The Second London Confession 3
It is extemely important that The Second London Confession (SLC), when it came to the section “Of Gods Decree,” did not reproduce The Westminster Confession (WCF) holus-bolus.
Chap. 3 of the WCF has eight paragraphs. Chap. 3 of the SLC has only seven. One, that on reprobation, has been entirely omitted. The WCF essentially reproduced the doctrine of double predestination that was part of the strong Augustinian tradition that ran from Augustine through the Venerable Bede (c.673-735) and Gottschalk (c.804-c.869) to the Reformers. The authors of the SLC, however, embraced a milder Augustinianism.
This needs exploring by someone in more detail!
This entry was posted on Monday, December 28th, 2009 at 3:01 pm and is filed under 17th Century, Baptist Life & Thought. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
December 31st, 2009 at 9:15 pm
In my Th.M thesis at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia comparing the Westminster Confession and the Second London Confession, I explored the differences between the two confessions regarding God’s decrees. I noted that “the non-elect are not in that state because they were fore-ordained, but because they were passed over….The reason that the Second London Confession omits WCF 3.7 is because it has already indicated its own position in 3.2.” I go on to note that this language in the SLC is similar to language in the Belgic Confession (Article 16) and the Canons of Dort (I, 15). The SLC is here, as elsewhere (in my opinion) responding to Quaker views of absolte reprobation. The SLC speaks of the non-elect in an infralapsarian manner. Finally, the SLC is consistent with other Baptist confessions in avoiding double predestination.
December 31st, 2009 at 11:39 pm
Thank you Richard. Is your ThM available or published? I would love to read it.
Michael H
January 1st, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Michael,
My dissertation has not been published. I thought at one time that the library at SBTS had a copy but they don’t seem to have it now. Copies are available at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia and California. I should work on preparing it for publication.
January 4th, 2010 at 11:36 am
For whatever it is worth, the language of the original 1644 and 1677 confessions seem to include some of the original language of 3.7 in the 1689 SLC 3.3 at the end including notably the “to the praise of [H]is [glorious] justice.” It looks like in addition to the aforesaid response 1, that the writers also looked to include the language in 3.3 as a way to make the confession more concise here. What I found interesting is that the language was in the 1644 Confession at the end of article III, before the WCF.
January 5th, 2010 at 7:29 am
Thank you brother for bringing up this subject matter. I too, like Richard, had noticed this infra-supra difference in the past.
Anyway, both confessions are nevertheless jewels of post-Reformation theology.
Regards
André