Continuities and Discontinuities between the First and Second London Baptist Confession - Essay Example

?Continuities and Discontinuities between the First and Second London Baptist Confession Introduction The church has petitioned to the order from therisen Lord for its observance of baptism: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you” (Brackney 2004: 82). The rationale for baptism is normally not confined to the baptismal rule; this wholly formal rationale would be insufficient. The baptismal rule is bindingly connected to the cross, Jesus Christ’s rebirth and exaltation (Long 2003). Hence it is not possible to disconnect history from baptism and from the destiny of Christ. Baptist confessions are within the grand framework of history and salvation. Hence the baptismal rule is not the rationale ‘after the fact’, but baptism’s innate basis (Garrett 2009: 64). It implies that the church practices baptism not on its own scheme and power, but in deference to its God. Nevertheless, the baptismal rule not merely establishes baptism but provides it its essence. Hence baptism on the authority of the Lord is not merely a procedure, similar to others for carrying out baptism; it is instead a confession of the internal content and theological and historical foundation of baptism (Garrett 2009). Furthermore it is the pledge and epiclesis of deliverance, not as sheer rite, and definitely not as a sacrament working supernaturally (Brackney 2004); but in the authority of this commanding pledge, baptism acquires its authority to bring about salvation. The baptismal sacrament was an essential foundation for the creation, and growth, of confession of the faith. Baptism was, similarly, connected to the ‘catechumenate’ as initiation into the life of the church and faith (Garrett 2009: 664). The churches emerging from the evangelist movement have relived this association; it has become meaningful for the European independent churches in distinct ways. Because of the separation of the culture from Western churches, the revival of the ‘catechumenate’ (Garrett 2009: 664) has presently turned out to be significant for the being and continued existence of the early churches. This paper discusses the similarities and differences between two Baptist confessions, namely, the First London Baptist Confession of 1644-1646 and the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689. Comparing and Contrasting the First and Second London Baptist Confession In the analysis of the 1646 Westminster Confession and the 1689 Second London Confession, it can be discerned that there is an emphasis given to God’s law concisely interpreted in the Mosaic Law of Moses as a principle of life for the follower. In contrast, the emphasis of the 1644 First London Confession is on the rules of the New Covenant, or Christ’s commandments (n.a. 1981). Basically, even though these two confessions have crucial similarities with regard to the steadfast nature of the perpetual moral command of God, there is a different New Covenant focus regarding biblical rules in the two versions of the First London Confession (Long 2003), specifically, noticeably absent in the Old Covenant stress of the Second London Confessions. The aforementioned difference between the First and Second London Confession has significant theological repercussions in interpreting both the function of biblical commandments as the moral principle of God or commandment for the life of the follower within the New Covenant, and for interpreting the connection of God’s commandment to Christ’s gospel (Brackney 2004); hence, the current explanation for the revision of the First London Confession. The issue suddenly comes out: the historical explanation for the adoption of the Second London Confession instead of the First by the Particular Baptist churches. If the First and Second London Confession are basically the same, then what is the purpose for the creation of the latter? The explanation rests in the events surrounding the collapse of England’s Cromwellian Commonwealth (Garrett 2009). As William Lumpkin, a Baptist scholar claimed “the Episcopalians had recaptured the machinery and endowments of the Church of England, and they were bent upon achieving uniformity in religion” (Garrett 2009: 208). According to Long (2003), the Particular Baptists of London resolved, thus, to prove their support of Congregationalists and Presbyterians by instituting the Westminster Confession the foundation of their own new confession. In truth, there are many and obvious distinctions between the Second London Confession and the 1644 version. Certainly, specific passages were obtained from the earlier confession, and there are proofs that other recollections from it were kept intact, but, nonetheless, several substantial and major alterations were initiated. Among the differences between the First and Second London Confession were the discussion of specific themes like marriage, the Sabbath, and the Scriptures (n.a. 1981). Furthermore, the ordinances, polity, and the church were reformed. The relevance of the remark of Lumpkin rests in the certainty that the 1689 Second London Confession was adapted to the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith within the persecution provisions of the State-Church of England, provisions which compelled it to interpret it practically alike to the Westminster Confession on many subjects (Garrett 2009), excluding on civil magistrates and church administration. Thus, the earlier explanation for revising the First London Confession, specifically, to reconstruct the confessional stance of the Particular Baptist, particularly on God’s law, prior to being greatly informed by the Westminster Confession which was created at a state-ordered Assembly, and where in Particular Baptists were prohibited to go to (n.a. 1981). Akin to the 1644 edition, the second version was ratified by couriers of several Particular Baptist churches. As stated by Lumpkin, modifications in the second version which were not in the former version “included statements denying free will, communalism, and falling from grace, a stronger declaration in favor of election, and a statement of the doctrine of original sin” (n.a. 1981: para 5). A Church of England Bishop’s child, Benjamin Cox, debated with Richard Baxter, a Puritan divine, over baptism of babies (Brackney 2004). Cox became an exemplar of his faith from the Scriptures. However, his refutation of infant baptism hampered him from encouraging changes in the institutionalized church “and prejudiced those divines against him who were at the head of ecclesiastical affairs” (Milner 1835: 538). Subsequent to the debate with Baxter, Cox went to London as an old preacher in 1645, and there his disputes against infant baptism and other works were circulated. He reported the second version of the London Baptist Confession in 1646 to legislature, avowing his name to it in support of one of the London churches (n.a. 1981). The Second London Baptist Confession was basically truthful to the first one with changes merely in capitalization, spelling, and consistency in contractions (Milner 1835) of the Bible’s books. Quite faithfully do the First and Second London Baptist Confession creedal passages emanate Christ’s aroma that they have been espoused with negligible footnotes by the church which some theologians view as a just, concise articulation of its predetermined confessional interpretation of the Holy Bible. All together it is confirmed that the Holy Bible and it single-handedly, has perfect influence over sacrament and faith (Milner 1835). The several footnotes to the Appendix and the Confession are recognized by terms or passages consisted in asterisk or bracket annotations. They are created to thwart misinterpretation in dogmatic subjects that require explanation for the church nowadays (Garrett 2009). It is the contention of this paper that the development of the First and Second London Baptist Confession will be drawn upon to assist the established Church and the Christian in promoting peace, devoutness, and righteousness along with the New Covenant rule of Christ. References n.a. A Confession of Faith of Seven Congregations or Churches of Christ in London. New York: Backus Book Publishers, 1981. Brackney, W. A Genetic History of Baptist Thought: With Special Reference to Baptists in Britain and North America. Georgia: Mercer University Press, 2004. Garrett, J. Baptist Theology: A Four-Century Study. Georgia: Mercer University Press, 2009. Long, G. First London Baptist Confession of Faith, 1646 Edition: With an 1646 Appendix by Benjamin Cox. New York: Booksurge Llc, 2003. Milner, I. The History of the Church of Christ. Philadelphia: Hogan and Thompson, 1835. Read More