Featured Why should the 1689 Confession of faith be used?

Confessions are usually produced for a particular reason. The 1689 Confession was actually written in 1677 at a time of persecution for dissenters (John Bunyan 12 years in prison). It's aim was to highlight areas of unity between Bible-believing Presbyterian, Congregational and Baptist churches without glossing over their differences. It may be that such a time will shortly come upon us again.

Of course, neither the compilers of the WCF or the 1689 Confession ever dreamed that 'marriage' between people of the same sex would one day come to pass. I think it entirely appropriate for churches to add a codicil to the Confession to cover 21st Century issues.

 

I know you posted this to DHK. However, I would seek to understand a particular area that has puzzled me as to application.

There is no problem with the statement itself. It is the lack of application.

What does "doing good to all" actually mean?

The early framers of the C of F held that the church would reform society until ultimately Christians controlled all the world. But the Kingdom of God is not of this world, and will never be made up of the heathen social/political groupings of this world, nor will it even attempt to be until the Lord returns and removes all such groupings.

So, until then, what does "doing good to all" actually mean and how is it to be demonstrated both by individual believers and by the assemblies?




BTW, perhaps DHK's reluctance to agree with the document is perhaps that he hasn't come to thoroughly read through it with an eye of looking for areas of agreement and discerning specifically what areas need to be modernized. Perhaps his reluctance is more from a blanket disagreeableness to anything "Calvinistic" - an automatic bias against. That same infection that is also found in some of the "Calvinist" who are so particularly hard core as to have a problem even among themselves as to who is the more extreme.

I do agree that his point about needing to address modern issues is vital to the church, and perhaps there are areas that this document needs to have added - not anything taken away. Sort of like amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

 

Did Bunyan ever sign onto that Confession? One cannot help but notice his church's glaring absence from the 1689 Assembly!

 

Bunyan was "open communion" and the framers of the document were adamantly opposed and excluded any that were "open."

Bunyan would have agreed with the document, but he was not part of the framers and excluded from supporting.

By 1689, Bunyan was doing most of his work trying to bring reconciliation and was greatly saddened because he saw that the church was not going to rule the nation. He spent his ministry trying to prepare the believers to ascend into leadership and rule, and when he found that the efforts had been in vain, he felt he had wasted much of his ministry time. The assemblies were splitting, and often were so contentious that exclusivity was more the rule than Scriptures. Besides after the 1689 persecutions, the gathering of pastors and assembly deacons pretty much ended. So, the document was probably given little attention by Bunyan. Records are not real clear from what I have read on the matter.

 

Huh? Bunyan died in 1688.

 

Homosexuality, lesbianism, transgender(ism), are wickedly being written into a pubic school sex-ed course to be mandated for all students to take. Marriage is not between a man and a wife any longer. They are taught otherwise. Our government, justices, and school systems say otherwise. Yes, it is of utmost importance, not just for our children's sake but for the sake of government intrusion, the attacks of the ACLU, Human Rights Commissions, varying atheists groups, etc., to have a clear written statement in one's constitution/statement of faith so that your church does not get shut down on a principle of discrimination. That was not a problem in the 17th century.

1. It doesn't addresses the current issues of the day--example given above.
2. It is contrary to the theology I believe: as one current theologian put it: "post mil and amil positions are the dinosaurs left over from the 19th century resistant to change."
3. I am non-Cal, a dispensationalist. Obviously I don't agree with it.
4. I don't agree with any of its eschatological position.
5. I don't agree with its statements on the "Sabbath Day."
6. There are some statements on baptism that I do not agree with.

Why would I accept a Confession of Faith that I do not agree with?
This is one of the most foolish things a person could ever do.

 

What part do I not agree with?

The kingdom of God is not present. The world we live in is Satan's domain. He is the god of this world. Christ does not rule this world. His Kingdom is yet to come. And it will in His time not yours, not the CofF, or any other document's say so.
I believe what the Bible says about prophecy not some dusty Confession of Faith. If Satan's Kingdom has been plundered by Christ's Kingdom why were there 34 people killed and over a hundred others inured in Brussels by ISIS?
That is not the Christ I know. When Christ sets up his Kingdom he will rule with a rod of iron, and those type of things will not and cannot happen. But this is Satan's rule, and it is quite obvious that this Satanic attack was not of Christ, or do you attribute this evil to God????????????????

 

If you want an example just google "Independent Fundamental Baptist Churches." You will find hundreds of websites, almost all of which have a statement of faith. I don't have the time to type it out for you.

 

Is truth always relevant to you?
Let's test that theory out?

Here is a verse of Scripture. You tell me its meaning and how it is relevant to you in this day; today.

1 Chronicles 26:18 At Parbar westward, four at the causeway, and two at Parbar.

 

When you deny Jesus reigning now, when the kingdom of God is not yet a reality, what else can you expect?

 

I expect an admission of truth from you. If Jesus was ruling now Isis would not be committing the atrocities they are committing including genocide of Christians in Syria.

 

Was God ruling when Satan throttled Job?

Again, not to derail the thread, but Satan is god of the world...IE...the unbelievers. If Satan rules as you say he does, he is our god, too. Youse nose?

 

Truth is relevant to you SG because you know how to post silly images on the internet??
What a wonderful application of the Bible. No wonder you spiritualize the Bible.
What does salvation mean to you? It must have some mystic meaning as well??

 

God allowed Satan to have his way with Job just as God in his sovereignty is allowing Satan to have rule over this world. But you won't admit that inspite of what the Bible says.

 

Is Obama your god? He rules over you?

 

Yet Satan only goes as far as He allows him to go. That does not mean he rules the world. God rules the world AND Satan.

 

Obummer does not rule over anyone. He acts as a representative of the USA. He could get impeached. God can not be impeached.

Apples to school buses.

 

I agree with what the bible says.

I just loathe you twisted, perverted, and convulted ideology of Satan being god of the world in the manner you say he does.

He is ruler of the lost. They are the ones blinded to the gospel. The world he is god of is the lost ppl.

 

May I suggest a perusal of Habakkuk 1:5-11, especially noting the first line of verse 6?