Your eschatological view is quite a bit different than mine. I could never agree with the TGC confession for that reason. The section under "The Kingdom" does not make a whole lot of sense to me. For reasons similar to that I could not agree with the older confessions either. It is just simpler to write out what one does believe and leave it at that.
-
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!
Why should the 1689 Confession of faith be used?
- Thread starter Iconoclast
- Start date
- Status
A couple corrections to what you posted.
First, the "judgement" (chapter 32) only records what is consistent with the last judgement of the Revelation. It does not preclude that other judgements (such as the rewards for believers) or the judgements poured out upon the earth. The statement is consistent with the pre-mil views. (Remember, Spurgeon was Pre-mil).
Second, the matter of keeping the Sabbath:
It is unfortunate that the believers must come to terms with the teaching that encourages not having a select day of worship, free of distractions, and given entirely to seeking God.
I am not calling for a Puritan claim that the Sabbath must conform to a certain prescription - I think that it is most hard to support that thinking from Scriptures.
However, there needs to be a day in which the believer devotes solely to the Lord. It matters not what that day is called, but there must needs be a day of rest unto the Lord.
So, in a manner, I agree with you. However, if you neglect that day of "rest" and worship, then I would disagree.
As I posted on another thread, there are areas in which I would desire one change the wording to present consistency with Scriptures.
But those areas are of little importance and not worthy of conflict.
For example this part of the statement on Free Will:
When God converts a sinner, and brings him out of sin into the state of grace, He frees him from his natural bondage to sin and, by His grace alone, He enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good. Nevertheless certain corruptions remain in the sinner, so that his will is never completely and perfectly held in captivity to that which is good, but it also entertains evil.
I do not hold that God remakes or lifts the old will into so state of Grace. Rather, God instills a new nature that includes a new will that causes one to believe.
So, there are minor areas of disagreement, but again, they are not worth the contention, for there is no doctrinal error to be found in either teaching - except that which would teach some prevenient/preceding grace which is not found anywhere in Scriptures.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Exactly! Some have a Statement of Faith to which they adhere. It is no different than a Confession of Faith. A SOF (or Articles of Faith) is simply shorter generally and weaker theologically due to it's cursory nature.
They both (Statement of Faith/Confession of Faith) serve the same exact purpose. But the COF's get ridiculed 'We don't believe in a COF, we believe in the Bible only'! all the while these detractors have a SOF they hold to.
DHK,
Correct. That is one reason each church should stand where they think the bible does. A clear basic statement of what the local church confesses promotes unity.
You would be correct if you looked into the local church that had the 1689 as it's COF and you could not agree to it substantially.....to not become a member.
You would be able to attend, but you would not be allowed to be a member.
Correct. That is one reason each church should stand where they think the bible does. A clear basic statement of what the local church confesses promotes unity.
You would be correct if you looked into the local church that had the 1689 as it's COF and you could not agree to it substantially.....to not become a member.
You would be able to attend, but you would not be allowed to be a member.
"Martin Marprelate,
Correct.....
Correct......BB is an example of that...
.
A common confession promotes unity.
.
Correct.....
Correct......BB is an example of that...
.
A common confession promotes unity.
I found this article;
http://theblog.founders.org/the-new-hampshire-confession/
Doctrinal Challenges Among Early American Baptists
For those following this series (Strange Bedfellows, Truth Compelled Us to Be, Two Roads Diverged), you will recall that we introduced some doctrinal challenges arising from the development of New Divinity thought. We must add to that a brief mention of three other issues that helped mold the Baptist response to early nineteenth century dynamics:
1. Free Will Baptists. Benjamin Randall strongly proclaimed universal love, universal grace, and universal atonement and made special efforts to represent his Calvinist brethren as mere fatalists who had no grounds for affirming true human responsibility.
2. Hyper Calvinism. The anti-mission-society movement was flirting with an American brand of hyper-Calvinism and splitting many associations over the issue of duty-faith and missionary organizations.
3. Opposition to Confessions and Regeneration. Alexander Campbell began his avalanche of criticism of Baptists over their use of confessions, their loyalty to the system of theology in the Philadelphia Confession, and particularly their advocacy of the need for the regenerative operation of the Spirit of God in producing repentance and faith.
Exactly! Some have a Statement of Faith to which they adhere. It is no different than a Confession of Faith. A SOF (or Articles of Faith) is simply shorter generally and weaker theologically due to it's cursory nature.
They both (Statement of Faith/Confession of Faith) serve the same exact purpose. But the COF's get ridiculed 'We don't believe in a COF, we believe in the Bible only'! all the while these detractors have a SOF they hold to.
And any church that does not have an AoF or CoF will not have to worry with me seeking membership.
^^^^^Ditto!^^^^^
There are some statements of faith that are written to be very clear. They describe not only what they do believe (or affirm) but also those doctrines which they stand against. There is some of that in the early confessions (1689) as they make sure that those reading it understand that transubstantiation is wrong. It is very clearly written against. They had to write against the RCC doctrines as that was the major error of the day.
Many of our statements may clarify their position on creation, mllennialism, KJVOism, separation against various movements, (including church and state), a direct statement concerning the Charismatic statement and tongues, etc., There are many issues that are attacking our churches today and the church needs to make their stand very very clear. Does your church make a clear stand against homosexuality. Is it necessary in our society today? Was it necessary in the 17th century? Why the difference?
This is my Associations AoF...
ARTICLES OF FAITH
1. We believe in the one true and living God, and not withstanding there are Three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, yet there is but one in substance, equal in power and glory, not to be divided and impossible to change in principle and practice.
2. We believe the Old and New Testament Scriptures are the true written words of God and were given by inspiration of God and there is a sufficiency in them contained for our instruction and they are the only rule of our faith and practice.
3. We believe the doctrine of original sin, and that man sinned since the fall, and that men are by nature the children of wrath.
4. We believe in the impotency or inability of men to recover themselves out of the state they are in; therefore, a Savior is absolutely needed.
5. We believe that sinners are justified in the sight of God only by the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ.
6. We believe in the perseverance of the Saints. That by grace through faith they are born again and adopted into the family of Heaven; that they will become equal heirs with Jesus Christ in glory, and that He will raise them up at the last day.
7. We believe that Baptism and the Lord's Supper are Gospel Ordinances; that true believers are the proper subjects and we admit no other.
8. We believe that the true mode of baptism is by immersion, to baptize a person by their own consent, back foremost in the water, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
9. We believe that washing of one another's feet is a commandment of Christ, left on record with His disciples, and ought to be practiced by His followers.
10. We believe in the resurrection of the dead and general judgment when all will be judged according to their deeds done in the body.
11. We believe the punishment of the wicked will be everlasting andthe joys of the righteous will be eternal after death.
12. We believe that no one has the right to administer the Gospel Ordinances but such as are legally ordained and qualified there unto.
13. We believe it to be the duty of all church members to attend church meetings, and that it is the duty of the church to deal with them for neglecting same.
14. We believe it to be the duty of all church members to contribute to the support of the church by defraying all reasonable expenses of same, never neglecting the poor, according to their several abilities.
15. We believe that any doctrine that goes to encourage or indulge the people in their sins or cause them to settle down on anything short of saving grace in Christ for salvation is erroneous and such doctrine will be rejected by us.
16. None of the above articles shall be construed as to hold with particular election or reprobation as to make God partial directly or indirectly so as to injure children of man.
17. None of the above articles shall be altered without legal notice and free consent.
We have adopted another that states that marriage is between and man and woman.
Such a statement was not needed in the 17th century confessions of faith.
One cannot simply say that because scripture is timeless the confession of faith never has to change.
Such a statement is foolish and does not take into consideration the culture or the era in which one lives.
We are commanded to watch and warn.
Huh? Srsly? Surely you're saying this in jest? Homosexuality has been around for centuries. Ppl were less tolerant of it then than they are now. Used to be condemned to death many moons ago. Now, we have grown tolerant of it. Not saying we should burn them at the stake, hang them, draw and quarter them, &c., but many moons ago they kept it secret because they knew a noose neck tie was waiting for them.
Sin is sin, and God deals with it His way. The reason why you don't like the 1644 WCoF(though I do not agree with the paedobaptism in that confession) and the 1689 LBCoF is because it adheres to the five points of the Doctrines of Grace...IOW, the five points of Calvinism. That is really why you do not like them.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Yep. Saying 'We believe the Bible' is not enough.
I want to see this new improved SOF as well.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Here it is:
- The Kingdom of God We believe that those who have been saved by the grace of God through union with Christ by faith and through regeneration by the Holy Spirit enter the kingdom of God and delight in the blessings of the new covenant: the forgiveness of sins, the inward transformation that awakens a desire to glorify, trust, and obey God, and the prospect of the glory yet to be revealed. Good works constitute indispensable evidence of saving grace. Living as salt in a world that is decaying and light in a world that is dark, believers should neither withdraw into seclusion from the world, nor become indistinguishable from it: rather, we are to do good to the city, for all the glory and honor of the nations is to be offered up to the living God. Recognizing whose created order this is, and because we are citizens of God’s kingdom, we are to love our neighbors as ourselves, doing good to all, especially to those who belong to the household of God. The kingdom of God, already present but not fully realized, is the exercise of God’s sovereignty in the world toward the eventual redemption of all creation. The kingdom of God is an invasive power that plunders Satan’s dark kingdom and regenerates and renovates through repentance and faith the lives of individuals rescued from that kingdom. It therefore inevitably establishes a new community of human life together under God.
The deliverance of believers here and now from the kingdom of darkness, to the kingdom of God's beloved Son, Colossians 1:13? The obeying of the commands of the people of God within this kingdom; John 10:27?
The above portion of the TGC is quite clear to me and apparently to others. Why is it not clear, or, why does it not make sense to you? The Scriptures given support what it states.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
So your SoF or AoF or however you label it is more elaborate than the 1689 CoF? There are no doctrines that are 'more relevant to our day'. Scripture and truth have always been relevant in all ages, and have never increased in relevance at any given time, nor have these truths waned at any given moment in history.
Truth is always truth and times don't change that, so there was not a time it was less relevant (17th century) or more relevant (21st century) as you imply. You're going ad lib and are off track.
- Status