Westminster Confession (1647)
The Westminster Confession consists of 33 “Chapters,” which I believe can, and should, be divided into two headings: Bible Doctrine and Ecclesiological Practice.
- Bible Doctrine: Chapters 1-19 and 32-33
- Ecclesiological Practice: Chapters 20-31
Such distinction is important because the first, Bible Doctrine, is fixed and final, and the second, Ecclesiological (church) Practice is and continues to be varied, adapted by various Christian faiths who hold to all or most of the first. For instance, the following chapters have been amended / modified since the publication of the Westminster Confession in 1647: 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 31 (Orthodox Presbyterian Church and the Presbyterian Church of America), as well as by other groups. This second category is influenced by the context of the gathering we know as the “Westminster Divines,” the 120 religious leaders of England called by England’s Parliament (the so-called “Long Parliament”) for the purpose of purifying the doctrine and practices of The Church of England, originally established by King Henry VIII as he led a breakaway from the Roman Catholic Church. The context of the Westminster calling and deliberations was an admixture of “religion” and “politics” (civil government). For the most part, Chapters 1-19 plus 32 and 33 were spared the admixture, but the second part, Chapters 20-31, had infusion of such in places.
Two principal distinctions contained within this second category that became a subject for alternative confessions–albeit founded on Westminster–namely the Savoy and the London Baptist (see below), were the issues of church governance (elder rule) and baptism (paedobaptism, the baptism of infants).
And, so, my view is that the first category is not only rock solid and faithful to the Scriptures, it is beautifully succinct, exact, and carefully cited (supported) by specific, exemplary references to the Bible. As if we were under any duty to answer Pilate’s famous question, however dismissive it was, namely–“What is TRUTH?”–this first category of 21 chapters in Westminster does it.
The second category, on the other hand, is, for the most part, equally authoritative as the first, but has within it recurring infusions of elements I call TRI and TPI, The Religion Industry and The Political Industry, subjects I deal with elsewhere. As such, my counsel is to examine very closely each part of the 12 chapters in this second category to distinguish and separate what is exactly, precisely, and truly from the Scriptures, and that alone, and that which was, in the minds of intentions of the Westminster “Divines” as they sought to fulfill their charge from England’s Parliament.
There are many sources of the Westminster Confession. A very beautiful and handy print version is the compact, Vade Mucum (Latin for can be carried with you) printing by The Banner of Truth. There are multiple online and downloadable pdf versions of such Confession. What is known as The Edinburgh Edition (1649) is available here. Other versions are made available by specific denominations such as OPC and PCAAC.
Savoy Confession (1658)
The 120 “Divines” that produced the Westminster Confession represented various ecclessiological practices–Church of England, Presbyterian, Congregational, Independent–as well as university and other scholarly contexts. As described above, such Confession settled on an church governance form that was “presbyterian,” namely elder rule.
The Savoy Confession closely follows the Westminster one but presents a congregational governance framework.
London (2nd) Baptist Confession (1689)
Like the Savory modification to Westminster, the London (2nd) Baptist Confession modified Westminster to follow its belief and practice that baptism is to be confined to those able to exercise faith, namely believing adults.
Comparison of The Westminster, Savoy, and London Baptist Confessions
A wonderful side-by-side comparison of the above three great Confessions showing the differences between / among them is available here:
An example comparison is given below of one of the key chapters, that on The Providence of God:
More on the “Baptist” Confession and History
The above comparison of Confessions includes reference to the 1742 Philadelphia Confession of Baptists. Some brief background on this Confession is below:
The Philadelphia Confession of Faith, adopted by the Philadelphia Baptist Association in 1742, contributed to a unification of Particular Baptist churches in America. The Philadelphia Confession was a revision of the 1689 London Baptist Confession, which itself, in turn, was a descendant of the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith. Given its lineage, the Philadelphia Confession was deeply Calvinistic and differed from the London Baptist Confession primarily in matters of church governance.
https://www.thearda.com/timeline/events/event_8.asp
Below is Charles Spurgeon’s, and J.M. Cramp’s, summary of “Baptist” history and confessions:
We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther and Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel under ground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor, I believe, any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man. We have ever been ready to suffer, as our martyrologies will prove, but we are not ready to accept any help from the State, to prostitute the purity of the Bride of Christ to any alliance with Government, and we will never make the Church, although the Queen, the despot over the consciences of men.
—Charles H. Spurgeon
Christian history, in the First Century, was strictly and properly Baptist history, although the word “Baptist,” as a distinctive appellation was not then known. How could it be? How was it possible to call any Christians Baptist Christians, when all were Baptists?”
—J.M. Cramp, D.D.
<<<<<<< Other Important, Older Confessions>>>>>>>>>>>
The Three Forms of Unity
The Canons of Dort (1619)
The Heidelberg Catechism (1563)
The Belgic Confession (1561)
Older Confessions
The Augsburg Confession (1530)
Formula of Chalcedon (451)
Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creeds (381)
The Apostles’ Creed (350?)
The following gives the original Latin text, with the traditional division into twelve articles, alongside an English translation.
| 1. Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem, Creatorem caeli et terrae, | I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth, |
| 2. et in Iesum Christum, Filium Eius unicum, Dominum nostrum, | and believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, |
| 3. qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine, | who was conceived from the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary, |
| 4. passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus, | who suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried, |
| 5. descendit ad inferos, tertia die resurrexit a mortuis, | descended into hell, rose again from the dead on the third day, |
| 6. ascendit ad caelos, sedet ad dexteram Dei Patris omnipotentis, | ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty, |
| 7. inde venturus est iudicare vivos et mortuos. | who will come again to judge the living and the dead. |
| 8. Credo in Spiritum Sanctum, | I believe in the Holy Spirit, |
| 9. sanctam Ecclesiam catholicam, sanctorum communionem, | the holy Catholic [i.e. “universal” not a denominational reference] Church, the communion of saints, |
| 10. remissionem peccatorum, | the forgiveness of sins, |
| 11. carnis resurrectionem, | the resurrection of the body, |
| 12. vitam aeternam. Amen. | and the life everlasting. Amen. |