Featured Why should the 1689 Confession of faith be used?

But then do you not contend with DHK when he states that Satan is the God of this world?

As far as he having no "rule" over a believer, that may not be exactly correct, either.

For example, the church was told by Paul to:

I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
​

The "destruction of the flesh" shows that Satan retained such authority, even over certain believers.

The believer's war is not just this flesh.

The war of the worlds takes place not only in the flesh but in the heavenly

12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.​

I would caution the reader to not think that the list (rulers, powers, world forces, spiritual forces) are not just as active here on this earth as in the "heavenly places." The equipping of the believers for battle takes place even while we reside in this place. The world rulers who stand against believers are themselves ruled by the "prince of this world."

That in no way diminishes the Sovereignty of God. Rather it is demonstrated in the parable of the man who gave charge of the land to the keepers. When he required of them what was due, they abused the messengers and even killed the son. The conclusion of the story is:

9 What will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the vine-growers, and will give the vineyard to others. 10 Have you not even read this Scripture:

‘The stone which the builders rejected,
This became the chief corner stone;
11 This came about from the Lord,
And it is marvelous in our eyes’?”​

Now I understand the story was a parable concerning the religious rulers, but the fact is they were the rulers. Just as Satan is the ruler in today's market. The authority and division of labor are held accountable by God. What will the owner of the vineyard do? He will one day remove Satan, physically bind him and all his influence away from this earth. That hasn't happened, but will when "He will come and destroy the vine - growers, and give the vineyard to others." This is done at the return of Christ and the giving is done during the time of the millennium.

 

Please pick this up in the thread in the Cal/Arminian forum. We've already this thread enough. Thank you.

 

What does that have to do with your disagreement with the simple statement that "you can't adopt what you don't believe" ??? I believe it was on page 1 if you forgot where you did it.

 

He doesn't like the answer given and he never will. If it disagrees with his stance he will not accept it, only argue with it. Consider the OP, and the answers given:

The OP is very simple. It asks this question:

I gave a simple answer in post 8, still on the first page:
One cannot adopt a document they don't agree with.

My answer, as usual, was questioned. I clarified it in post 10
This thread is on the 1689 Confession of Faith which I do not agree with.
Have you read Chapter 32, "On the Last Judgment"? Do you agree with it? I don't.
I know OR does. But I don't believe that the saved will be judged at the Great White Throne Judgment, neither do I believe that the angels will be judged at that time. I believe there is more than one judgment.

It was one area of disagreement, an example of: "one cannot adopt a document they don't agree with."

Five posts later, in post 15, I added to the conversation:
That is another area I couldn't agree with.
...perpetual commandment, binding all men, in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a e sabbath to be kept holy unto him, which from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ was the last day of the week, and from the resurrection of Christ was changed into the first day of the week, fwhich is called the Lord’s day: and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath,...
I don't believe the Bible teaches any such thing.

This is a second area of disagreement. One cannot adopt a document they don't agree with.
Instead of accepting this position, it is simply contended and argued.

Finally, in post 46, I make my position very clear. I had already read the confession in its entirety.
I know that it is NOT relevant in many areas today. Thus I posted:

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.

And yet my position, though clearly stated, will still not be accepted because they simply do not agree. But it does answer the OP.
Why not accept the Confession? One cannot accept that which they don't agree. That is why.

 

A difficulty with any view is when it meets with disagreement(s).

There is much in the document that I can agree with.

I don't think the judgement part is a problem for a pre-mil person other than it doesn't address fully the last days. But then it wasn't ment to, but only point to the final solution, which pre-mil folks do have agreement at least in part.

The Sabbath is typical Puritan thinking and is not constant with any assembly that would hold to that document in this age. I dare say that the records might indicate The Sabbath section is a problem more about ideals than ideas in this age.

Where you and I disagree is those areas in which one might label Calvinistic.



DHK, when contending might I suggest that you leave the word "you" out of your responses. It will make your posts far better and more direct to the response.

For example: Rather than posting,"Your view isn't my view," try something like, "In comparison to a view that (insert the thinking of someone), my view is ...."

It will help old folks to get a better grasp on the particulars you are putting forth, and help keep our thinking focused.

 

Pretty well stated. Yes, he is god of the world. But he only rules over(lords) over his. God reigns over His ppl. There are two kingdoms here now. The kingdom of darkness and kingdom of Light.

 

I generally agree with what you say, but in the last point fail to see how, at the end of this age, the kingdom awaits "the full consummation of the kingdom." To me this implies things are getting better and better, when in fact the opposite is true. Not only are they getting worse and worse, Paul described that there would be a "falling away" from the truth, and Jesus himself exclaimed that When he comes 'Will I find faith'? (But then, I am not sure that is what you mean).

Somewhat, but there are some here that argue since there is a spiritual kingdom now in this present world, then that negates any possibility of a future kingdom, the future Kingdom of Christ. Why aren't both possible? Christ is coming again, isn't he?

I can agree with that if by the latter phrase you mean "the Millennial Kingdom."

I have been reading a book by Hershel H. Hobbs, "The Baptist Faith and Message." In 1963 he was the president of the SBC and on the committee appointed to study the 1925 statement that expressed the Baptist Faith and Message. Their committee in 1963 adopted and reaffirmed it, but also suggested a written interpretation of the document be prepared. Hobbs was the one that did it, and the result was this 150 page book I am now slowly reading through as I have the time.

In response to the passage you quoted on the Kingdom, Hobbs says:

So while God’s sovereignty over the natural universe is presented in the New Testament, the major emphasis is placed upon God’s reign in the hearts of all who receive Jesus Christ as Savior. Jesus sought to guard against the idea of an earthly territorial kingdom. “Neither shall they say, Lo here! Or lo there! For, behold, the kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17:21). But evidently the thought is that the kingdom of God is not an observable political unit; it is the reign of God among/within men. Some Baptists and others see Jesus at His return reigning on earth for a thousand years. One’s position at this point is not a test of orthodoxy among Baptists.

So, in truth, the kingdom may be seen as having come when the King appeared; it is coming in the sense of being established in believers’ hearts; it will come in final consummation at the Lord’s return. Jesus taught that the kingdom is here. He taught His disciples to pray for the kingdom to come, and that at the end of the age the king will come in great power and glory.

So, yes there is a spiritual kingdom which is of Christ.
But this physical realm, the cosmos is "of Satan," and we live in it. He is the god of this world.

Lester Roloff used to sing:
It’s a battlefield, brother, not a recreation room.
It’s a fight, it’s not a game.
So run if you want to, run if you will,
But I came here to stay.

 

DHK, I agree that the kingdom is coming with Christ, but it will come in its fullness. However, I see the kingdom being here now, as well.

However, being amill, I don't see a literal reign here on earth. But, wherever He is to set it up is okay with me. I just want to be with Him in eternity.

 

Why are you a-mil?

Does not the Scriptures clearly teach that Christ WILL rule this world as the King of Kings?

That Scriptural characteristics of the rule then are not the same as how He is dealing with human kind at this time.

If you take the Scriptures statements that concern is first coming, including his death, at face value, why not take the rest of the prophetic statements in that same manner?

Certainly you are wiser than a friend of mine who decided to be a-mil because he thought that was what reformed people are supposed to hold as their preferred eschatology. He has trouble thinking for himself.

 

The bible states the elements will melt with fervent heat. It says this world will pass away with a great noise. The heavens will roll like a scroll, &c. I see it that when He returns, terra firma and the universe will be disolved and new heaven and earth will be here as we dwell with Him.

 

Well, I believe we're in the midst of that millennium right now.

 

No you don't! You don't believe in a millennium!

 

So then the millennium must be some 4000 years of which we are in the midst now. Interesting. So you're making a prediction? Roflmao Laugh

 

It seems the 1,000 years is more figurative than literal. TBS, wherever Christ is I want to be. If it's in the midst of earth, I'll be happy.

 

Yes. When you hear a trumpet and see Him in the cloud. That's my prediction.

 

Mark Dever, "Which Confession":