Second London Confession: Holy Scripture (2)

This is not to say that the Westminster Confession does not use the term "infallible," for it does, as a hermeneutical approach to Scripture. "The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself (WCF I.9). The Second London Confession says the same thing. However, when comparing the two confessions, the Second London Confession uses infallibility to describe the character of Scripture. Thus the confession opens with these words: The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallibile rule of all saving Knowledge, Faith, and Obedience (SLC I.1).

The reason for the Baptist affirmation of the infallibility of Scripture has nothing to do with an attempt to show doctrinal superiority over the Westminster Confession, but rather to address contemporary matters in English theology.

Second London Baptist Confession: Holy Scripture

The most obvious difference between the Westminster and the Second London Confession is found in the opening sentence of the Second London Confession: The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and the infallible rule of all saving Knowledge, faith, and Obedience. In the Westminster standards, this concept is not explicitly discussed. However, if the question is not raised outright, it is implied in the Westminster standards. Following Calvin's views, the Westminster Confession contrasts God's revelation in nature and creation, with his revelation in Scripture (WCF I.1). Natural, creation revelation is not "sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will which is necessary unto salvation." God, therefore, gave the Scriptures "to declare...His will unto His church" and to better preserve and propagate the truth. Scripture is thus a better means of God's revelation. It is sufficient to give the knowledge of God and His will that leads to salvation. If it is sufficient, it is at least by implication, trustworthy, which is an acceptable synonym for "infallible."

The London Baptist Confession of 1689 and the Westminster Confession of Faith

For my Th.M. thesis at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia, I wrote a comparison of the London Baptist Confession of 1677/1689 and the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646. At the heart of the thesis was a harmony of the two confessions, laboriously typed on a portable typewriter by my wife. The thesis explored the differences between the confessions as suggested by the harmony. The point of the thesis was to argue that the Second London Confession was a confession in its own right, and not just a Baptist recension of the Westminster Confession as Philip Schaff suggested. I will be trying, as time and energy permit, to publish in this blog the material from my thesis that supports this argument.