No, it couldn't be Modalism because of the distinctions recorded in Scripture between the Father and Son and Spirit (actual verses).
There is no verse that declares that the Holy Spirit is God, but it is possible to look at Acts 5:3-4 and see that the Deity of the Spirit is 'necessarily contained' within those verses. There is no verse that declares that the Lord Jesus Christ is 100% Man and 100% God, but when we compare Scripture with Scripture we see that this truth is 'necessarily contained.'
I don't hold the 1689 Confession as an authority for my faith. That is what I am trying to tell you, brother. We have very different presuppositions. When I study Scripture my goal is to see what is written apart from what I believe may be implied.
Then we have exactly the same view. If I looked at 'what I believe may be implied, I would not be holding to the 1689 Confession,
would I?
You, however, believe what is contained in your tradition (what you and the system you have chosen to follow) is equal to what is written and treat these traditions as if they were Scripture itself (because, to you, they are).
I believe that the whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scriptures, to which nothing is to be added at any time, either by new revelation or by the traditions of men, so if I believed in any sort of tradition, I would not be holding to the 1689 Confession,
would I?
What happens is that we end up at an impasse because we hold two very different things as our authority. You can appeal to the 1689 Confession, tradition
I have never appealed either to the 1689 Confession or to 'tradition.
for what I believe and what you believe is implied in God's Word. I am restricted to Scripture alone.
So am I, or I would not be adhering to the 1689 Confession
would I?
There are places where our beliefs overlap, but your method is by definition eisegesis and there are areas where your "interpretation" will rely on presuppositions I've rejected.
Being confessional by definition precludes eisogesis. Unfortunately Sol
o Scriptura very frequently does not.
Yours is a dangerous method of reading Scripture. I'm not saying it is wrong to have beliefs or opinions that are extra-biblical. We all do that.
@TCassidy explained how he believes God's command to Adam was temporary. But he does not go so far as to say this is Scripture itself. You, however, reject his ideas in favor of the "Covenant of Works". BUT you believe your idea is Scripture itself (is implied).
@TCassidy 's position is not in the Bible (it is a theory, and he may be correct). He can hold to sola scriptura. You cannot because you hold your traditions (even if they were correct) as being equal with what is written (Scripture).
Your problem is that you have not the faintest idea about what being confessional means and therefore you are just spouting your offensive venom not merely at me (as if I cared) but at Benjamin Keach, C.H. Spurgeon and a whole host of others who held to Sola Scriptura precisely because they held to the great confessions. The Covenant of Works is clearly present in Scripture, but unfortunately your own presuppositions prevent you from seeing it.
