Christian Liberty in the London Baptist Confession and The Westminster Confession of Faith: A Key Difference in Ch. XXI.

Christian Liberty in the London Baptist Confession and the Westminster Confession of Faith: A Key Difference in Chapter XXI

How a Christian treats this issue is actually a bigger picture of a person's heart than you might think (this included motives including pragmatism).  Certain activities claimed to be done in love or in the name of Christian liberty might not be so.

Is it truly loving and charitable to impose one's personal believes on other Christians (and in the name of liberty)?

Is it truly correct to define someone as unteachable and unsubmissive who will not blindly follow current theological fads and methodologies (and this done to in the name of liberty)?


If you've ever read these two historical documents before then you have no doubt noticed the great deal (or overwhelming deal) of verbatim vocabulary, grammar, and theology.  However there are many places where these two documents embrace dramatically different positions in regards to both theology and practice. 

Just a small example would be the fact that in relation to one particular "ordinance" or "sacrament" these two documents embrace different positions on one ordinance: namely baptism.  Hence, one is primarily but not exclusively a "Presbyterian" document and the other is primarily a "Baptist" document.  That being said, this is not the point of difference I wish to draw attention to at this time.

Chapter 21 has another striking difference in relation to church and state and their relation to Christian liberty.  For the sake of argument, perhaps we can at least acknowledge the historical context and each confessions reaction to Roman Catholicim's self-professed authority and doctrinal abuses.  If you commonly read the LBC 1689, as I do then you will notice the following paragraph is missing in you version (it is also absent in meaning American versions of the WCF):

Paragraph IV. (Of Christian Liberty and liberty of conscience)

" And because the powers which God has ordained, and the liberty which Christ has purchased are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another, they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity (whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation), or to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ has established in the Church, they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against, by the censures of the Church. and by the power of the civil magistrate."

There are three key areas addressed in the paragraph not to be found in Baptist versions of the confession: church power, government (civil) power, and reactionism (abused liberties).  (Let's at least be fair to acknowledge some American Presbyterian versions have omitted this paragraph also).

Who trumps who?  Or what source of authority trumps what?  Does the state/government have absolute authority?  Does the church have absolute authority?  Or a third option, does the individual practice of personal liberty or conscience trump the above two options?  It should be obvious in common vernacular which side someone is endorsing by the vocabulary they choose to employ.

Consider the following:

1.  The vast array of interpretations concerning church discipline, pastoral or congregational authority, or denomination control.  Who defines error?  Doctrine?  Heresy?  How much power is given to the leadership?  Accountability?

2.  The vast array of interpretations of government or state intervention: education, finance, social issues, setting standards (or even no standards).  Who can punish?  Doctrinal jail time?  Lock you pew?

3.  The vast array of interpretations or liberties of practice which divide individuals and even families--even to the point of corporate division (standards, music, Bible translations, gun control, etc...).  chapter and verse?  Proof texts?  That's your opinion?  

4.  The vast array of publishing houses, competition, blogs, and personalized accounts.  Who will read by book?  What doctrines are added/thrown out to reach an audience?  What is believed verbally but never in print?

Praise the Lord that theology and Biblical interpretation don't have to occur in a near-sighted vacuum.  I think some evangelicals today actually believe these concepts did not already exist in the past.  Radical new ideas of worship, church, evangelism, or anything motivated by pragmatic numbers should cause us to stop and think.  Well you would think it would.

I'm not saying all the covenants in church history are perfect or need to be followed with blind obedience, but they do give as great doctrinal grounds to build upon. 


Comments encouraged.