not the Christians of the first century and their constantly growing and evolving heresies show it!

"It is sometimes asked: 'When and where did the Baptists originate? Who were their founders? What is their history?' These are questions of interest; but a more important one would be: 'Are they right? Is their faith according to the teachings of the New Testament?'  Many things which are old are not true. Creeds and sects may boast a venerable antiquity, while the word of God utterly condemns them. Any organization that cannot reasonably claim Christ for its founder has small right to the name of a Christian church, no matter how old it may be."  p154, The Standard Manual for Baptist Churches by Edward T. Hiscox, D. D.

[Nevertheless]

Particular Baptist? Never heard of that one before.

[Glenn63]

The term "Particular Baptist" comes from the view of the atonement.  The General Baptists in England believed in a general atonement for all men without distinction.  The Particular Baptists viewed the atonement as definite and particular for the elect and the elect alone.  In the 1646 Confession I embrace, it is stated like this:

"XXI. JESUS Christ by His death did purchase salvation for the elect that God gave unto Him: These only have interest in Him, and fellowship with Him, for whom He makes intercession to His Father in their behalf, and to them alone doth God by His Spirit apply this redemption; as also the free gift of eternal life is given to them, and none else.
Eph.1:14; Heb.5:9; Matt.1:21; John 17:6; Heb.7:25; 1 Cor.2: 12; Rom.8:29.30; 1 John 5:12; John 15:13,3:16."

The 1689 Second London Confession as well as the American version, the 1742 Philadelphia Confession also taught the definite atonement or particular redemption.  One of the verses most powerful to me on this is the following:

“And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;” (Re 5:9 AV)

[Nevertheless]

Gotcha. It made me think of 1 Peter 2:9 - But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light;


Particular Baptist - peculiar people

The connections my brain makes are strange sometimes!

[Glenn63]

Never, you quoted 1 Peter 2:9 from the KJV, I am enjoying the modern British version, the Revised English Bible.  It renders the verse like this:

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a dedicated nation, a people claimed by God for his own, to proclaim the glorious deeds of him who has called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.  (1Pet 2:9, REB)

So, "peculiar" is now "a people claimed by God for his own".  I'm a 'proud' Baptist, but I have worshiped with Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans and others and I too think they are "a people claimed by God for his own"!  Just as I am different from my siblings but still in the same family, that is how I view the brethren of other 'orthodox' denominations. 

[Nevertheless]

When I was a kid we memorized scripture from the KJV, so it is phrases from that version that pop into my head. Today I prefer the ESV. It renders that phrase, "a people for His own possession" - definitely preferable to "peculiar". 

[neophyte]

Glenn63, you wrote: ""It is sometimes asked: 'When and where did the Baptists originate? Who were their founders? What is their history?' These are questions of interest; but a more important one would be: 'Are they right? Is their faith according to the teachings of the New Testament?'  Many things which are old are not true. Creeds and sects may boast a venerable antiquity, while the word of God utterly condemns them. Any organization that cannot reasonably claim Christ for its founder has small right to the name of a Christian church, no matter how old it may be."  p154, The Standard Manual for Baptist Churches by Edward T. Hiscox, D. D."

Glenn, the Catholic Church only proclaims; Christ "the way, the truth, and the life' [ John 14:6 in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.

I offer an example of the importance of the Catholic Church to the Christian faith, something as important as this example was granted only to Christ's Universal/Catholic Church.
The plain fact of the matter is that the canon of the Bible was not settled in the first years of the Church just by anybody with their private interpretations of Holy Scripture. It was settled only after repeated (and perhaps heated) discussions, and the final listing was determined by Catholic bishops. This is an inescapable fact, no matter how many people wish to escape from it.

 Jesus' One True Church was based on His Apostles and their Successors [Matt.28:18-20 ] All future churches were invented by men.All of Jesus'Authority was only infused into His Apostolic Universal [ Catholic ] Church , three times,  being at Pentecost 1St. century again in [Luke 10:16 ] and in John 20:20-24 only His Catholic Apostolic Church was ever infused with the Holy Spirit along with being granted the "keys" and Authority directly from Jesus .  Your John Smyth was not present in Matt.16:15-19.

[Glenn63]

Neophyte, you saying the Roman Catholic Church is the New Testament church or church of the early centuries is a joke.  The NT Christians would not recognize the Papacy as anything but a false religion.  You guys can't even stick with any teachings... you add to and invent something every century.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/catholic_heresies-a_list.htm

If you don't trust this guy's facts, research each topic elsewhere.  Go peddle your apostate religion elsewhere. 

[Red Baker]

Glenn63, you wrote: ""It is sometimes asked: 'When and where did the Baptists originate? Who were their founders? What is their history?' These are questions of interest; but a more important one would be: 'Are they right? Is their faith according to the teachings of the New Testament?'  Many things which are old are not true. Creeds and sects may boast a venerable antiquity, while the word of God utterly condemns them. Any organization that cannot reasonably claim Christ for its founder has small right to the name of a Christian church, no matter how old it may be."  p154, The Standard Manual for Baptist Churches by Edward T. Hiscox, D. D."

Glenn, the Catholic Church only proclaims; Christ "the way, the truth, and the life' [ John 14:6 in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.

I offer an example of the importance of the Catholic Church to the Christian faith, something as important as this example was granted only to Christ's Universal/Catholic Church.
The plain fact of the matter is that the canon of the Bible was not settled in the first years of the Church just by anybody with their private interpretations of Holy Scripture. It was settled only after repeated (and perhaps heated) discussions, and the final listing was determined by Catholic bishops. This is an inescapable fact, no matter how many people wish to escape from it.

 Jesus' One True Church was based on His Apostles and their Successors [Matt.28:18-20 ] All future churches were invented by men.All of Jesus'Authority was only infused into His Apostolic Universal [ Catholic ] Church , three times,  being at Pentecost 1St. century again in [Luke 10:16 ] and in John 20:20-24 only His Catholic Apostolic Church was ever infused with the Holy Spirit along with being granted the "keys" and Authority directly from Jesus .  Your John Smyth was not present in Matt.16:15-19.

You are so right that John Smyth was not there.  And your religion was there, I agree 100%, your words are true and faithful.  The Catholics were there in the religion of the Pharisees!  Catholicism are about as close to the Pharisees with all of their traditions as one can get in the twenty first century.   And all of God's children said AMEN.

RB

[Glenn63]

Yes indeed, RB!  Amen

[neophyte]

Red Baker and Glenn, how is it you can get away with calling my Faith 'apostate' when it is your form of religion that comes not from God but from mere man?

Red Baker, you've not a clue.
The Sadducees thought of themselves as "conservatives," as the Old Believers. This is because they accepted only the written Law of Moses as authoritative and rejected subsequent revelation. As a result, the Sadducees denied many of the doctrines held by the Pharisees and by Jesus, including the resurrection of the dead, the existence of angels and spirits, and the meting out of rewards and punishment after death. These beliefs were thought by the Sadducees to be Zoroastrian corruptions of the authentic faith of Israel.

Although a religious party, the Sadducees were more important as a political force. They represented the priestly aristocracy and the power structure of Israel. For them, the duties of religion centered primarily around the Temple.

The Pharisees, on the other hand, were a lay group more representative of the common man. In addition to the written Law of Moses, the Pharisees accepted as authoritative the rest of what is for us the Old Testament, as well as the "tradition of the elders."

Whereas the Sadducees saw worship at the Temple as the main focus of the Law, the Pharisees believed this to be but one component among many of proper Mosaic observance. It was over the interpretation of the Law and which understanding of it represented the authentic tradition of Israel that Jesus and the Pharisees disagreed.

After the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70, Sadducaic Judaism disappeared and Pharisaic Judaism became dominant. It is from the Pharisees, then, that contemporary Judaism is primarily descended.