Do yopu hold that a Christian, or a church, cannot stay faithful to the Lord without having Confessions and Creeds?
And Does God being sovereign mean that He directly determined all things that came to pass?
-
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!
Thumbs up or thumbs down...and WHY?
- Thread starter Iconoclast
- Start date
Do yopu hold that a Christian, or a church, cannot stay faithful to the Lord without having Confessions and Creeds?
And Does God being sovereign mean that He directly determined all things that came to pass?
Yeshua1
I will answer this when you respond to post 85 where I asked you to back up your statements:thumbsup: I did not see any response....
Yeshua1
Quote:
The Confessions are the attempted of godly men to understand and explain what the doctrines God gave to us in the Bible are, but they must NEVER be elevated to the place where those explainations are said to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit, nor that those Confessions are on par with the Bible itself!
can you show one example where any of these men even begin to suggest this? If you cannot you really are not saying anything. The confessions themselves state that is not the purpose. Have you ever read any of the confessions yourself....or are you just going on second hand ideas?
Quote:
Some seem to almst would have them like Rome views tradition, equal to the sacred scriptures!
Show where this happens...give an example, cut and paste at least one or two.
Quote:
If I want to know who God is, what His atrributes are, i MUST go to the bible, not to ANY Conessions/Creeds/dtatement of faith. cathchism etc!
As if the men who wrote these teachings did not do that? they were godly men who spent many hours carefully wording these documents....I think you have not read them based on what you post.
You claim you go to "the Bible'...but when KYRED asks you to offer any scripture...you never do....why is that?
__________________
I will answer this when you respond to post 85 where I asked you to back up your statements:thumbsup: I did not see any response....
Yeshua1
Quote:
The Confessions are the attempted of godly men to understand and explain what the doctrines God gave to us in the Bible are, but they must NEVER be elevated to the place where those explainations are said to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit, nor that those Confessions are on par with the Bible itself!
can you show one example where any of these men even begin to suggest this? If you cannot you really are not saying anything. The confessions themselves state that is not the purpose. Have you ever read any of the confessions yourself....or are you just going on second hand ideas?
Quote:
Some seem to almst would have them like Rome views tradition, equal to the sacred scriptures!
Show where this happens...give an example, cut and paste at least one or two.
Quote:
If I want to know who God is, what His atrributes are, i MUST go to the bible, not to ANY Conessions/Creeds/dtatement of faith. cathchism etc!
As if the men who wrote these teachings did not do that? they were godly men who spent many hours carefully wording these documents....I think you have not read them based on what you post.
You claim you go to "the Bible'...but when KYRED asks you to offer any scripture...you never do....why is that?
__________________
Last edited by a moderator:
Just stating that at times, it appears that some who use the Confessions would equate that using them is the only way to be surer and condfinent in what the Bible actually teaches?
And aren't baptists sola scripture?
Yeshua1
Who are you actually talking about?
Who are the "some" you speak of?
Do you know any person that you see...face to face who is a confessional believer?
Which confession did they use?
What exactly did they say about it?
In what way did they say this? To interact we need to know.
again,
What do you mean by this term....sola scriptura...explain that term as you understand it?
If a Baptist is sola scriptura...what 2-3 ideas does that speak of?
I have a reason I am asking for clarification.:thumbsup:
Who are you actually talking about?
Who are the "some" you speak of?
Do you know any person that you see...face to face who is a confessional believer?
Which confession did they use?
What exactly did they say about it?
In what way did they say this? To interact we need to know.
again,
What do you mean by this term....sola scriptura...explain that term as you understand it?
If a Baptist is sola scriptura...what 2-3 ideas does that speak of?
I have a reason I am asking for clarification.:thumbsup:
I have posted with others, who have stated that they cannot see how a Christian or a church can stay true to right doctrines if they did NOT hold to the Confessions of faith
And I hold that baptists hold that the Bible ALONE is where we derive our doctrines/practices from!
Take 100 independent Baptist churches - everything from SBC, FWB, ABC, GARBC, IFB ect, ect... - and look at their individual doctine statements.
You will find many differennces - ......
And I'm sure that most non-Baptist denominations believe that also.
Yeshua1
before it was "some"...now others? So in other words...you do not know someone who you speak with face to face who uses a confession of faith..but you have a vague notion that someone you posted with might have said these things
nebulous
synonyms: indistinct, indefinite, unclear, vague, hazy, cloudy, fuzzy, misty, blurred, blurry, foggy;
So if that is how you get your teaching...from the bible alone...where did you get this idea of sola scriptura....sounds like a latin phrase that I have not seen in the bible??? Where is this in the bible?
maybe you know this phrase from the 5 solas of the reformation...in which confessional believers taught it?
and just maybe the first sentence of all the confessions basically start with this which I posted in post 21 which you read.....why do you think I put it in big letters?
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
[Yeshua1
look again
You repeat this but this statement is meaningless in that none of the writers claimed they were infallible. Read...okay I will post it here..because I am not sure you have ever read it;
1. The Holy Scriptures
1. The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.
Although the light of nature and the works of creation and providence manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God so much that man is left without any excuse, they are not sufficient to provide that knowledge of God and His will which is necessary for salvation.
Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in divers manners to reveal Himself, and to declare His will to His church;
- and afterward, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church, protecting it against the corruption of the flesh and the malice of Satan and the world,
- it pleased the Lord to commit His revealed Truth wholly to writing. Therefore the Holy Scriptures are most necessary, those former ways by which God revealed His will unto His people having now ceased.
All of them start this way...stating that the scriptures alone are the rule of faith and practice......
so it is up to you to demonstrate otherwise or not post as you have.
,
before it was "some"...now others? So in other words...you do not know someone who you speak with face to face who uses a confession of faith..but you have a vague notion that someone you posted with might have said these things
Without a direct quote this is very;
nebulous
synonyms: indistinct, indefinite, unclear, vague, hazy, cloudy, fuzzy, misty, blurred, blurry, foggy;
!
So if that is how you get your teaching...from the bible alone...where did you get this idea of sola scriptura....sounds like a latin phrase that I have not seen in the bible??? Where is this in the bible?
maybe you know this phrase from the 5 solas of the reformation...in which confessional believers taught it?
and just maybe the first sentence of all the confessions basically start with this which I posted in post 21 which you read.....why do you think I put it in big letters?
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
[Yeshua1
look again
You repeat this but this statement is meaningless in that none of the writers claimed they were infallible. Read...okay I will post it here..because I am not sure you have ever read it;
1. The Holy Scriptures
1. The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.
Although the light of nature and the works of creation and providence manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God so much that man is left without any excuse, they are not sufficient to provide that knowledge of God and His will which is necessary for salvation.
Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in divers manners to reveal Himself, and to declare His will to His church;
- and afterward, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church, protecting it against the corruption of the flesh and the malice of Satan and the world,
- it pleased the Lord to commit His revealed Truth wholly to writing. Therefore the Holy Scriptures are most necessary, those former ways by which God revealed His will unto His people having now ceased.
All of them start this way...stating that the scriptures alone are the rule of faith and practice......
so it is up to you to demonstrate otherwise or not post as you have.
convicted1
Guest
Why do I have this feeling this is a baiting question? But I'll attempt to answer this the best way I know how.
Absolutely, God does indeed have control over sin. Look back at the Garden for instance. We see that God had control over:
1) The environment
2) Adam and Eve
3) The serpent
4) The consequences of their sin
2) Adam and Eve
3) The serpent
4) The consequences of their sin
1) God had control over the environment because He created it, and it was good, and very good. He gave them everything they needed, including the Tree of Life. However, He also placed in there with them, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, that as soon as they ate of it they died spiritually, and their physical death would follow afterwards. If He had not commanded them to NOT eat of that Tree, then there would have been no transgression. So He controlled sin there.
2) God made Adam in His likeness and after His image. He placed within him the breath of life and he became a living soul. He then saw it wasn't good for him to be alone, so He made Adam a helpmate. After the fall, God covered them with a coat of skins, and drove them out of the Garden. Later on they died. He could have stopped them before they fell, but for whatever reason unbeknownst to us, He didn't stop them. So He had control of them, too.
3) The Serpant was there with them in the Garden. How he got there, the bible doesn't say. Did God place him there? Did he sneak in? Regardless, God didn't exclude him entrance into the Garden. He could have kept that Serpant out, but again, only reasons known to Him, He didn't. He did curse him, and told him what the ramifications of his misdeeds were. So He had control of the Serpant, too.
4) I think I answered this in all the all three topics.
I am sure you'll disagree with this, but if there's anything you need me to express plainer...I tend to "muddy up" posts, please let me know, and I'll see if I can clear it up.
IC was asked if God has to be controlling / determining to be in control. My question was based on that question. If He must be controlling, He is the one who desired and made man sin. No way around that. Your post hints toward God allowing it, not determining it.
convicted1
Guest
The thing is, Brother webdog, regardless Him "pushing it" or "stepping aside" and allowing it, He's in control, no? He had to have a desire for it, if not, He would not have allowed sin to begin with, imo...
To say He desired it is false. That is to say He had an impure thought. There is a huge difference in allowing sin and actively decreeing it. The latter is sin in itself, it is the action contrary to the law.
This us what happens in your new doctrine, lines get blurred and right and wrong become fuzzy.
Webdog
There is nothing wrong with Con1's doctrine.He is trying to help you....you are trying to catch him in his words:thumbsup:
This is a flawed question and not a yes or no question to begin with.
God is God. He does not "have to do anything" to be controlling. So your question based on the first question is void.
Nothing at any time is outside of God's control as every fact is a created fact. God gives meaning to every part of His creation.
God being God and possessing all of His perfect attributes precludes anything existing apart from His knowledge and control. Any such question is a denial of one or more of His Holy attributes.
There is nothing wrong with Con1's doctrine.He is trying to help you....you are trying to catch him in his words:thumbsup:
This is a flawed question and not a yes or no question to begin with.
God is God. He does not "have to do anything" to be controlling. So your question based on the first question is void.
Nothing at any time is outside of God's control as every fact is a created fact. God gives meaning to every part of His creation.
God being God and possessing all of His perfect attributes precludes anything existing apart from His knowledge and control. Any such question is a denial of one or more of His Holy attributes.
It is a yes or no question. The effort you are going through to avoid answering it speaks volumes.
God does not have to do anything to "be the God who is in control"
Perhaps you can answer the question asked in post 3....as you are not welcoming my answer...and I will respond . If you cannot answer that question you really do not have a question that is valid from a biblical standpoint.
I have offered a valid answer if you understand God's revealed attributes.
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
No, it isn't a "yes or no question." Those who insist it is are committing the fallacy of the false dichotomy.
"Is the light on" is a yes-or-no question. "Is the wire red or blue" is an either-or question. Is it "an African or a European Swallow" is an either-or question. However, a question on the ways of God when "His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are higher than our thoughts" cannot be a yes-or-no or an either-or question.
The Archangel
convicted1
Guest
If there wasn't a desire for sin to exist, then God would have not allowed it to come to fruition to begin with, imo. To say God doesn't have control over sin....not saying you're saying that, btw....is to deny His omnipotence.
I think this highlights how we all do not understand near enough about God's revealed attributes. We hear of them...but maybe with being busy with the cares of this life...we do not give ourselves to a prayerful meditation on some of the teaching as we rush off to the next thing.
Psalm 139 King James Version (KJV)
139 O lord, thou hast searched me, and known me.
2 Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off.
3 Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways.
4 For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O Lord, thou knowest it altogether.
5 Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.
:wavey::thumbsup:
Correct Brother.....God would no longer be God as revealed in scripture....not a light thing
Wrong, its not about Gods ways, its about force vs allowance while being in control of the outcome. At any rate it us your doctrine that forces our ways onto how God does things. The fallacy is "for God to be in control He must determine all"