Looks like someone beat me to it. This will help me venture further, what else the "Reformed" Baptists got wrong, apart from Christology (they would usually say that Christ's human nature is uncreated), and Paedobaptism (a flawed understanding of covenant on their part).
In case this link is broken, I've saved this site to my library drive.
Already I can see that on the first line, the difference was when LBCF added the line at the very beginning (1.1): The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience. This shows one of the point I've been trying to make against the Fundamentalists: That they do not fully understand the doctrine of revelation (mainly that the revelation itself and the interpretation of revelation are not the same thing) and they cannot fully distinguish the General from the Special revelation. They do not reject the distinction apparently, but it would seem that they are conflating or confused about the two revelations.
1.5 they added to church...church "of God", making me wonder if they belittle the significance of the terms visible vs. invisible churches to the understanding of the terminology. So I looked further, to Chapter 25: of the Church. And indeed, there's lots of modification by the Baptists to avoid such terminology. It seems that the Baptists have huge problem with this entire chapter of 25.