London Baptist Confession of 1689: Do you hold to it?

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

rbell.

This thread is about the 1689 LBF and if we hold to it.

Views have been brought up by many who have disagreed and agreed.

I pointed out that the wine mentioned in the LBF was referring to wine in the recognition of the Lord's Supper was to be 'wine as it was before'. It was non-alcoholic before, so I agreed with this Chapter of the confession concerning the Lord's Supper.

I do however disagree with Chapter 26... the Catholic Church being the elect.

 

[rbell]

fine....I thought the discussion was good...I just didn't want this thread to get "stuck" on one item...

 

[npetreley]

I do however disagree with Chapter 26... the Catholic Church being the elect.

I don't know if you have a problem with "catholic" or "elect". If it's "catholic" that's just another word for universal. It doesn't mean the church in rome headed by the pope.

I don't want to belabor the point, but you have no right to take liberties with the language of the LBC. There is a comma after "wine". It is not saying "wine as it was before". It is saying, "they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before." In other words, the bread and wine are not magically transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ, as was believed by the Catholics. It has nothing to do with "as they used in NT times".

The outward elements in this ordinance, duly set apart to the use ordained by Christ, have such relation to him crucified, as that truly, although in terms used figuratively, they are sometimes called by the names of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ, albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before.

 

[rbell]

I do however disagree with Chapter 26... the Catholic Church being the elect.

agreeing with npetreley...it's catholic (church as a whole, universal) with a lowercase "c." Not the Roman church.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

I don't know if you have a problem with "catholic" or "elect". If it's "catholic" that's just another word for universal. It doesn't mean the church in rome headed by the pope.

I don't want to belabor the point, but you have no right to take liberties with the language of the LBC. There is a comma after "wine". It is not saying "wine as it was before". It is saying, "they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before." In other words, the bread and wine are not magically transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ, as was believed by the Catholics. It has nothing to do with "as they used in NT times".

Nor does it mean that the wine was alcoholic 1500+ years prior to the LBF being written. Since the Word of God proves it was not alcoholic, I believe the Word of God.

 

[Rippon]

BSMN : tackle a different area . You are quite wearisome on the same old subject of wine/grape juice . Comment on specifics in the 1689 that pertain to soteriology , the Church , sanctification or something --- ANYTHING ELSE !

 

[npetreley]

Although I like the LBC very much, I do think it goes too far in some areas. For example, I don't think we can assume the following exactly as it is worded, and it's not necessary to be that specific:

Although God created man upright and perfect, and gave him a righteous law, which had been unto life had he kept it, and threatened death upon the breach thereof, yet he did not long abide in this honour;

Who was given the righteous law? Adam? The Bible doesn't say that. Would the OT law have given life if man kept it? I don't think so. Jesus pretty much said it was a watered down version of God's righteousness. So this just doesn't sit right with me.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

BSMN : tackle a different area . You are quite wearisome on the same old subject of wine/grape juice . Comment on specifics in the 1689 that pertain to soteriology , the Church , sanctification or something --- ANYTHING ELSE !

Wine is one of the issues in the LBCoF, Rippon.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

Although I like the LBC very much, I do think it goes too far in some areas. For example, I don't think we can assume the following exactly as it is worded, and it's not necessary to be that specific:


Who was given the righteous law? Adam? The Bible doesn't say that. Would the OT law have given life if man kept it? I don't think so. Jesus pretty much said it was a watered down version of God's righteousness. So this just doesn't sit right with me.

This post pretty much agrees with mk's post. That the only law give to Adam before the fall was not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

 

[rbell]

I do however disagree with Chapter 26... the Catholic Church being the elect.

Elaborate on this...

understanding that "catholic" means "universal," do you still have a problem with chapter 26?

 

[npetreley]

If it were wrong after the fall why wouldn't it have been wrong before the fall? Sin is sin. This difference is in what Adam and Eve understood about sin.

Not really. Adam and Eve were innocent. Nakedness becomes wrong when you go around naked knowing that it will ignite the lust of people who aren't innocent. I'm guessing (only a guess, folks) that they were ashamed because they lost their innocence and saw nakedness in a whole different way. I think the question was, "who told you that you were naked?" They weren't aware of their nakedness when they were innocent because there was nothing about which to be ashamed. (again, a guess)

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

Elaborate on this...

understanding that "catholic" means "universal," do you still have a problem with chapter 26?

Too many use the word 'elect' too loosely. Not everyone who is mentioned as being 'of Christ', or 'a believer' is said to be elect.

For instance, Paul never referred to himself as 'elect'.
Also, I might add that in one of the epistles to Timothy, we learn there are 'elect angels'.

Just some thoughts.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

Not really. Adam and Eve were innocent. Nakedness becomes wrong when you go around naked knowing that it will ignite the lust of people who aren't innocent. I'm guessing (only a guess, folks) that they were ashamed because they lost their innocence and saw nakedness in a whole different way. I think the question was, "who told you that you were naked?" They weren't aware of their nakedness when they were innocent because there was nothing about which to be ashamed. (again, a guess)

Agreed here. If nakedness were a sin before the fall, God would have clothed Adam and Eve then.

 

[Dale-c]

Too many use the word 'elect' too loosely. Not everyone who is mentioned as being 'of Christ', or 'a believer' is said to be elect.

For instance, Paul never referred to himself as 'elect'.
Also, I might add that in one of the epistles to Timothy, we learn there are 'elect angels'.

Just some thoughts.

So, are you saying that there are some who are saved who are not elect or simply some who are never mentioned that they are elect?

Oh, and Paul WAS one of the elect.

 

[rbell]

Too many use the word 'elect' too loosely. Not everyone who is mentioned as being 'of Christ', or 'a believer' is said to be elect.

For instance, Paul never referred to himself as 'elect'.
Also, I might add that in one of the epistles to Timothy, we learn there are 'elect angels'.

Just some thoughts.

That offers some clarity...your issue is not with the term "catholic" as much as the usage of "elect."

 

[menageriekeeper]

Not really. Adam and Eve were innocent. Nakedness becomes wrong when you go around naked knowing that it will ignite the lust of people who aren't innocent. I'm guessing (only a guess, folks) that they were ashamed because they lost their innocence and saw nakedness in a whole different way. I think the question was, "who told you that you were naked?" They weren't aware of their nakedness when they were innocent because there was nothing about which to be ashamed. (again, a guess)

I can't disagree with this and think the main difference in our opinions is only semantics.

I also agree that it is impossible for man in his present condition to fully keep the Law, that is why we need a Savior. So what makes the difference between us now and Adam before the fall? Can we really assume that the Law was written on Adam's and Eve's hearts or is it a better idea to believe that Adam and Eve were simply created without the knowledge of sin?

On another subject, out of my own curiosity, does elect always equal predestined to folks that hold to Calvanism? I'm seeing the terms used almost interchangably in a some of these C/A threads and I'd like some clarification.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

So, are you saying that there are some who are saved who are not elect or simply some who are never mentioned that they are elect?

Oh, and Paul WAS one of the elect.

Scripture please?

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

2 John 1:1 KJV 2 John 1:1 The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth

John did not even call himself elect in this verse, he only referred to himself as 'The elder'.

Why not 'elect elder'?

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

mk,

Some definitions say 'elect' means all of those who are saved.

1) picked out, chosen 1a) chosen by God, 1a1) to obtain salvation through Christ

1a1a) Christians are called "chosen or elect" of God 1a2) the Messiah in called "elect", as appointed by God to the most exalted office conceivable

Some definitions point to only certain ones out of the saved.

choice, select, i.e. the best of its kind or class, excellence preeminent: applied to certain individual Christians

I tend to believe 'elect' applies only to certain individuals for the reasons I have already pointed out. Neither Paul, nor John called themselves elect, but they addressed others as elect.

 

[J.D.]

Not really. Adam and Eve were innocent. Nakedness becomes wrong when you go around naked knowing that it will ignite the lust of people who aren't innocent. I'm guessing (only a guess, folks) that they were ashamed because they lost their innocence and saw nakedness in a whole different way. I think the question was, "who told you that you were naked?" They weren't aware of their nakedness when they were innocent because there was nothing about which to be ashamed. (again, a guess)

I think you're right on track. They were not conscious of being naked while in innocence. When they became conscious of sin (they knew good and evil), their conscience condemned them, and they experienced guilt. I don't think, as many do, that the "real" sin they committed was sexual in nature, but I suppose that's possible.

Anyway, it's all a figure of our guilt before God. Man, aware of his guilt, is urged by his guilt to seek a covering. The last thing fallen man wants is to stand "naked" (all secrets revealed) before God. So man invents a covering called false (self-righteous) religion. When God saves a person, He tears away the covering of false religion and replaces it with true religion - a covering of "skins"; metaphorically, the "skin" of Christ, by which we may stand in God's presence.