Here in America the Philadelphia Confession and The New Hampshire Confession are the old mainstays.  But they were largely patterned after much earlier confessions.  Within the reformed Baptist Community however, we go much further back to the three London confessions the 1689, the 1646 and the 1644.   I am including the two earlier Confessions on this site, (the 1644 and 1646) because they are the scarcer of the three, and in my opinion the better of the three.  The 1689 was actually the first ecumenical Baptist Confession, designed to bridge the gap between the Presbyterians, the Reformed Anglicans and and the Baptists who were previously considered to be separatists and doctrinal heretics by the Covenant Theology crowd.   So the 1689 was an ecumenical statement drawn up to draw the Baptist community into the pale of the then mainstream English protestantism.   It is almost a word for word transcription of the great Westminster Confession, but this, I believe is it's unforgivable weakness and error.   Baptist had always been separatists for a reason, and the reason is that they by and large rejected the unscriptural tenants of Covenant Theology.    I am not saying there were no baptist prior to 1689 who embraced  Covenant Theology.  Indeed there were some Baptists of that ilk.    But by and large, those Presbyterian doctrines, were usually only embraced by the more strict followers of Calvin, and the dutch reformed people, and not in general by the Baptist separatists.  In fact most of the Baptist's of that period were not Calvinists at all.   Some were, but they did not call themselves "Reformed", they called themselves "Particular Baptist's",  meaning that they believed in the doctrines associated with Particular Atonement.  By using that term, they could disassociate themselves from the Reformed people,  who persecuted them and wanted to drown them for their rejection of infant baptism, and their insistence on immersion.  And they were able to embrace the Doctrines of Grace or the Five Points, without embracing all the rest of Calvin's  mistakes.   They wanted to be followers of Christ and the Bible, not followers of Calvin, the Reformation, or the creeds.  This is a simple concept, that is uniquely baptist, and many dear Baptist's were martyred for these principles.  They knew, that according to the ensconced religious community, they were the heretics,  but so be it.

Well, I'm afraid that the 1689 Confession blurred the lines of distinction between the genuine Baptistic distinctives, tenants which have no agreement at all with Presbyterianism, and have caused us even today, to think that there is very little difference between a reformed Baptist and a Presbyterian.  That blurring and confusion is abhorrent and unacceptable.   Baptist's are not Presby's, or Anglican's,  and we need to admit the horrible mistake of the 1689 ecumenical confession, and get back to our Baptist roots.  

This is my opinion, but many others are beginning to see the same things and are realizing, that if we do not identify with the Baptist distinctives, we will all be converting to baby sprinkling in short order.  I was recently in a very large Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) service, and the pastor stated that the denominational figures were in, and that in the last 5 years, more Baptist pastors, have converted to and sought  Presbyterian ordination,  than at any prior time in their history.   The number was in fact surprising.   Think about this!  Baptist pastors are becoming Presbyterians in droves!   That is a travesty against Christ, the Bible, and the historic differences, which Baptist's, (especially baptist pastors), ought to know.   We are not Presby's, and we need to know why,  we need to show them why, and not convert to their errors!   They are wrong, and will always be wrong, unless they drop their unholy traditions which came with Calvin direct from Rome.   So if you are a Baptist Please read the two older baptist Confession which I have on this site.  It's time for all Baptists  to quit dancing a jig to the music of Covenant Theology, and start following our Forefathers in Sola Scriptura.

This one is the successor to the previous Confession, with some minor updating and changes.  Many churches prefer this one,  because the 1644 says virtually nothing about eschatology,  whereas this one ends with a statement about Christ's return.   To me they are both excellent, and the tendency to over emphasize eschatology, is a modern trend, and not a Biblical one.  Christ is certainly coming again, and we need to know that and be prepared to meet Him when he does, but beyond that,  most theology surrounding eschatology, is highly speculative and questionable.  The old time Baptist's tended to avoid it seeing the errors in their cousins the Mennonites.

                                                                            CLICK TO READ   

The Union Truths, sometimes called the Identification Truths are a series of important doctrines closely intertwined with the doctrine of Baptism and the doctrine of Sanctification.   This strong Baptist opinion shows why Covenant Theology is linked to Paedobaptism, and why the Paedobaptist form of Calvinism is deficient in a correct view of sanctification and in the truth of believers baptism by immersion.   Contrary to the popular trend to blur lines of demarcation and differences between Baptist's and Presbyterians,  this article take a hard line Baptist stance,  and insists that the Presby's are wrong, and shows you why.  This also argues for Baptists to maintain Baptist distinctives and to quit using the London Baptist Confession of 1689, which is nothing but a re-baptized version of the Westminster Confession, with all her Covenant Theology Errors.  Baptist need to remain Baptists, and understand why the Presby's are not reformed enough to be representatives of genuine New Testament Christianity.    CLICK HERE

Do not be confused by the term New Covenant Theology.  It does not mean that this is a new form of Covenant Theology.  It is not.  It means that this is Theology which is strictly based on the New Covenant of Jesus Christ, which extends from His teachings and redemptive works, all the way till the end of this world and the establishment of the new heaven and new earth.  This theological system insists that the New Covenant interprets the Old and never the other way around.

New Covenant Theology answers the mistakes of both traditional Covenant Theology and Dispensational Theology, by offering a third theological system which is itself based on the plain Bible concept of an Old Testament and a New Testament.  Not only is this system the easiest to understand of the three theological frameworks, it is also the most scriptural, adhering closely to the teachings of the New Testament, as the inspired interpreter of the Old Testament.  This is a very important study.

Summary

Predestination is a debated topic. Yet the Bible is clear about the doctrine of election and its importance to our perspectives on God and man, and the nature of their contributions to salvation. 

Because of the widespread neglect of this doctrine, many people cite  Chosen By God  not only as their introduction to Dr. Sproul’s teaching, but also as the resource that profoundly shifted their attention to an understanding of the predestining grace of God. Dr. Sproul shows how election is entirely compatible with human freedom, dignity, and responsibility. One of Ligonier’s most significant and popular books, Chosen by God  shows why all serious Christians cannot afford to ignore this important biblical doctrine, but instead should embrace God’s initiative in Salvation.

Some of the simplest truths are the hardest to understand.  This is particularly true with the "Universal" salvation passages.  All seldom means all without exception.  This chart shows the correct view of one such universalistic passage 1Cor. 15:22.

                                       CLICK HERE

This article answers this common objection to Calvinism, in an easy to understand and scriptural manner.  Perhaps you have asked this very question.  When you read this, you will rest assured that there is no  contradiction between the sovereignty of God and the validity of  secondary causes.  CLICK HERE