[Yet another personal attack deleted.]
Last edited by a moderator:
-
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
[Yet another personal attack deleted.]
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
...yep, as I stated, the behavior will resurface after a short interlude.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
You're making yourself into a porkchop in the midst of a pack of hyenas! Biggrin Roflmao
I am confused by some of the responses on this thread.
Some say, Satan is the god of this world because he controls the unbelievers, and because The Lord God of all creation has delegated to him that authority for a time.
Some say, not so, that Satan is only a puppet (my term) which must seek God's permission.
Some say, not so, that God is completely in charge of all events and that the kingdom is ongoing on this earth.
Here is a short list my own thoughts. Not that anyone will read it with insight or even care.
First: Christ offered the teaching prayer a prayer that was an example of how one should pray. In that prayer He states, "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." Therefore, the kingdom was not when Christ was on this earth, and is not currently on this earth. For again, He said at the trial, "My kingdom is not of this world..." Meaning that it is not made up of what the authorities of this world place as priority for ruling. Rather, Chris is building the kingdom, one believer at a time.
Second: Satan is the god of this world in the sense of controller of the heathen and the authority over those. Else he would have no authority to have offered them to Christ at the temptation. That in no manner diminishes the authority and sovereignty of God as the ultimate Lord of all. It is a matter of delegation of authority.
Third: Because I DO believe in the literal return of Christ, the binding of Satan and the forces of evil, and the literal millennium rule of Christ and the saints, I take Christ's words at face value; that indeed, there will be a time on THIS earth in which the will of the Father will be done ON this earth as it IS done in the heaven. For there to be a kingdom, there must be a time and place for the authority of the King to rule over a domain. Christ will rule the whole world as the King, the ONLY king, and all peoples will come to submit to Him.
Fourth: The problem of this thread seems to be attempting to force one side or another into conforming to some eschatological view by using soteriology or the other way around. One is not "wrong," or not "comprehending" or whatever other word is thrown out to demean just because they disagree on the way someone else would view the kingdom.
Fifth: Far better would be a thread that actually discussed the OP than what is seen on the last couple pages of this one. I actually think that what the OP asks and suggests needs to be examined. I also think that there are issues of this age that are not the same as those some 330 years ago. The contentions of that time were over the RCC, the Cromwell years, the political expectations impressed upon the clergy, whether one could "purify" the church or needed to "separate" from it, .... However, along with those same issues, there is in THIS time an increased division among believers over such things pertaining to morality, ethics, and even what Bible translation is "authorized."
Churches need to examine the document of the OP and take from it what is agreeable, and then add or amend it to include that which that particular assembly would agree.
It is not appropriate for the members of the BB to consider that one is lesser because they do not or do so agree with that which some good men agreed and disagreed upon in the last half of the 1600s. There were good and Godly men who did not ascribe to the confession of the OP, and some who did. Some who were excluded from the agreement because of other doctrinal views (for example communion - open or closed).
The Puritans (who wrote the document) would agree strongly to the Sabbath part of confession, and hold a person accountable for violations, violations that I would see in nearly ever supporter of the document on this thread. The Separatists (usually despised by the Puritans) would not have such a problem, they more kindly understood that the service of the Lord was to continue, even on the Sabbath.
I would rather be a Separatist than a Puritan. At least they, for the most part, had their doctrines right and were willing to listen and understand the strangers.
Some say, Satan is the god of this world because he controls the unbelievers, and because The Lord God of all creation has delegated to him that authority for a time.
Some say, not so, that Satan is only a puppet (my term) which must seek God's permission.
Some say, not so, that God is completely in charge of all events and that the kingdom is ongoing on this earth.
Here is a short list my own thoughts. Not that anyone will read it with insight or even care.
First: Christ offered the teaching prayer a prayer that was an example of how one should pray. In that prayer He states, "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." Therefore, the kingdom was not when Christ was on this earth, and is not currently on this earth. For again, He said at the trial, "My kingdom is not of this world..." Meaning that it is not made up of what the authorities of this world place as priority for ruling. Rather, Chris is building the kingdom, one believer at a time.
Second: Satan is the god of this world in the sense of controller of the heathen and the authority over those. Else he would have no authority to have offered them to Christ at the temptation. That in no manner diminishes the authority and sovereignty of God as the ultimate Lord of all. It is a matter of delegation of authority.
Third: Because I DO believe in the literal return of Christ, the binding of Satan and the forces of evil, and the literal millennium rule of Christ and the saints, I take Christ's words at face value; that indeed, there will be a time on THIS earth in which the will of the Father will be done ON this earth as it IS done in the heaven. For there to be a kingdom, there must be a time and place for the authority of the King to rule over a domain. Christ will rule the whole world as the King, the ONLY king, and all peoples will come to submit to Him.
Fourth: The problem of this thread seems to be attempting to force one side or another into conforming to some eschatological view by using soteriology or the other way around. One is not "wrong," or not "comprehending" or whatever other word is thrown out to demean just because they disagree on the way someone else would view the kingdom.
Fifth: Far better would be a thread that actually discussed the OP than what is seen on the last couple pages of this one. I actually think that what the OP asks and suggests needs to be examined. I also think that there are issues of this age that are not the same as those some 330 years ago. The contentions of that time were over the RCC, the Cromwell years, the political expectations impressed upon the clergy, whether one could "purify" the church or needed to "separate" from it, .... However, along with those same issues, there is in THIS time an increased division among believers over such things pertaining to morality, ethics, and even what Bible translation is "authorized."
Churches need to examine the document of the OP and take from it what is agreeable, and then add or amend it to include that which that particular assembly would agree.
It is not appropriate for the members of the BB to consider that one is lesser because they do not or do so agree with that which some good men agreed and disagreed upon in the last half of the 1600s. There were good and Godly men who did not ascribe to the confession of the OP, and some who did. Some who were excluded from the agreement because of other doctrinal views (for example communion - open or closed).
The Puritans (who wrote the document) would agree strongly to the Sabbath part of confession, and hold a person accountable for violations, violations that I would see in nearly ever supporter of the document on this thread. The Separatists (usually despised by the Puritans) would not have such a problem, they more kindly understood that the service of the Lord was to continue, even on the Sabbath.
I would rather be a Separatist than a Puritan. At least they, for the most part, had their doctrines right and were willing to listen and understand the strangers.
Hey, I'll flat out tell you he's a perpetual liar. Post after post bear this truth. He twice said I denied sola fide. I asked him to post where I did and got nothing. He's now said I said Christ hates Himself. If I'm banned, it will be because I stand for the truth and not some habitual liar.
I'm trying to square the statement that you stand for the truth with your disagreement with the statement that "One cannot adopt a document they don't agree with."
Frankly, this topic should have originated in the cal/arm forum. It was a bait thread from the beginning, don't know why y'all act surprised that you caught something.
Who will some attack if there is no longer a DHK?
Who will some despise if there is no longer a DHK?
Look at this dialogue I copied and pasted from one page of this thread.
SG says, "We have adopted another that states that marriage is between and man and woman." (Obviously not in the C of F of the OP)
Then DHK makes an agreement to what SG states, writing, "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."
But he is quickly attacked by SG, posting, "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."
Again, SG is showing areas in which he does not go along "hand in glove" with the OP confession, but still contends with DHK. Doesn't really make much sense, does it?
Icon writes, "The 1689 does deal with those issues."
Really, then why is SG's assembly not content with the statements and must add to them, and in fact must change the baptism part?
Then IT says, "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."
I must state that the EMPHASIS is not the same as what the modern church must contend. Pastors are not being thrown into prison for preaching unlicensed, or people punished for breaking the Sabbath.
Puritans wrote the C of F mentioned in the OP, and it does hold Puritan bias. They were willing to hold to the old RCC world of Henry and try to "purify it." Unless one recognizes that bias and makes the document to "fit" this relevant age, then the document does not serve its purpose. It was not Scripture, but seeks to bring standards expressed in Scriptures. As such, a wise person will read and agree with that which is agreeable, and in areas in which the bias and the excess controlled the thoughts, disagree and make changes that conform the document to the Scriptures.
So, instead of acknowledging that DHK was actually agreeing with SG, DHK is attacked.
I don't agree with DHK on some issues, but at least if he agrees with me, I don't turn around and snip at him.
And neither should those of the BB use such occasions to express excess.
After all, the document that some of you argue FOR states:
Can the folks listed in this post actually state they are following the C of F mentioned in the OP?
Who will some despise if there is no longer a DHK?
Look at this dialogue I copied and pasted from one page of this thread.
SG says, "We have adopted another that states that marriage is between and man and woman." (Obviously not in the C of F of the OP)
Then DHK makes an agreement to what SG states, writing, "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."
But he is quickly attacked by SG, posting, "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."
Again, SG is showing areas in which he does not go along "hand in glove" with the OP confession, but still contends with DHK. Doesn't really make much sense, does it?
Icon writes, "The 1689 does deal with those issues."
Really, then why is SG's assembly not content with the statements and must add to them, and in fact must change the baptism part?
Then IT says, "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."
I must state that the EMPHASIS is not the same as what the modern church must contend. Pastors are not being thrown into prison for preaching unlicensed, or people punished for breaking the Sabbath.
Puritans wrote the C of F mentioned in the OP, and it does hold Puritan bias. They were willing to hold to the old RCC world of Henry and try to "purify it." Unless one recognizes that bias and makes the document to "fit" this relevant age, then the document does not serve its purpose. It was not Scripture, but seeks to bring standards expressed in Scriptures. As such, a wise person will read and agree with that which is agreeable, and in areas in which the bias and the excess controlled the thoughts, disagree and make changes that conform the document to the Scriptures.
So, instead of acknowledging that DHK was actually agreeing with SG, DHK is attacked.
I don't agree with DHK on some issues, but at least if he agrees with me, I don't turn around and snip at him.
And neither should those of the BB use such occasions to express excess.
After all, the document that some of you argue FOR states:
"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."
Can the folks listed in this post actually state they are following the C of F mentioned in the OP?
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
So, IOW you have nothing of significance to add the dialog of the OP other than cynicism and ridicule?
Care to address the OP and actual topic of the thread?
The OP or Thread title and topic is 'Why should the 1689 Confession of Faith Be used'?
Any person can rush into the latter pages of a thread and offer nothing to the OP as you have. What do you have to offer concerning the OP?
Meh, I had some things typed out on the phone, meant to polish them up when I got to the laptop, but things had gone downhill fast so I saw no point.
Mostly, I believed that the statement that "homosexuality existed back then, too" was a gross oversimplification and silly way of responding to the assertion that a confession may need some updating in response to current culture. Were there gay rights advocacy groups in 1689? How many lawyers did they have on staff? How many members of Parliament were pledged to their cause?
So why fuss about a modern confession including things about marriage? Oh, because the thread isn't really about the pros and cons of the 1689 confession, it's about adherence to a certain doctrine.
The statement "you can't adopt a document which you don't agree with" should transcend our individual beliefs. That someone disagreed with it is still boggling my mind.
But by all means, continue with your:
The actual question perhaps might be,"Should the 1689 Confession of Faith be used with updates and modifications to address issues important to the local assembly."
That would perhaps have engaged in dialogue teasing out the pros and cons of each part of the statement.
For example: I singled out two areas in which I would suggest a closer alignment with Scripture.
Do you not see any areas that need modification in the document?
My problem is not with salvation per se, except that I am not a Calvinism. I don't call you unsaved for that and I trust by your remark that you are not implying I am unsaved.
My problems with the Confession I have listed elsewhere. Briefly some of them had to do with eschatology, the Sabbath, some of the statements in both of the ordinances. And I have said more. Thus the discussion now about the kingdom. I think there is quite enough doctrine in that Confession that I disagree with that I can confidently say: "I reject it; I can't agree with it." Why should I be castigated if I disagree with your precious doctrine. Did you ever consider you are the one(s) that could be wrong?
Nope! I know. It never enters your mind.
You go on in a foolish rant not even bother to read what has already been posted.You continue to make declarative 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.
SG never answered my question. You probably never read his post, and no doubt can't answer the question either. But then you haven't read the entire thread have you?
I will recap for you.
SG did for you what I haven't done for you. He posted his Statement of Faith. Go back and read it.
Then find the part at the end where he felt compelled to add:
"That marriage must be between one man and one woman."
There is nothing like that in a 17th century Confession. It is such an obvious statement it does not have to be written down. And yet it does in our society. Why?
Why the need now, and not then?
No. You must have missed the post where DHK said I had Christ hating Himself. How would you feel if someone accused you of that?
"DHK,
21 The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will
???
21 The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will
Oh, I dealt with that illustration all right. Now you are changing the goal posts and having me move to another country.
This illustration does not fit. My citizenship is with God. I seek no other place to go. I live in the USA and can go anywhere I want to without asking permission. Why would I want to move to Saudi Arabia? Sure, if God called me to go and preach there, I would. But my citizenship is still with God.
Same with the world now. I live in the world, but my citizenship is no longer here.
.....
You have failed to post your confession of faith as asked by several of us..... I think I know why...Cautious
The confession of faith is timeless because it is a confession of the once for all time faith.....it is not the CONFESSION OF THE STATE OF THE UNGODLY WORLD...as you list as part of your bogus objection.
The fact is you have no real COF do you......you have one of those little one page church covenants that you read out loud when someone gets baptized.
You cannot agree with the confession because your theology is in dis array. on one hand a few months ago you complained that we did not know what you believed and that we did not ask you directly....well now we have and you run for the hillsRolleyes
you cannot have it both ways.Cautious
you cannot agree with any of it...[QUOTE said:
this is horrible
again...you denigrate real men of God when you cannot begin to answer to the confession....
bb rules prohibit a response to this unbiblical thought.
That was your foolish implication. Who is the ruler of this world? Christ or Satan?
What does Christ say about our part in this world?
John 17:14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
--Here Christ says that the world hates His disciples. His disciples are not OF the world. Why?
Because Christ is not OF the world. He is not of the world, and thus he does not rule the world, for Satan who is of the world is the ruler of it. It is Satan's world, not Christ's. The world hates Christ. He is not of this world. Believe his words here! Please!
John 17:15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
Satan is the ruler of this world and Christ prays to the Father for His protection for Christ's disciples that He is leaving in Satan's world. Why would he pray for protection if the world belonged to Christ? Are the disciples in danger in the hands of Christ? NO! They are in danger in the hands of Satan; in his territory, which is "the world," which Christ is leaving in them.
John 17:16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Not the disciples, nor Christ are of this world. The world does not belong to Christ. It is Satan's realm. Christ is not of this world, of which you say he rules. You are stuck in your own paradox.
John 15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.
John 15:19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
This is Satan's world. Therefore it hates both Christ and his disciples.
Over and over again we have this obvious truth that Satan is the god of this world; the world hates Christ and all that love Christ.
1 John 2:15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
--All that is in this world is not of the Father. Why? It is of Satan, the god of this world. Christ has no part in this world. Satan rules it.
- Status