-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
London Baptist Confession of 1689: Do you hold to it?
- Thread starter Dale-c
- Start date
menageriekeeper
Active Member
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.
Adam and Eve according to the plain reading of the scripture had no knowledge of either good or evil. They didn't sin by being naked because they had no concept of sin, not because being naked was an okay thing. The only and I mean only rule that we are told in scripture that God gave them was not to eat the fruit of a particular thing.
They had the capacity for both good and evil, but no knowledge. If good is obedience to God's command and evil disobedience (and I believe that this is clearly taught in scripture) and the only command God gave them was not to eat of the fruit, then how could any other action possibly be sin to them?
Remember, it was immediately after they ate that they realized that being naked, naked as they usually were, was now a bad thing. What changed? God? No, God knew perfectly well they naked and allowed it or they wouldn't have been naked.
What changed was their knowledge. Before they knew there was a difference between good and evil they committed no sin. Not because they never performed a sinful act, but because they simply had no concept that there were other things beside eating that fruit that God considered sin.
menageriekeeper
Active Member
Surely Dale, you don't expect me to place a man written document on the same level as God's own words? Am I to believe that these men were inspired by God in the same manner as Moses, Isaiah or Paul?
Find a better arguement.
Tom Butler
New Member
I'm pretty much in agreement with LCF1789, except the part about the universal church, which doesn't exist.
No Sunday football???
Chapter 22, last paragraph:
The sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering their common affairs aforehand, do not only observe a holy rest all day, from their own works, words and thoughts, about their worldly employment and recreations, but are also taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.
Chapter 22, last paragraph:
The sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering their common affairs aforehand, do not only observe a holy rest all day, from their own works, words and thoughts, about their worldly employment and recreations, but are also taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.
Tom Butler
New Member
Dale-c said:
Nope. I do hold that the NT may use the word "church" in a generic sense, in the same way we refer to the family.
And, there will be a great general assembly in heaven made up of all believers.
But the "universal" church is an imaginary, useless fantasy which has no reason for existence.
Don't mean to derail this discussion. I made my original comment in a remark about the LCF
Of course I don't
The point is that Biblical truth doesn't change.
The LBC was no more written only for the people 400 years ago than the Bible was written only for the people of the day that it was written.
A confession is basically just an elaborate statement of Faith.
True doctrine has NOT changed in the last 400 years, even though there are pleny of false doctrines now.
Surely YOU don't think that God's truths and doctrines have changed over the past few hundred years do you?
menageriekeeper
Active Member
I don't think God has changed one bit. What has changed is man's attitudes toward interpreting God's word. Our last inspired interpreter of God's word was Paul(notice I said interpreter not writer). All who came after were not directly inspired and therefore were not infalliable in their interpretations. There are even things in Paul's writing that he tells us directly are his own opinions.
All taken together a 400 year old document is 400 years short of the knowledge we have available today. Not only, but I still have yet to hear a good explanation of why they thought the Law was written on Adam and Eve's hearts.
All taken together a 400 year old document is 400 years short of the knowledge we have available today. Not only, but I still have yet to hear a good explanation of why they thought the Law was written on Adam and Eve's hearts.
I would strongly disagree that we have 400 years more knowledge when it comes to doctrine.
In fact I think we have 400 more years of corrupted church tradition.
the LBC is not infallible but it is an important document nonetheless.
To say we have available more knowledge of GOd's doctrine today is to say there has been new revelation in the past 400 years which the Bible says there won't be.
In fact I think we have 400 more years of corrupted church tradition.
the LBC is not infallible but it is an important document nonetheless.
To say we have available more knowledge of GOd's doctrine today is to say there has been new revelation in the past 400 years which the Bible says there won't be.
menageriekeeper
Active Member
Good to hear you say so. Now why would I need to hold to any manmade document when it concerns my spiritual life? Is holding on to the scripture not fully sufficient?
Now if you asked if we agreed with all or part of it, I could give a more complete/better answer. There are parts of it that I don't disagree with, though I'm still studying it.
What we have over the past 400 years is more open dialogue about how we interpret scripture. Some good, some bad, but all can helpful. To just stop with one ancient document and say that what is found within is the end all/be all of doctrine is a little short sighted (especially since no one can explain why they thought the Law was written on Adam and Eve's heart. Yes I know I'm harping on a minor point in the doctrine but my Gran always said that if you take care of the minor's the major's will take care of themselves)
(I'm tired tonight and my dyslexia is being a problem. Sorry about any spelling mistakes)
I realize you hold to the Bible. So do I. So do Presbyterians. So do Methodists.
The point is what do you hold that the Bible says?
I am not saying that you have to hold to this particular, though I do for the most part (I say mostly because, like you I am still studying)
It is worth noting that I believed just as you not too long ago.
I am just trying to explain what I have realized what purpose things like this have and why they are important.
We alll have confessions of our faith, some are written, others are not.
His Blood Spoke My Name
New Member
I did like the way the author of the 1689 LBCF worded point 5 in the section entitled, "The Lord's Supper"
Non-alcoholic.
A careful study of the Word of God would prove beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the 'wine' at the Lord's Supper was non-alcoholic. The author was correct in stating that the wine was to remain... as they were before.
Non-alcoholic.
Last edited by a moderator:
The 1689 London Baptist Confession isn't talking about grape juice. Welch's was hardly known at the time, and churches either served wine, or nothing.His Blood Spoke My Name said:
Have you seen a doctor about your addiction to this irrational crusade? Don't give it up all at once or you'll have withdrawal symptoms.
His Blood Spoke My Name
New Member
The Word of God declares the wine at the Lord's Supper to be non-fermented. The 'fruit of the vine' could not be the poison of dragone. It could not be that which bites like a serpent and stings like an adder.
Truth is, the authors of the 1689 LBF were not advocating an alcoholic beverage at all.
Truth is, the authors of the 1689 LBF were not advocating an alcoholic beverage at all.
His Blood Spoke My Name said:
They weren't advocating anything. They simply recognized that the Lord's Supper consists of bread and wine. You can deceive yourself that the NT references to wine meant grape juice because that was 2,000 years ago and nobody is around to testify that you're wrong.
But the LBC is in modern English, and the writers of the LBC 1689 were smart enough to say "grape juice" if they meant "grape juice". They meant wine.
His Blood Spoke My Name
New Member
They were indeed advocating something. They were advocating wine 'as it was before. That wine at the Lord's Supper before was non-alcoholic
God's Word testifies that the wine at the Lord's Supper was not alcoholic.
It is the ultimate authority. It was around at that time.
God's Word testifies that the wine at the Lord's Supper was not alcoholic.
It is the ultimate authority. It was around at that time.
Last edited by a moderator: