Does the new earth and heaven have a temple?Well, I believe we're in the midst of that millennium right now.
-
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
What if one hears a trumpet and Satan appears in the clouds? What better way for the false church (prophet), that has martyred the faithful for centuries, to introduce the anti-christ?
Isn't he that great deceiver who mimics, copies, and mocks?
How will you know the true return of the Messiah?
Where do you find a temple being built on terra firma after God used Rome to tear it down circa 70AD?
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
agedman,
A confession is a tried and true teaching tool. It lays out the faith in a clear, systematic way and shows the connections among doctrines. It also serves as a standard by which teaching in the church can be measured. An overseer “must be able to give instruction in sound doctrine” (Titus 1:9), and a deacon “must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.” (1 Tim. 3:9) Hearing an officer merely quote the Bible does not tell us whether he understands the overall teaching of Scripture on a subject. A confession gives us a tool for evaluating his understanding and teaching in summary form.
Though we may agree that confessions in general are useful, why would we use this particular confession? Why not a freshly written statement instead of a dusty old confession that is over 300 years old? First, the age of a confession should commend it rather than condemn it. Truth does not change. If the confession was accurate when it was composed, then it is accurate now. Those who hammered out the confession were men of a different day—men who had been refined by the fires of persecution. These were no arm-chair doctrines to them but a living faith that had stood up under trial. The men who first owned this confession were not those who were likely to bow to the spirit of the age—not their age and certainly not ours—either in their doctrine or their lives.
We now have the advantage of over 300 years to have examined the doctrines of the 1689 Confession and to see its outworkings in the lives of churches and individuals. This confession more than any other in Baptist life has stood the test of time. The 1689 Confession is the most mature statement of theology that has found broad acceptance among Particular (Calvinistic) Baptists. It is based broadly on the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF). The WCF was hammered out by 121 divines who labored daily for two years (1644–1646) to express the doctrines of Scripture as understood in the light of the Reformation. The Independents followed in 1658 with the Savoy Declaration, a revision of the WCF that reflected their independent form of church government along with a few other changes and additions. The Baptists, finding the Savoy to be closer to their views of church government, modified this confession in the area of baptism and made further refinements. Their confession was composed and published by the Particular Baptist churches of England in 1677. It was subsequently adopted by a national assembly of Particular Baptists in 1689, giving it the nickname that is often used today. Thus, this confession had the privilege of standing on the shoulders of the giants of the Reformation and Puritan eras and the advantage of 31 intervening years for its authors to study and refine the statements of the WCF. This confession was able to express the common faith Particular Baptists shared with others having a Reformed heritage and also articulate their distinctive doctrines.
The 1689 Confession has been in continuous usage since it was written. It was used widely not only in England but in America, beginning with the Philadelphia Association. The same confession was used in the South, and with one additional paragraph it became known as the Charleston Confession. The 1689 Confession was the confessional statement of the church or association of every one of the 293 delegates who gathered in Augusta, Georgia, to organize the Southern Baptist Convention in 1845. It was also the doctrinal statement that Charles H. Spurgeon used in his church. At one time, it was so widely used that it was referred to simply as The Baptist Confession. The Abstract of Principles of two SBC seminaries is self-conscientiously an abstract or summary of this confession.
Such a time-tested statement of biblical doctrine can give us clarity beyond our present level of study. Here is how it works. As we study the various doctrines articulated by the confession, we find that the confession faithfully summarizes the teaching of Scripture in these areas. Then we realize that countless godly pastors, theologians, and churches sharing these same convictions through the centuries have held that they are part and parcel of a biblical system of doctrine that is summarized by the confession.
Through this process we become increasingly confident that the parts we do not yet understand are just as biblical and mesh well with the parts that we do understand! This is a wonderful blessing to impart to new believers and those who are still investigating some aspects of our doctrine. There is safety and wisdom in beginning with a theological foundation reflecting the tried and proven faith of a large body of God’s people rather than the relatively untested opinions of private individuals.
I commend this modern-language version in the words of the preface to the original:
We shall conclude with our earnest prayer, that the God of all grace, will pour out those measures of his holy Spirit upon us, that the profession of truth may be accompanyed with the sound belief, and diligent practise of it by us; that his name may in all things be glorified, through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.
Stan Reeves
Auburn, Alabama
It is much more than that.
Yes...when you have that as an agenda, you cannot make progress at all.
A confession is a tried and true teaching tool. It lays out the faith in a clear, systematic way and shows the connections among doctrines. It also serves as a standard by which teaching in the church can be measured. An overseer “must be able to give instruction in sound doctrine” (Titus 1:9), and a deacon “must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.” (1 Tim. 3:9) Hearing an officer merely quote the Bible does not tell us whether he understands the overall teaching of Scripture on a subject. A confession gives us a tool for evaluating his understanding and teaching in summary form.
Though we may agree that confessions in general are useful, why would we use this particular confession? Why not a freshly written statement instead of a dusty old confession that is over 300 years old? First, the age of a confession should commend it rather than condemn it. Truth does not change. If the confession was accurate when it was composed, then it is accurate now. Those who hammered out the confession were men of a different day—men who had been refined by the fires of persecution. These were no arm-chair doctrines to them but a living faith that had stood up under trial. The men who first owned this confession were not those who were likely to bow to the spirit of the age—not their age and certainly not ours—either in their doctrine or their lives.
We now have the advantage of over 300 years to have examined the doctrines of the 1689 Confession and to see its outworkings in the lives of churches and individuals. This confession more than any other in Baptist life has stood the test of time. The 1689 Confession is the most mature statement of theology that has found broad acceptance among Particular (Calvinistic) Baptists. It is based broadly on the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF). The WCF was hammered out by 121 divines who labored daily for two years (1644–1646) to express the doctrines of Scripture as understood in the light of the Reformation. The Independents followed in 1658 with the Savoy Declaration, a revision of the WCF that reflected their independent form of church government along with a few other changes and additions. The Baptists, finding the Savoy to be closer to their views of church government, modified this confession in the area of baptism and made further refinements. Their confession was composed and published by the Particular Baptist churches of England in 1677. It was subsequently adopted by a national assembly of Particular Baptists in 1689, giving it the nickname that is often used today. Thus, this confession had the privilege of standing on the shoulders of the giants of the Reformation and Puritan eras and the advantage of 31 intervening years for its authors to study and refine the statements of the WCF. This confession was able to express the common faith Particular Baptists shared with others having a Reformed heritage and also articulate their distinctive doctrines.
The 1689 Confession has been in continuous usage since it was written. It was used widely not only in England but in America, beginning with the Philadelphia Association. The same confession was used in the South, and with one additional paragraph it became known as the Charleston Confession. The 1689 Confession was the confessional statement of the church or association of every one of the 293 delegates who gathered in Augusta, Georgia, to organize the Southern Baptist Convention in 1845. It was also the doctrinal statement that Charles H. Spurgeon used in his church. At one time, it was so widely used that it was referred to simply as The Baptist Confession. The Abstract of Principles of two SBC seminaries is self-conscientiously an abstract or summary of this confession.
Such a time-tested statement of biblical doctrine can give us clarity beyond our present level of study. Here is how it works. As we study the various doctrines articulated by the confession, we find that the confession faithfully summarizes the teaching of Scripture in these areas. Then we realize that countless godly pastors, theologians, and churches sharing these same convictions through the centuries have held that they are part and parcel of a biblical system of doctrine that is summarized by the confession.
Through this process we become increasingly confident that the parts we do not yet understand are just as biblical and mesh well with the parts that we do understand! This is a wonderful blessing to impart to new believers and those who are still investigating some aspects of our doctrine. There is safety and wisdom in beginning with a theological foundation reflecting the tried and proven faith of a large body of God’s people rather than the relatively untested opinions of private individuals.
I commend this modern-language version in the words of the preface to the original:
We shall conclude with our earnest prayer, that the God of all grace, will pour out those measures of his holy Spirit upon us, that the profession of truth may be accompanyed with the sound belief, and diligent practise of it by us; that his name may in all things be glorified, through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.
Stan Reeves
Auburn, Alabama
.
It is much more than that.
Yes...when you have that as an agenda, you cannot make progress at all.
Last edited:
"DHK,
He offered this but if we examine it next to the confession we will discover a few things.
We agree a person cannot agree with what they do not believe.
Those who wrote this confession prefaced it with this verse;
Luke 1King James Version (KJV)
1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
DHK has noted he cannot believe these things.....right here;
This objection is answered perfectly by the well worded statementin Chap25-
1. Marriage is to be between one man and one woman. A man must not have more than one wife nor a woman more than one husband at the same time.1
1Genesis 2:24; Malachi 2:15; Matthew 19:5, 6.
2. Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife,2 for the increase of humanity with legitimate offspring,3 and for the prevention of immorality.4
2Genesis 2:18. 3Genesis 1:28. 41 Corinthians 7:2, 9.
3. Everyone who is able to give rational consent may marry.5 Yet Christians are to marry in the Lord.6 Therefore, those who profess the true religion should not marry unbelievers or idolaters. Nor should the godly be unequally yoked by marrying those who lead evil lives or hold to damnable heresy.7
5Hebrews 13:4; 1 Timothy 4:3. 61 Corinthians 7:39. 7Nehemiah 13:25–27.
4. Marriage should not occur within the degrees of blood relationship or kinship that are forbidden in the Word.8 These incestuous marriages can never be made lawful, so that the individuals may live together as husband and wife, by any human law or consent of the parties involved.9
8Leviticus 18. 9Mark 6:18; 1 Corinthians 5:1.
Believing this statement answers in full the objection offered.
I
He offered this but if we examine it next to the confession we will discover a few things.
We agree a person cannot agree with what they do not believe.
Those who wrote this confession prefaced it with this verse;
Luke 1King James Version (KJV)
1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
DHK has noted he cannot believe these things.....right here;
This objection is answered perfectly by the well worded statementin Chap25-
1. Marriage is to be between one man and one woman. A man must not have more than one wife nor a woman more than one husband at the same time.1
1Genesis 2:24; Malachi 2:15; Matthew 19:5, 6.
2. Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife,2 for the increase of humanity with legitimate offspring,3 and for the prevention of immorality.4
2Genesis 2:18. 3Genesis 1:28. 41 Corinthians 7:2, 9.
3. Everyone who is able to give rational consent may marry.5 Yet Christians are to marry in the Lord.6 Therefore, those who profess the true religion should not marry unbelievers or idolaters. Nor should the godly be unequally yoked by marrying those who lead evil lives or hold to damnable heresy.7
5Hebrews 13:4; 1 Timothy 4:3. 61 Corinthians 7:39. 7Nehemiah 13:25–27.
4. Marriage should not occur within the degrees of blood relationship or kinship that are forbidden in the Word.8 These incestuous marriages can never be made lawful, so that the individuals may live together as husband and wife, by any human law or consent of the parties involved.9
8Leviticus 18. 9Mark 6:18; 1 Corinthians 5:1.
Believing this statement answers in full the objection offered.
and yet no actual refutation of anything in the confession.
there are dispensational persons who use this confession
I
you have not shown that you understand the positions
yes...you defile the Lords day as you have opposed it many times on many posts...
This confession is not written for you to agree with. It is written to protect those who do believe it from someone like you with your teaching....it will protect people from those errors.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Thanks for taking the time to respond to this. I cannot fathom he took in what he read. It is the old 'contempt before investigation' fallacy that blinds men and their reasoning skills.
Then you agree the melting of the elements and the new heaven and new earth could take place after the millennium? See? We aren't as far apart as many assume.Well, I believe we're in the midst of that millennium right now.
he did offer a superficial objection that has no real substance. He never showed a superior statement or correction....
A yr or two ago Van was one of the few that offered his version of things, I gave him credit for manning up and offering on it.
The founders article easily answers these supposed objections.
No one says anyone has to use a confession. That being said, those from confessional churches in general are better equipped out in the world to present the gospel as they have a biblical base and framework to view things from.
I was stunned when I first read Owens view on the new heaven and New earth.Then you agree the melting of the elements and the new heaven and new earth could take place after the millennium? See? We aren't as far apart as many assume.
Let me ask you TC.....do you think it is preferable to learn as many credible views on end times, and not erect a strawman, but actually understand and explore them a bit, before settling into whatever view you adopt.
I think this is valuable in each area of study....what are your thoughts on that?
Please. DHK has never said he doesn't believe the bible. He said there are some things in the 2nd London Confession he disagrees with. He disagrees with some people's interpretation of the bible, not with the bible.
Why are you upset?
I never claimed it what there for me to agree with.
I simply answered the OP.
I answered why I shouldn't hold the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith.
I gave the reasons why.
Baptists believe in soul liberty. We are not Roman Catholics that must adhere by force to one Catechism. There is freedom of religion, both among Baptists and in this nation, isn't there??
Or have things changed since I last visited the U.S.A.??
Then you agree the melting of the elements and the new heaven and new earth could take place after the millennium? See? We aren't as far apart as many assume.
DHK mentioned this as well. Yes. It could happen that way. My beliefs will never trump what God left us in His word. I'm always open to being corrected. I used to be in the free will ranks youse nose?
I am not upset at all. If you came to one of our churches you would be welcomed to attend.
Having as many objections to what we know to be the biblical teaching it would most likely be suggested that you were not permitted into membership.
I object to a point or two in the confession, and gave my biblical reasons for my objection. I was accepted into membership as i believed the main portions.
You have not offered yours still??? You said we should search for it??? Why don't you post it?
I know some of what I will read on your document.....before you post it. So you do not have to hide it....I know it is going to be a premill document that spends time saying what believers cannot do, in a legalistic stance about separation.
If I am wrong, surprise me....go for it.
I once audited some classes at Baptist bible college in Clarks summit....I saw their statement, dollars to donuts it is like theirs
Yes. Which is why I self-identify as a (reluctant) Historic Chilliast. I am not certain how the consummation of the ages will work itself out. I believe (not know) Christ will establish His Kingdom of God on Earth after His 2nd coming.
I lean toward a pre-trib position but recognize most Historic Chilliasts lean toward post-trib. However, again, it is what I believe, not what I know, and I will not argue with a pre, or mid, or post tribber, nor with an amil or postmil (although I believe the post-mil position is least supportable).
We have way to many people who not only are absolutely certain they are right and everybody else is wrong, but berate all those who differ with them in even the slightest way. (As amply evidenced on this forum.)
Yes...I never said he said the bible, I said the preface to the 1689 states the 'things most surely believed among us"...that is those who are confessional.Please. DHK has never said he doesn't believe the bible. He said there are some things in the 2nd London Confession he disagrees with. He disagrees with some people's interpretation of the bible, not with the bible.
When i was premill....I did that being instructed that those who were not dispy premill were on the verge of apostasy.Yes. Which is why I self-identify as a (reluctant) Historic Chilliast. I am not certain how the consummation of the ages will work itself out. I believe (not know) Christ will establish His Kingdom of God on Earth after His 2nd coming.
I lean toward a pre-trib position but recognize most Historic Chilliasts lean toward post-trib. However, again, it is what I believe, not what I know, and I will not argue with a pre, or mid, or post tribber, nor with an amil or postmil (although I believe the post-mil position is least supportable).
We have way to many people who not only are absolutely certain they are right and everybody else is wrong, but berate all those who differ with them in even the slightest way. (As amply evidenced on this forum.)
My friend attended and graduated from Clarks summit...but doctor Pickering had the church he was in not allow him to remain an elder there because he sturied himself out of the position.
I fought the most against postmill, but now I find myself being drawn to it ironically....lol
CautiousCautiousCautiousRolleyes
- Status