Why should the 1689 Confession of faith be used?

[Martin Marprelate]

Although I think you are somewhat off in viewing the value of these older confessions, I do believe you make a valid point about 21st century issues. That is why I also agree w/ the BF&M 2000 along with other statements like the one on Gender, Sex, and Marriage.

Confessions are usually produced for a particular reason. The 1689 Confession was actually written in 1677 at a time of persecution for dissenters (John Bunyan 12 years in prison). It's aim was to highlight areas of unity between Bible-believing Presbyterian, Congregational and Baptist churches without glossing over their differences. It may be that such a time will shortly come upon us again.

Of course, neither the compilers of the WCF or the 1689 Confession ever dreamed that 'marriage' between people of the same sex would one day come to pass. I think it entirely appropriate for churches to add a codicil to the Confession to cover 21st Century issues.

 

[agedman]

Here it is:

1. 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.

Which part(s) do you disagree with? ...

I know you posted this to DHK. However, I would seek to understand a particular area that has puzzled me as to application.

There is no problem with the statement itself. It is the lack of application.

What does "doing good to all" actually mean?

The early framers of the C of F held that the church would reform society until ultimately Christians controlled all the world. But the Kingdom of God is not of this world, and will never be made up of the heathen social/political groupings of this world, nor will it even attempt to be until the Lord returns and removes all such groupings.

So, until then, what does "doing good to all" actually mean and how is it to be demonstrated both by individual believers and by the assemblies?




BTW, perhaps DHK's reluctance to agree with the document is perhaps that he hasn't come to thoroughly read through it with an eye of looking for areas of agreement and discerning specifically what areas need to be modernized. Perhaps his reluctance is more from a blanket disagreeableness to anything "Calvinistic" - an automatic bias against. That same infection that is also found in some of the "Calvinist" who are so particularly hard core as to have a problem even among themselves as to who is the more extreme.

I do agree that his point about needing to address modern issues is vital to the church, and perhaps there are areas that this document needs to have added - not anything taken away. Sort of like amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

 

[Jerome]

The 1689 Confession was actually written in 1677 at a time of persecution for dissenters (John Bunyan 12 years in prison).

Did Bunyan ever sign onto that Confession? One cannot help but notice his church's glaring absence from the 1689 Assembly!

 

[agedman]

Bunyan was "open communion" and the framers of the document were adamantly opposed and excluded any that were "open."

Bunyan would have agreed with the document, but he was not part of the framers and excluded from supporting.

By 1689, Bunyan was doing most of his work trying to bring reconciliation and was greatly saddened because he saw that the church was not going to rule the nation. He spent his ministry trying to prepare the believers to ascend into leadership and rule, and when he found that the efforts had been in vain, he felt he had wasted much of his ministry time. The assemblies were splitting, and often were so contentious that exclusivity was more the rule than Scriptures. Besides after the 1689 persecutions, the gathering of pastors and assembly deacons pretty much ended. So, the document was probably given little attention by Bunyan. Records are not real clear from what I have read on the matter.

 

[Jerome]

By 1689, Bunyan was doing most of his work trying to bring reconciliation and was greatly saddened because he saw that the church was not going to rule the nation.

Huh? Bunyan died in 1688.

 

[DHK]

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.

Homosexuality, lesbianism, transgender(ism), are wickedly being written into a pubic school sex-ed course to be mandated for all students to take. Marriage is not between a man and a wife any longer. They are taught otherwise. Our government, justices, and school systems say otherwise. Yes, it is of utmost importance, not just for our children's sake but for the sake of government intrusion, the attacks of the ACLU, Human Rights Commissions, varying atheists groups, etc., to have a clear written statement in one's constitution/statement of faith so that your church does not get shut down on a principle of discrimination. That was not a problem in the 17th century.

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.

1. It doesn't addresses the current issues of the day--example given above.
2. It is contrary to the theology I believe: as one current theologian put it: "post mil and amil positions are the dinosaurs left over from the 19th century resistant to change."
3. I am non-Cal, a dispensationalist. Obviously I don't agree with it.
4. I don't agree with any of its eschatological position.
5. I don't agree with its statements on the "Sabbath Day."
6. There are some statements on baptism that I do not agree with.

Why would I accept a Confession of Faith that I do not agree with?
This is one of the most foolish things a person could ever do.

 

[DHK]

Here it is:

1. 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.

Which part(s) do you disagree with? The transforming power upon believers mentioned, which all believers experience; note 2 Corinthians 3:18ff, or do you disagree that all believers according to the Scriptural passage provided experience this?

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.

What part do I not agree with?

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 kingdom of God is not present. The world we live in is Satan's domain. He is the god of this world. Christ does not rule this world. His Kingdom is yet to come. And it will in His time not yours, not the CofF, or any other document's say so.
I believe what the Bible says about prophecy not some dusty Confession of Faith. If Satan's Kingdom has been plundered by Christ's Kingdom why were there 34 people killed and over a hundred others inured in Brussels by ISIS?
That is not the Christ I know. When Christ sets up his Kingdom he will rule with a rod of iron, and those type of things will not and cannot happen. But this is Satan's rule, and it is quite obvious that this Satanic attack was not of Christ, or do you attribute this evil to God????????????????

 

[DHK]

The 1689 does deal with those issues.
You have been asked to produce the one your church uses.
You are not ashamed of your statement of faith are you?
You have indicated it is an improvement on the older ones.....let's see it then so we can learn from it.

If you want an example just google "Independent Fundamental Baptist Churches." You will find hundreds of websites, almost all of which have a statement of faith. I don't have the time to type it out for you.

 

[DHK]

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.

Is truth always relevant to you?
Let's test that theory out?

Here is a verse of Scripture. You tell me its meaning and how it is relevant to you in this day; today.

1 Chronicles 26:18 At Parbar westward, four at the causeway, and two at Parbar.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Here it is:

1. 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.

Which part(s) do you disagree with? The transforming power upon believers mentioned, which all believers experience; note 2 Corinthians 3:18ff, or do you disagree that all believers according to the Scriptural passage provided experience this?

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.

When you deny Jesus reigning now, when the kingdom of God is not yet a reality, what else can you expect?

 

[DHK]

When you deny Jesus reigning now, when the kingdom of God is not yet a reality, what else can you expect?

I expect an admission of truth from you. If Jesus was ruling now Isis would not be committing the atrocities they are committing including genocide of Christians in Syria.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Is truth always relevant to you?
Let's test that theory out?

Here is a verse of Scripture. You tell me its meaning and how it is relevant to you in this day; today.

1 Chronicles 26:18 At Parbar westward, four at the causeway, and two at Parbar.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I expect an admission of truth from you. If Jesus was ruling now Isis would not be committing the atrocities they are committing including genocide of Christians in Syria.

Was God ruling when Satan throttled Job?

Again, not to derail the thread, but Satan is god of the world...IE...the unbelievers. If Satan rules as you say he does, he is our god, too. Youse nose?

 

[DHK]

Truth is relevant to you SG because you know how to post silly images on the internet??
What a wonderful application of the Bible. No wonder you spiritualize the Bible.
What does salvation mean to you? It must have some mystic meaning as well??

 

[DHK]

Was God ruling when Satan throttled Job?

Again, not to derail the thread, but Satan is god of the world...IE...the unbelievers. If Satan rules as you say he does, he is our god, too. Youse nose?

God allowed Satan to have his way with Job just as God in his sovereignty is allowing Satan to have rule over this world. But you won't admit that inspite of what the Bible says.

 

[DHK]

Was God ruling when Satan throttled Job?

Again, not to derail the thread, but Satan is god of the world...IE...the unbelievers. If Satan rules as you say he does, he is our god, too. Youse nose?

Is Obama your god? He rules over you?

 

[SovereignGrace]

God allowed Satan to have his way with Job just as God in his sovereignty is allowing Satan to have rule over this world. But you won't admit that inspite of what the Bible says.

Yet Satan only goes as far as He allows him to go. That does not mean he rules the world. God rules the world AND Satan.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Is Obama your god? He rules over you?

Obummer does not rule over anyone. He acts as a representative of the USA. He could get impeached. God can not be impeached.

Apples to school buses.

 

[SovereignGrace]

God allowed Satan to have his way with Job just as God in his sovereignty is allowing Satan to have rule over this world. But you won't admit that inspite of what the Bible says.

I agree with what the bible says.

I just loathe you twisted, perverted, and convulted ideology of Satan being god of the world in the manner you say he does.

He is ruler of the lost. They are the ones blinded to the gospel. The world he is god of is the lost ppl.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I expect an admission of truth from you. If Jesus was ruling now Isis would not be committing the atrocities they are committing including genocide of Christians in Syria.

May I suggest a perusal of Habakkuk 1:5-11, especially noting the first line of verse 6?