Appendix Concerning Baptism | Second London Baptist Confession (1689)

Kirk E. Miller

The following is the original appendix attached to the Second London Confession of Faith.

While their confession systematically detailed their core doctrines, the signatories recognized that their position on baptism, specifically believer’s baptism (as opposed to infant baptism), was a notable departure from their fellow Reformed Protestants with whom they otherwise shared a common theology. Thus, they concluded it necessary to provide an apology (defense or explanation) of this particular theological position.

It’s well worth reading to understand how early Particular Baptists reasoned for credobaptism.

Below I provide its original text with only slight revisions to modernize certain spellings, capitalizations, and punctuation along with occasional clarifying brackets. I have also placed quotation marks around all scripture quotations, as best as I was able to detect them, and supplied the Scripture references in brackets. Scripture references in parenthesis as original, which I have corrected on some cases where the reference was quite obviously incorrect.

Whosoever reads and impartially considers what we have in our foregoing confession declared may readily perceive that we do not only concur with all other true Christians on the Word of God (revealed in the Scriptures of truth) as the foundation and rule of our faith and worship, but that we have also industriously endeavored to manifest that, in the fundamental articles of Christianity, we mind the same things, and have therefore expressed our belief in the same words which have on the like occasion been spoken by other societies of Christians before us.

This we have done that those who are desirous to know the principles of religion which we hold and practice may take an estimate from ourselves (who jointly concur in this work) and may not be misguided, either by undue reports or by the ignorance or errors of particular persons, who, going under the same name with ourselves, may give an occasion of scandalizing the truth we profess.

And although we do differ from our brethren who are paedobaptists in the subject and administration of baptism, and such other circumstances as have a necessary dependence on our observance of that ordinance, and do frequent our own assemblies for our mutual edification and discharge of those duties and services which we owe unto God, and in His fear to each other, yet we would not be from here misconstrued as if the discharge of our own consciences herein did any way disoblige or alienate our affections or conversation [i.e. conduct] from any others that fear the Lord; but that we may and do, as we have opportunity, participate in the labors of those whom God has endowed with abilities above ourselves, and qualified and called to the ministry of the Word, earnestly desiring to approve ourselves to be such as follow after peace with holiness; and therefore we always keep that blessed irenicum, or healing word of the Apostle before our eyes: “If in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you; nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing” (Phil. 3:15–16).

Continue reading →

“To the Judicious and Impartial Reader” | Epistolary Preface to the Second London Baptist Confession (1689)

Kirk E. Miller

The following is the prefatory letter to the Second London Baptist Confession. In it, the signatories of the confession explain that, despite their distinctive belief in believer’s baptism, Particular Baptists (as we have come to call them) stand in agreement with the Protestant Reformed doctrine of their Presbyterian and Congregationalist brothers and sisters. Its irenic tone reflects a desire to distance themselves from radical sectarian movements, claim their rightful place among Reformed Protestants, and present a unified front with them amidst persecution. Thus, this preface functions to explain some of the main reasons for the construction and adoption of this confession.

It’s important to note that the Second London Baptist Confession is based on the Presbyterians’ Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) and the Congregationalists’ Savoy Declaration (1658), the Savoy itself being based on the Westminster. The Congregationalists (or Independents) and Baptists made their changes mostly to reflect their distinct ecclesiologies.

This letter is sometimes called “To the Judicious and Impartial Reader” or just “Courteous Reader.” Below I provide its original text with only slight revisions to modernize certain spellings, capitalizations, and punctuation along with occasional clarifying brackets.

Courteous Reader,

It is now many years since diverse of us (with other sober Christians then living and walking in the way of the Lord that we profess) did conceive ourselves to be under a necessity of publishing a confession of our faith, for the information and satisfaction of those that did not thoroughly understand what our principles were, or had entertained prejudices against our profession, by reason of the strange representation of them by some men of note, who had taken very wrong measures and accordingly led others into misapprehensions of us and them; and this was first put forth about the year 1643 in the name of seven congregations then gathered in London, since which time diverse impressions [i.e., printings] thereof have been dispersed abroad and our end proposed in good measure answered, inasmuch as many (and some of those men eminent both for piety and learning) were thereby satisfied that we were no way guilty of those heterodoxies and fundamental errors which had too frequently been charged upon us without ground or occasion given on our part. And forasmuch as that confession is not now commonly to be had, and also that many others have since embraced the same truth which is owned therein, it was judged necessary by us to join together in giving a testimony to the world of our firm adhering to those wholesome principles, by the publication of this which is now in your hand.

Continue reading →

When Fighting to “Save” Culture Further Desecrates It | Carl Trueman

Kirk E. Miller

In his book, The Desecration of Man: How the Rejection of God Degrades Our Humanity, Carl Trueman (author of books like The Creedal Imperative) argues that we, as a society, have “killed God” (not in a metaphysical but in a Nietzschean sense) and therefore inevitably find ourselves desecrating his image, i.e., humanity.

Here I’d like to share one specific insight from the book’s last chapter. Trueman describes those who

…claim adherence both to the creed [orthodox Christian beliefs] and to the cult [Christian worship], but who eschew the code [Christian morality and ethics]. Certain groups within the broader church who connect Christianity to political positions that advocate racial segregation, for example, or the use of violence to achieve political ends fall into this category. … [T]he spirit that negates is alive and well, even among some who claimed to be conservative Christians. They may honor creed and cult at least in theory, but when they indulge in the same kinds of attitudes and behavior that characterize our culture of desecration, whether comparatively trivial online crudity directed at critics or more seriously a Nietzschean obsession with power, they deny the code. They dehumanize their opponents and thus desecrate the image of God that those others represent. They too, therefore, indulge in desecration and form part of the problem. Indeed, if the problem in our society is not one between conservatives and progressives but between different kinds of desecrator, then the issue so many conservatives are worried about, the future of Western civilization, becomes immediately more complicated. How can one “save” Western civilization when one plays by essentially the same rules of desecration as those accused of trying to destroy it?

… 

There is no quick fix here. The right election result or supreme court appointment will not alter the underlying conditions, at least in the short-to-medium term. And that means the temptation to grow angrier and adopt more and more the techniques of desecration in order to “win” will become intense. But that merely breeds yet more desecration. Second, if we are playing the long game—and whatever the online bluster, we really have no choice—then we need to think about incremental transformation of those spheres in which we do have influence, the real embodied neighborhoods, communities, and institutions where we find ourselves. That’s where something like hospitality becomes important. When we eschew the idioms and techniques of the world around us, and open ourselves and our homes to others, we become truly human and indeed treat others as truly human as well. The battle against desecration does not begin so much with boycotts against blasphemous art as with acts of human kindness extended to neighbors. … Hospitality is powerful and transformative, and it is just one, albeit powerful, example of how to treat other people as human beings and not as objects, things, or simply the aggregates of their beliefs on political, cultural, or social issues.

… 

One cannot believe the Apostles’ Creed, recite it in church on a Sunday, and then treat others with snarling contempt for the rest of the week. One cannot believe that the cross is God’s strength made perfect in weakness and exalt the crucified Christ in praise at evensong while adopting attitudes to power and methods of engagement outside of the church service that [closer] are to Nietzsche than the New Testament.1

  1. I transcribed this quotation from an audio version of the book. So there are likely differences between it and the written form, such as differences in punctuation, paragraph breaks, or even unintended transcribal mistakes on my part. ↩︎

Elisha and the Bears (2 Kings 2:23–24) | Jonathan Akin

Kirk E. Miller

In 2 Kings 2:23–24, a group of what many English translations render “small” or “little boys” mock Elisha saying, “Go up, bald head!” Elisha responds by invoking a curse, summoning two bears from the woods who devour forty-two of them.

Was Elijah just a crotchety old man who couldn’t take a bit of a joke, or is something more at play here?

Old Testament scholar Jonathan Akin joins me on today’s episode of What in the Word? to discuss.

Check it out!

Follow the show on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and more.