Compare and Contrast Two of the Baptist Confessions Essay

Compare and Contrast Two of the Baptist Confessions - Essay Example Baptist confessions are within the grand framework of history and salvation. Hence the baptismal rule is not the rationale ‘after the fact’, but baptism’s innate basis (Garrett 2009: 64). It implies that the church practices baptism not on its own scheme and power, but in deference to its God. Nevertheless, the baptismal rule not merely establishes baptism but provides it its essence. Hence baptism on the authority of the Lord is not merely a procedure, similar to others for carrying out baptism; it is instead a confession of the internal content and theological and historical foundation of baptism (Garrett 2009). Furthermore it is the pledge and epiclesis of deliverance, not as sheer rite, and definitely not as a sacrament working supernaturally (Brackney 2004); but in the authority of this commanding pledge, baptism acquires its authority to bring about salvation. The baptismal sacrament was an essential foundation for the creation, and growth, of confession of the faith. Baptism was, similarly, connected to the ‘catechumenate’ as initiation into the life of the church and faith (Garrett 2009: 664). The churches emerging from the evangelist movement have relived this association; it has become meaningful for the European independent churches in distinct ways. Because of the separation of the culture from Western churches, the revival of the ‘catechumenate’ (Garrett 2009: 664) has presently turned out to be significant for the being and continued existence of the early churches. This paper discusses the similarities and differences between two Baptist confessions, namely, the First London Baptist Confession of 1644-1646 and the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689. Comparing and Contrasting the First and Second London Baptist Confession In the analysis of the 1646 Westminster Confession and the 1689 Second London Confession, it can be discerned that there is an emphasis given to God’s law concisely inter preted in the Mosaic Law of Moses as a principle of life for the follower. In contrast, the emphasis of the 1644 First London Confession is on the rules of the New Covenant, or Christ’s commandments (n.a. 1981). Basically, even though these two confessions have crucial similarities with regard to the steadfast nature of the perpetual moral command of God, there is a different New Covenant focus regarding biblical rules in the two versions of the First London Confession (Long 2003), specifically, noticeably absent in the Old Covenant stress of the Second London Confessions. The aforementioned difference between the First and Second London Confession has significant theological repercussions in interpreting both the function of biblical commandments as the moral principle of God or commandment for the life of the follower within the New Covenant, and for interpreting the connection of God’s commandment to Christ’s gospel (Brackney 2004); hence, the current explana tion for the revision of the First London Confession. The issue suddenly comes out: the historical explanation for the adoption of the Second London Confession instead of the First by the Particular Baptist churches. If the First and Second London Confession are basically the same, then what is the purpose for the creation of the latter? The explanation rests in the events surrounding the collapse