Why should the 1689 Confession of faith be used?

[DHK]

Christ has His witnesses all over His kingdom which extends all over the world. There is an allusion to Isaiah 62:6-7. 'All Scripture is God-breathed......'

Did I at any time deny its inspiration? Why are you inferring I did?

I asked: What is the relevancy of this scripture to your life today:
1 Chronicles 26:18 At Parbar westward, four at the causeway, and two at Parbar.

Just because a 17th century document has scripture in it does make it relevant to our society today. That is a fallacy. Not all scripture is relevant to us today. We live in a different era. The Statement of faith of the SBC, that is, their "Baptist Faith and Message," has been updated and revised many, many times.

 

[DHK]

Well, you make silly little comments. So we're even.


The bible is Spiritually discerned. Many times it uses figurative language to express literal truths. But I do not spiritualize the whole bible.

It means EVERYTHING to me. Christ came and lived a perfect life for me. He bore MY sins for me on an old, rugged cross. He arose for me. He ascended to the Father for me. He now intercedes for me. And He will eventually return for me. Hallelujah.


Not worthy of my response.

And yet in all this rant of yours you were unable to answer the question posed in the original question asked of you. Pity.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Did I at any time deny its inspiration? Why are you inferring I did?

Relax. Chill. No one is saying you don't believe the Word is inspired, or that you don't believe it.

I asked: What is the relevancy of this scripture to your life today:
1 Chronicles 26:18 At Parbar westward, four at the causeway, and two at Parbar.

So you cannot preach that passage in its context? It is not profitable as 2 Timothy 3:16 states?

Just because a 17th century document has scripture in it does make it relevant to our society today. That is a fallacy.

OK. Now show us what exactly in this document is not relevant to society today. BTW, the document isn't written for 'society' it is written for God's church. But do show us what part of this document is not relevant, and why.

Not all scripture is relevant to us today.

That's untrue and 2 Timothy 3:16 betrays your false belief here. Just because you cannot make sense of the text, in its context and preach it with insight and validity doesn't make it irrelevant. The Word doesn't depend upon your acumen, or in this case, lack thereof.

We live in a different era. The Statement of faith of the SBC, that is, their "Baptist Faith and Message," has been updated and revised many, many times.

Show the revisions.

 

[DHK]

Dhk says this:



In response to this:

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'.

Instead of going ad hominem and drivelish, I would like it if you would kindly answer my question that you left off. If you cannot and will not then I understand.

I don't know what question you are referring to. The two previous posts including their derogatory language are not worth answering, nor am I compelled to answer any of your posts.

 

[DHK]

He doesn't realize...or even care...that he is lumping believers and unbelievers under Satan's rule and authority. If that's not heresy, what is? He is not my god. God is my God. Satan is god of unbelievers. That's the context of 2 Corinthians 4:4

Jesus Himself said that he did not take you out of this world but has left you in this world.
The world is not His. He said very clearly that the world would hate you because it hated Him (Christ).
Or according to you Christ hates himself. You have some weird theology.

 

[Internet Theologian]

I don't know what question you are referring to. The two previous posts including their derogatory language are not worth answering, nor am I compelled to answer any of your posts.

The green part? Not that I need you to answer, I just don't believe you're capable of answering it directly due to maintaining your stance which would be somewhat undone.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Jesus Himself said that he did not take you out of this world but has left you in this world.

OK.

The world is not His.

Everything is His, it was all created by Him and for Him, Colossians 1:16. The Earth is His and always has been His; Psalms 24:1.

He said very clearly that the world would hate you because it hated Him (Christ).

Completely different subject. You're melding things together and running off course.

Or according to you Christ hates himself.

That's untrue and uncalled for. Show where this was ever stated.

You have some weird theology.

There you go with your misrepresentations of others. SG did not say or imply this, nor has any other person on here.

 

[DHK]

Monarchs acted as sovereigns, presidents don't. Monarchs made up laws, presidents can't(Obummer circumvented the constitution and had the SC approve of same-sex marriages). But presidents are not sovereigns.

It was an illustration. If you can't deal with the illustration imagine yourself as a citizen of another nation. Let me give you an example, but first a quote from Wikipedia:

Absolute monarchy or despotic monarchy[1][2] is a monarchical form of government in which the monarch has absolute power among his or her people. An absolute monarch wields unrestricted political power over the sovereign state and its people.
Countries where the monarch still maintains absolute power are Brunei,[4]Qatar,[5]Oman,[6]Saudi Arabia,[7]Swaziland,[8] the emirates comprising the United Arab Emirates,[9] and Vatican City.

So, SG, if you can't understand me, or simply won't, go make yourself a citizen of Saudi Arabia and see what it is like to be a servant to the king who would be your lord. Then my illustration would make some sense to you.

 

[DHK]

The green part? Not that I need you to answer, I just don't believe you're capable of answering it directly due to maintaining your stance which would be somewhat undone.

I have already answered that question, and quite thoroughly. Don't be so lazy that you can't look it up just because you are a "Johnny-come-lately." Too bad. I am not going to repeat myself.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Did I at any time deny its inspiration? Why are you inferring I did?

I asked: What is the relevancy of this scripture to your life today:
1 Chronicles 26:18 At Parbar westward, four at the causeway, and two at Parbar.

And I gave you an interpretation. If I were preaching on that verse, it would be along the lines of "God has His witnesses all over the world." The text is speaking of the divisions of Levites for gatekeepers and watchmen. I would quote from Isaiah 62:6-7, and probably from Ezekiel 33:1-11, not to mention Matthew 28:18-20. Every Christian is to be a gatekeeper and a watchman, looking out over his town or village, witnessing to the lost and interceding with God on its behalf. You know what? I'm half-tempted to preach on that text next time I get into a pulpit! You see, 'All Scripture [not 'some Scripture'] is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.' There should be no text that is out of bounds for a preacher. Spurgeon would have had no trouble preaching on that verse. He very possibly did!

Just because a 17th century document has scripture in it does make it relevant to our society today. That is a fallacy. Not all scripture is relevant to us today. We live in a different era. The Statement of faith of the SBC, that is, their "Baptist Faith and Message," has been updated and revised many, many times.

Circumstances change but people don't. Just because we have mobile 'phones and refrigerators doesn't make us any different to those who lived 2,000 years ago. They needed salvation; so does the world today. They needed Jesus Christ; our neighbours are no different.

 

[Internet Theologian]

I have already answered that question, and quite thoroughly. Don't be so lazy that you can't look it up just because you are a "Johnny-come-lately." Too bad. I am not going to repeat myself.

No bro you did not answer the green portion yet.

 

[Internet Theologian]

It was an illustration. If you can't deal with the illustration imagine yourself as a citizen of another nation. Let me give you an example, but first a quote from Wikipedia:

So, SG, if you can't understand me, or simply won't, go make yourself a citizen of Saudi Arabia and see what it is like to be a servant to the king who would be your lord. Then my illustration would make some sense to you.

You actually prove SG's point. He declared that obama is not a monarch (though he wants to be) and that therefore your point is moot. You show that living in Saudi would support your statement, and it doesn't apply to those in the US.

 

[DHK]

And I gave you an interpretation. If I were preaching on that verse, it would be along the lines of "God has His witnesses all over the world." The text is speaking of the divisions of Levites for gatekeepers and watchmen. I would quote from Isaiah 62:6-7, and probably from Ezekiel 33:1-11, not to mention Matthew 28:18-20. Every Christian is to be a gatekeeper and a watchman, looking out over his town or village, witnessing to the lost and interceding with God on its behalf. You know what? I'm half-tempted to preach on that text next time I get into a pulpit! You see, 'All Scripture [not 'some Scripture'] is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.' There should be no text that is out of bounds for a preacher. Spurgeon would have had no trouble preaching on that verse. He very possibly did!

Circumstances change but people don't. Just because we have mobile 'phones and refrigerators doesn't make us any different to those who lived 2,000 years ago. They needed salvation; so does the world today. They needed Jesus Christ; our neighbours are no different.

The document has a little bit more to comment on than just salvation. And therein is the problem.
It is not what it does address; it is what it does not and cannot address. The problems of the 17th century are not the problems of the 21st century and thus an out-moded document is not very relevant for us today. It has some profit, yes. But most books do. To make it the statement of faith for a church today would be absurd.

 

[SovereignGrace]

The document has a little bit more to comment on than just salvation. And therein is the problem.
It is not what it does address; it is what it does not and cannot address. The problems of the 17th century are not the problems of the 21st century and thus an out-moded document is not very relevant for us today. It has some profit, yes. But most books do. To make it the statement of faith for a church today would be absurd.

Your problem with it is its soteriology.

 

[agedman]

Huh? Bunyan died in 1688.

You are correct. It was while he was journeying to continue trying to bring reconciliation that he died.

But, generally what I wrote was accurate to what he was attempting and the discouragement of the last of his years.

He was an outstanding writer, a wonderful pastor, and a good preacher, just not a great preacher.

His influence then and today is mainly through his writing skills.

 

[Internet Theologian]

The document has a little bit more to comment on than just salvation. And therein is the problem.

You continue to make declarative and dogmatic statements. Yet, they go unfounded. You have shown zero evidence.

It is not what it does address; it is what it does not and cannot address.

Such as...?

The problems of the 17th century are not the problems of the 21st century

Men and sin are the problem in all epochs and eras.

And there is nothing new under the Sun, yet you imply there is.

and thus an out-moded document is not very relevant for us today.

Again, provide evidence for your subjective slander of a document. You've yet to do so. In fact you cannot do so.

It has some profit, yes. But most books do. To make it the statement of faith for a church today would be absurd.

This document is more relevant than your teachings seen on BB daily. But do show to us all your accusations against it, by actually providing proof instead of your subjective ridicule. Can you do that? Doubtful. You have no evidence but your blind unsupported reason and pure conjecture.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Thus far in this thread DHK has been unable, unwilling to substantiate his low view and accusations against the 1689 LBCoF, the TGC, or any other CoF.

We all await actual proof, time to lay the subjective ridicule aside. Not to mention the wait for his AoF/SoF/SoB or what have you that allegedly is greater and more elaborate, in his own words, than the former CoF's.

Obviously DHK has a document that transcends in elaboration all other CoF's but neither can he show us how and the why of that alleged document, just as he cannot provide any documented evidence to support his ridicule of the other CoF's. So far it is only 'because he said so'.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Jesus Himself said that he did not take you out of this world but has left you in this world.

There is the world in which we live, called planet earth. All, both believers and unbelievers reside on it. Then there is the 'world' as in the lost. He has called us out of the world, called us to be separate from the lost.

If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.[John 15:19]

This goes as smooth as silk with 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 as can be. We are no longer of the world. Satan is not our ruler, not our god. He is ruler, he is god of the world. The world in proper context is not planet earth of all its inhabitants, but the lost. Plain as the nose on your face.

The world is not His.

The bible easily refutes this ideology of yours, per usual.

The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it;[Psalms 24:1]
I'll take the inspired word over a DHKism, thank you.

He said very clearly that the world would hate you because it hated Him (Christ).

The world in proper context is the lost and not planet earth. Do you hate Christ? No. Are you in the world(planet earth here)? Yes. That's the context. The world(unbelievers) hate God and His ppl.

Or according to you Christ hates himself.

Alright big boy!! This needs to stop. Post where I posted this!! You are abusing your position. Post where I posted this. Post it or repent for lying...again!!

You have some weird theology.

Howso? You say Christ isn't ruling. His kingdom is not here now. And my theology is weird? You are a poison well for anyone to drink from. You are as dangerous as an envelope full of anthrax.

 

[SovereignGrace]

You continue to make decalrative and dogmatic statements. Yet, they go unfounded. You have shown zero evidence.



Such as...?



Men and sin are the problem in all epochs and eras.

And there is nothing new under the Sun, yet you imply there is.



Again, provide evidence for your subjective slander of a document. You've yet to do so. In fact you cannot do so.



This document is more relevant than your teachings seen on BB daily. But do show to us all your accusations against it, by actually providing proof instead of your subjective ridicule. Can you do that? Doubtful. You have no evidence but your blind unsupported reason and pure conjecture.

If Darby, Chafer, and Ice had written it, he'd agree with it.

The 1644 and 1689 CoF's rightly put man in his place. It rightly enthrones God as Majesty, as Ruler who actually rules and is not an innocent bystander . That is why DHK will never sign off on it. If man isn't his own sovereign? Forgetaboutit!!

 

[SovereignGrace]

Yep. He will get by with it because outright lies are no biggie among professing believers. It's all good.

The funny thing is there was this implication made about 'forcing others to answer posts' and it was alluded to toward me in this thread as if I had attempted this.

The buzzards are circling.

Lying isn't what is important, it's if someone feels another has tried to force one to answer them.

Sorry, but no one here has that power and the accusation is utterly ridiculous and unfounded.

[If you have a problem with moderation, keep it between you and the moderators.]