Appendix Concerning Baptism | Second London Baptist Confession (1689)

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

A Case for Believers’ Baptism by Immersion from Colossians 2:11-12

Paul’s argument in Colossians 2:11-12 assume the following three things:

  1. Believers are baptized.
  2. Those who are baptized are believers.
  3. Baptism is immersion.

Allow me to briefly elaborate on each of these assertions.

1. Believers are baptized

You’ll notice in this passage, as Paul addresses the Colossians, he can assume all of them have been baptized (“you been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him”). It was assumed that believers were baptized, such that Paul can readily appeal to their baptism as part of his argument here. Paul, along with the rest of the New Testament, has no category or conception of an unbaptized believer.

Continue reading

Understanding the Debate & Differences in How We Put Our Bibles Together (Views on Covenantal & Dispensational Theologies with Brent Parker and Richard Lucas, Ep. 2)

In this episode, I continue my conversation with Brent E. Parker and Richard Lucas, editors of the forthcoming book, Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views on the Continuity of Scripture (IVP, February 2022). In this session, we talk about what different commitments or perspectives ultimately underlie the various views, why all of this matters, how it comes to bear in our theology and practice, and how we might construct a path forward in the doing of Biblical theology for the local church.
 
Their book is currently available for pre-order, releasing February 8, 2022.

Access the episode here. (Available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, Stitcher, and more.)

See all other content in this series.