God's Ten Commandments in the "Baptist Confession of Faith" and other affirmations

[BobRyan]

The problem is the board he is on currently will ban posters for mean spirited nothing-but-vitriol nothing but acrimony posts. So now he has a problem - he needs to find "substance" ... and he is someone that agrees with Spurgeon and Baptist Confession of Faith section 19.


Bad news:
he is pretty desperate - he needs something other than low-brown name calling.


Good news:
I have come here to ask that you guys have mercy on him and give him some actual substantive help in your posts so then name-calling "out".. on that board. Vitriol, ad hominem, acrimony "worthless" on that board - he can't use any of it. He needs actual logic ... details... something compelling in a debate.

I made this appeal on behalf of someone on another board who came here desperate to find a substantive argument he could use - one without false accusation, vitriol or name calling so that he could post it without being banned from that other board. (A board that in some ways is Catholic owned and operated as I have been told recently).

He needed substantive fact -- something that would hold up on a board not open to all-vitriol and factless accusation.

 

[The Biblicist]

So then just stating the obvious.

1. Every Christians discussion board on the planet includes the idea that not everone will agree on every single point. Rather they will agree on common ground and differ - where they differ. Obviously.

The London and Philadephia Confessions are not discussion boards where DISAGREEMENT are made manifest but is a UNIFIED statement of faith that ALL parties agree.

And the proof of that factless accusation is???

As usual... awol... missing...

Are factless and false accusations -- absent all evidence, going to be the final retreat for those timid posts (timid posts that dance around almost affirming section 19???)

I gave you the facts - their own application of the law in regard to thier doctrine of justification:

._____ Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing Christ's active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in his death for their whole and sole righteousness by faith, which faith they have not of
themselves; it is the gift of God - Justification section one



The SDA could never agree with THIS LANGUAGE of the Law of God in regard to justification.

 

[BobRyan]

I gave you the facts - their own application of the law in regard to thier doctrine of justification:

Hint: I quoted section 19 of the "Baptist Confession of Faith" and also of the "Westminster Confession of Faith" -- are you on the same page at all when you make false accusations about my reference to section 19??

If so - can you show that with an actual quote of something in section 19??

A fact in support of your false accusation about my affirmation of section 19??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

From the OP -- section 19 quoted "again" for those struggling to find a single part of it that I misquote or fail to affirm in the 6 points where I claim to affirm it.


Originally Posted by BobRyan
"BAPTIST Confession of Faith" section 19.

Meanwhile --

[FONT=&quot]Links that remain as of today[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc01.html[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc19.html[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]As revised by Spurgeon 1855[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bcof.htm[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bcof.htm#part19[/FONT][/FONT]
======================

The "Baptist Confession of Faith" - Section 19:

C.H. Spurgeon's edition of the "Baptist Confession of Faith" -- [FONT=&quot]CH Spurgeon[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

“The Perpetuity of the Law of God”
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]Very great mistakes have been made about the law. Not long ago there were those about us who affirmed that the law is utterly abrogated and abolished, and they openly taught that believers were not bound to make the moral law the rule of their lives. What would have been sin in other men they counted to be no sin in themselves. From such Antinomianism as that may God deliver us. We are not under the law as the method of salvation, but we delight to see the law in the hand of Christ, and desire to obey the Lord in all things. Others have been met with who have taught that Jesus mitigated and softened down the law, and they have in effect said that the perfect law of God was too hard for imperfect beings, and therefore God has given us a milder and easier rule. These tread dangerously upon the verge of terrible error, although we believe that they are little aware of it.

Section 19 of the "Baptist Confession of Faith" .

Section 19
. The Law of God

• God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience which was written in his heart, and He gave him very specific instruction about not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. By this Adam and all his descendants were bound to personal, total, exact, and perpetual obedience, being promised life upon the fulfilling of the law, and threatened with death upon the breach of it. At the same time Adam was endued with power and ability to keep it.

• The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the Fall, and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai in the TEN COMMANDMENTS, and written in two tables, the first four containing our duty towards God, and the other six, our duty to man.

• Besides this law, commonly called the moral law, God was pleased do give the people of Israel ceremonial laws containing several typical ordinances. These ordinances were partly about their worship, and in them Christ was prefigured along with His attributes and qualities, His actions, His sufferings and His benefits. These ordinances also gave instructions about different moral duties. All of these ceremonial laws were appointed only until the time of reformation, when Jesus Christ the true Messiah and the only lawgiver, Who was furnished with power from the Father for this end, cancelled them and took them away.

• To the people of Israel He also gave sundry judicial laws which expired when they ceased to be a nation. These are not binding on anyone now by virtue of their being part of the laws of that nation, but their general equity continue to be applicable in modern times.

The moral law ever binds to obedience everyone, justified people as well as others, and not only out of regard for the matter contained in it, but also out of respect for the authority of God the Creator, Who gave the law. Nor does Christ in the Gospel dissolve this law in any way, but He considerably strengthens our obligation to obey it

==============================

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I gave you the facts - their own application of the law in regard to thier doctrine of justification:

._____ Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing Christ's active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in his death for their whole and sole righteousness by faith, which faith they have not of
themselves; it is the gift of God - Justification section one

.

You quote section 11 of the "Baptist Confession of Faith" -- did you find a post from me on this board showing how many of the points from section 11 I also claim to affirm -- the way I show 6 points from section 19 I affirm?

Even 1 such post??

Is this bait-and-switch "the best" you have for an accusation - a false accusation about section 19 and my affirmation of the 6 points listed?

Outside readers will want to know.

Have you considered posting a timid affirmation of section 19 yourself?? Or are you leaving the repeated bold affirmation to ...wait for it... SDAs! So that when DHK slams the "Baptist Confession of Faith" it is only I will defend it on this section of BB??

 

[DHK]

Have you considered posting a timid affirmation of section 19 yourself?? Or are you leaving the repeated bold affirmation to ...wait for it... SDAs! So that when DHK slams the "Baptist Confession of Faith" it is only I will defend it on this section of BB??

Why do you beat this dead horse?
Biblicist already affirmed your position:

Bob, your problem is that you do not accept the full understanding and belief of those confessions in regard to the Ten Commandments, but you simply pick and choose what suits you while ignoring the overall context of their statements. I could do the same with the SDA confession of faith, but what would that prove? Nothing, except that I jerked a certain point out of the overall context of their fuller explanation of that subject.

Hence, all one has to do is read the fuller context concerning justification and regeneration in regard to the Ten Commandments in these confessions to easily see you are perverting what they believe just to suit your own purposes.

Picking and choosing out of the context of those who you think agree with, when the actually don't is not honest, and all who read these threads know that very well.
Very few people think that the SDA movement is mainline; most consider it a cult. It is a cult primarily because of its insistence to keep the Sabbath, and you are demonstrating that more and more by your persistence of that on this board and in this thread in particular. The more you post, the more you demonstrate to the world this cultish aspect of the SDA. The world's denominational factions that make up all of Christendom or more than 20% of the population of the world disagree with you, and you are doing a good job of cementing their beliefs, not changing them.

 

[BobRyan]

the verbatim quote of section 19 looks like this

The "Baptist Confession of Faith" - Section 19:

C.H. Spurgeon's edition of the "Baptist Confession of Faith" -- [FONT=&quot]CH Spurgeon[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

“The Perpetuity of the Law of God”
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]Very great mistakes have been made about the law. Not long ago there were those about us who affirmed that the law is utterly abrogated and abolished, and they openly taught that believers were not bound to make the moral law the rule of their lives. What would have been sin in other men they counted to be no sin in themselves. From such Antinomianism as that may God deliver us. We are not under the law as the method of salvation, but we delight to see the law in the hand of Christ, and desire to obey the Lord in all things. Others have been met with who have taught that Jesus mitigated and softened down the law, and they have in effect said that the perfect law of God was too hard for imperfect beings, and therefore God has given us a milder and easier rule. These tread dangerously upon the verge of terrible error, although we believe that they are little aware of it.

Section 19 of the "Baptist Confession of Faith" .

Section 19
. The Law of God

• God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience which was written in his heart, and He gave him very specific instruction about not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. By this Adam and all his descendants were bound to personal, total, exact, and perpetual obedience, being promised life upon the fulfilling of the law, and threatened with death upon the breach of it. At the same time Adam was endued with power and ability to keep it.

• The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the Fall, and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai in the TEN COMMANDMENTS, and written in two tables, the first four containing our duty towards God, and the other six, our duty to man.

• Besides this law, commonly called the moral law, God was pleased do give the people of Israel ceremonial laws containing several typical ordinances. These ordinances were partly about their worship, and in them Christ was prefigured along with His attributes and qualities, His actions, His sufferings and His benefits. These ordinances also gave instructions about different moral duties. All of these ceremonial laws were appointed only until the time of reformation, when Jesus Christ the true Messiah and the only lawgiver, Who was furnished with power from the Father for this end, cancelled them and took them away.

• To the people of Israel He also gave sundry judicial laws which expired when they ceased to be a nation. These are not binding on anyone now by virtue of their being part of the laws of that nation, but their general equity continue to be applicable in modern times.

The moral law ever binds to obedience everyone, justified people as well as others, and not only out of regard for the matter contained in it, but also out of respect for the authority of God the Creator, Who gave the law. Nor does Christ in the Gospel dissolve this law in any way, but He considerably strengthens our obligation to obey it

==============================================

that is the easy part.

the 6 out of 7 claim looks like this --



1. That the Sabbath Commandment is first given to mankind in Gen 2:1-3
2. That all mankind was obligated by the TEN commandments in the OT and to this very day.
3. That the seventh day as the Sabbath was Saturday the seventh day of the week from Gen 2:1-3 until NT times - including at the cross.
4. That the Ten Commandments are the moral Law of God
5. That the moral law of God is written on the heart under the New Covenant
6. that the Ten Commandments as the moral law of God are in no way opposed to grace and the Gospel.
7. That the Sabbath commandment can rightly be BENT by man-made-tradition to point to week-day-1 after the cross.

I agree with 6 out of 7 as listed above - and yet many who post against God's TEN commandments object to all of the points listed above. And sometimes they will even go on to complain that so many of the points above are in agreement with my position and opposed to the war-against-the-Ten-Commandments position.

===============================

So now the objective is to either agree with that or else find actual facts that you show regarding disagreement.

Actual facts "shown" that could be used by someone on another board - who agrees with Spurgeon but would dearly love to have some sort of factual, compelling substantive argument against my post - the mods there will ban him for nothing but a name-calling vitriol ad hominem post (I think they will let him have two of those - but they delete them and then after the 2nd one ban him for a short period of time).

So bottom line is he needs something "substantive".

You guys seem to be leaving it up to me to find an argument for him - but we all know that is just not going to happen,. you guys have to do this.

Hint: Ad populum is not the same thing as proving that anything I have said is actually incorrect - you need a fact about statements posted.

Name calling cult this ... sec that.. etc -- it is all worthless on that other board. So you need to raise up the level of discourse just enough to find some substantive help for that guy. To his credit he found this board and this subject / thread on his own. But is not getting much help so far.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Biblicist already affirmed your position:

.

If he did I missed it -- is it on some other thread?

it looks like he too would like to make some sort of accusation that sticks - but he can't do it from the actual section 19 material apparently.

Which is a little bit of a defeat for him since I think the whole point is to claim I have done something evil in my verbatim quote of Section 19 and then my 6 out of 7 list.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

If he did I missed it -- is it on some other thread?

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2187821&postcount=66

Read my post again. Perhaps you misunderstood me. I quoted Biblicist. It is in my post. He confirmed his views about you in that post, that you have it all wrong concerning Moody, et.al. You deliberately misrepresent them.
My statement was not complimentary. Read the post again.

 

[BobRyan]

Please point to some place where Biblicist says "I fully accept section 19 of the Baptist Confession of Faith" or "I accept section 19 of the Baptist Confession of Faith".

All you did was point to a post where Biblicist whines about SDAs and makes false accusations - but never says what he actually believes when it comes to section 19.

So far on this thread I see Biblicist quoting section 11 only as if he affirms/believes it.

What did I miss?

This should be pretty simple.

It appears that those who affirm section 19 (Whoever they are - perhaps too timid to state their affirmation) -- choose not to defend it against your arguments - leave it to me - leave it to SDAs to defend it... That is pretty sad.

 

[BobRyan]

The "logic" opposing my views so far.

1. Those who like DHK claim to oppose ALL of section 19 - Baptist Confession of Faith -- (or at most accept 1 point in the 7 point list depending on the post that you read)

A response that argues some Bible texts (when you can find such a post) against section 19 while at the same time claiming section 19 should not be argued here on BB as if Baptists such as DHK cared about it, since he only cares to attack SDAs, and is not Calvinist.

This response loves to "pretend" that SDAs are the only ones that agree with 6 of the 7 points in section 19 - so attacking those 6 points is only attacking SDAs.

2. Those who dance around agreement with section 19 - but want to complain about my affirmation - in a way that points to no specific detail in my quote of section 19 as being in error??

A response that is loaded with false accusations with no facts cited from section 19 regarding their complaints of my affirmation of it.

3. Those who ask for "repeated links" from the OP and "more information" from the OP

 

[DHK]

Please point to some place where Biblicist says "I fully accept section 19 of the Baptist Confession of Faith" or "I accept section 19 of the Baptist Confession of Faith".

You do with my words what you do with Moody's, the C of F's, and various other people and documents--twist, take out of context, etc.
Notice what I said to you:

Biblicist affirms your position. Then I quoted him from here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2187443&postcount=58

Where he says:
YOUR PROBLEM IS....

He affirms your position has a problem; a problem that everyone of us know about. I have quoted that problem above. Note it well.

 

[BobRyan]

In recent days I have repeatedly made an appeal on this board - on behalf of someone on another board who came here wanting to find a substantive argument he could use against my quote of Section 19 of the "Baptist Confession of Faith" and or the "Westminster Confession of Faith".

He appears to like or endorse what Spurgeon teaches... maybe even section 19 so tossing Spurgeon under a bus is not going to meet his requirement.

He is not looking for run-of-the-mill low-brow false accusation, vitriol or name calling. Rather he needs a substantive compelling argument -- sans all the ad hominem that people often resort to when they have no real answers. ad hominem that the other Board rules claim they will not tolerate.

He needed substantive fact -- something that would hold up on a board having rules not open to all-vitriol and factless accusation.

It is only fair that this board help out since it was a Baptist poster here that first pointed me to the "Baptist Confession of Faith" -- you have certainly had more time to think about a good response. And I believe he could use it.

 

[DHK]

In recent days I have repeatedly made an appeal on this board - on behalf of someone on another board who came here wanting to find a substantive argument he could use against my quote of Section 19 of the "Baptist Confession of Faith" and or the "Westminster Confession of Faith".

He appears to like or endorse what Spurgeon teaches... maybe even section 19 so tossing Spurgeon under a bus is not going to meet his requirement.

He is not looking for run-of-the-mill low-brow false accusation, vitriol or name calling. Rather he needs a substantive compelling argument -- sans all the ad hominem that people often resort to when they have no real answers. ad hominem that the other Board rules claim they will not tolerate.

He needed substantive fact -- something that would hold up on a board having rules not open to all-vitriol and factless accusation.

It is only fair that this board help out since it was a Baptist poster here that first pointed me to the "Baptist Confession of Faith" -- you have certainly had more time to think about a good response. And I believe he could use it.

The very first Baptist distinctive, the most important premise on which we base our faith--"The Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine."

You come bearing other documents, sources, etc.
We have no other authority but the Bible. I have been telling you that from day one. You won't accept it. If our basis is not the Word of God we have nothing in common. Case closed.

 

[Yeshua1]

In recent days I have repeatedly made an appeal on this board - on behalf of someone on another board who came here wanting to find a substantive argument he could use against my quote of Section 19 of the "Baptist Confession of Faith" and or the "Westminster Confession of Faith".

He appears to like or endorse what Spurgeon teaches... maybe even section 19 so tossing Spurgeon under a bus is not going to meet his requirement.

He is not looking for run-of-the-mill low-brow false accusation, vitriol or name calling. Rather he needs a substantive compelling argument -- sans all the ad hominem that people often resort to when they have no real answers. ad hominem that the other Board rules claim they will not tolerate.

He needed substantive fact -- something that would hold up on a board having rules not open to all-vitriol and factless accusation.

It is only fair that this board help out since it was a Baptist poster here that first pointed me to the "Baptist Confession of Faith" -- you have certainly had more time to think about a good response. And I believe he could use it.

The SDA claims to be the true faithful remnant church of God, that their prophetess had additional revelations from god, that one MUST keep the Sabbath to be really saved, and that salvation is baseds upon our good works, as it is not eternally secured...

CULT

 

[BobRyan]

The SDA claims to be the true faithful remnant church of God, that their prophetess had additional revelations from god, that one MUST keep the Sabbath to be really saved, and that salvation is baseds upon our good works, as it is not eternally secured...

Sadly those details did not solve your problem on this irrefutable thread - regarding God's TEN Commandments and how even your own pro-sunday scholars affirm the very Bible texts you are so at war against.

i think you were hoping that name-calling would ease your dilemma -- but as you can see you only dig that hole deeper by that method.

Like my new signature line?

 

[BobRyan]

The very first Baptist distinctive, the most important premise on which we base our faith--"The Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine."

You come bearing other documents, sources, etc.
We have no other authority but the Bible. I have been telling you that from day one. You won't accept it. If our basis is not the Word of God we have nothing in common. Case closed.

I quote you in my posts - I quote the "Baptist Confession of Faith" and the "Westminster Confession of Faith" and "D.L. Moody" in my posts as well.

Not because I think they are always right -- but even you have been known to get something right now and then - how much more those other sources??

I think we can all see that point.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

I quote you in my posts - I quote the "Baptist Confession of Faith" and the "Westminster Confession of Faith" and "D.L. Moody" in my posts as well.

Not because I think they are always right -- but even you have been known to get something right now and then - how much more those other sources??

I think we can all see that point.

in Christ,

Bob

You just don't get it. You are not making any point at all, at least not to me.
Moody was a Congregational evangelist.
Your other sources are all Calvinist which I disagree with.

In my previous post I made it clear that are most important distinctive is that the Bible is our final authority. Thus your comparisons are fruitless. Baptists by nature are autonomous. They are not "denominational." Why do you continue to bang your head against a brick wall? :BangHead:

 

[BobRyan]

Not everyone opposes the "Baptist Confession of Faith" and the "Westminster Confession of Faith" and "D.L. Moody" and "R.C. Sproul" and Matthew Henry and all the Bible texts affirming the "Commandments of God" even calling the TEN Commandments the "Commandments of God".

As you point out - "some do" oppose all that.

I started this thread giving you "your due" by pointing out that some people are at war with all 7 points listed.

So pretending like I am not accounting for that sliver of the pie - is not at all correct.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Not everyone opposes the "Baptist Confession of Faith" and the "Westminster Confession of Faith" and "D.L. Moody" and "R.C. Sproul" and Matthew Henry and all the Bible texts affirming the "Commandments of God" even calling the TEN Commandments the "Commandments of God".

As you point out - "some do" oppose all that.

I started this thread giving you "your due" by pointing out that some people are at war with all 7 points listed.

So pretending like I am not accounting for that sliver of the pie - is not at all correct.

in Christ,

Bob

No, the Catholic Church would agree with you too.
So what!!