Are Confessions of Faith biblical? Should Churches use them?

if you put it that way, then Calvinists are more wrong and unbiblical!

 

Your hatred of Reformed observation of scripture is obvious to all. This does not make the observations of scripture by Reformed believers invalid, but it does make your hatred of the Reformed believer irrelevant to this conversation.

 

When scripture says "God is pleased" to do this or that, the idea is He actions are according to His will, and not constrained by external forces.

 

The KJV reads, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." Which 98.5% of the mss of 1 Timothy agree. "God was manifest in the flesh, . . .". What mss have "He . . . ?" 1% of 1 Timothy mss have what is said to be nonsensical in the Greek "Who . . ."

 

Here is the NET footnote concerning the reading of "He" vice God:

24tc The Byzantine text along with a few other witnesses (אc Ac C2 D2 Ψ [88 pc] 1739 1881 Ď vgms) read θεός (qeos, “God”) for ὅς (Jos, “who”). Most significant among these witnesses is 1739; the second correctors of some of the other mss tend to conform to the medieval standard, the Byzantine text, and add no independent voice to the discussion. A few mss have ὁ θεός (so 88 pc), a reading that is a correction on the anarthrous θεός. On the other side, the masculine relative pronoun ὅς is strongly supported by א* A* C* F G 33 365 pc Did Epiph. Significantly, D* and virtually the entire Latin tradition read the neuter relative pronoun, ὅ (Jo, “which”), a reading that indirectly supports ὅς since it could not easily have been generated if θεός had been in the text. Thus, externally, there is no question as to what should be considered original: The Alexandrian and Western traditions are decidedly in favor of ὅς. Internally, the evidence is even stronger. What scribe would change θεός to ὅς intentionally? “Who” is not only a theologically pale reading by comparison; it also is much harder (since the relative pronoun has no obvious antecedent, probably the reason for the neuter pronoun of the Western tradition). Intrinsically, the rest of 3:16, beginning with ὅς, appears to form a six-strophed hymn. As such, it is a text that is seemingly incorporated into the letter without syntactical connection. Hence, not only should we not look for an antecedent for ὅς (as is often done by commentators), but the relative pronoun thus is not too hard a reading (or impossible, as Dean Burgon believed). Once the genre is taken into account, the relative pronoun fits neatly into the author’s style (cf. also Col 1:15; Phil 2:6 for other places in which the relative pronoun begins a hymn, as was often the case in poetry of the day). On the other hand, with θεός written as a nomen sacrum, it would have looked very much like the relative pronoun: q-=s vs. os. Thus, it may have been easy to confuse one for the other. This, of course, does not solve which direction the scribes would go, although given their generally high Christology and the bland and ambiguous relative pronoun, it is doubtful that they would have replaced θεός with ὅς. How then should we account for θεός? It appears that sometime after the 2nd century the θεός reading came into existence, either via confusion with ὅς or as an intentional alteration to magnify Christ and clear up the syntax at the same time. Once it got in, this theologically rich reading was easily able to influence all the rest of the mss it came in contact with (including mss already written, such as א A C D). That this reading did not arise until after the 2nd century is evident from the Western reading, ὅ. The neuter relative pronoun is certainly a “correction” of ὅς, conforming the gender to that of the neuter μυστήριον (musthrion, “mystery”). What is significant in this reading is (1) since virtually all the Western witnesses have either the masculine or neuter relative pronoun, the θεός reading was apparently unknown to them in the 2nd century (when the “Western” text seems to have originated, though its place of origination was most likely in the east); they thus supply strong indirect evidence of ὅς outside of Egypt in the 2nd century; (2) even 2nd century scribes were liable to misunderstand the genre, feeling compelled to alter the masculine relative pronoun because it appeared to them to be too harsh. The evidence, therefore, for ὅς is quite compelling, both externally and internally. As TCGNT 574 notes, “no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century (Ψ) supports θεός; all ancient versions presuppose ὅς or ὅ; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading θεός.” Thus, the cries of certain groups that θεός has to be original must be seen as special pleading in this case. To argue that heretics tampered with the text here is self-defeating, for most of the Western fathers who quoted the verse with the relative pronoun were quite orthodox, strongly affirming the deity of Christ. They would have dearly loved such a reading as θεός. Further, had heretics introduced a variant to θεός, a far more natural choice would have been Χριστός (Cristos, “Christ”) or κύριος (kurios, “Lord”), since the text is self-evidently about Christ, but it is not self-evidently a proclamation of his deity. (See ExSyn 341-42, for a summary discussion on this issue and additional bibliographic references.)

tn Grk “who.”

 

The short scribe form for θεος is θς. And ος the - not being copied becomes ος "who."

The use of the short form θς would also be throughout such a ms.

 

More nonsense

 

Why Did Jesus come to earth? Was he here on a holiday? or did something happen that was known to God from before the world was, causing the Father to send Him for a purpose? Was sin involved?

 

"MB,

Gods eternal plan is not nonsense . Christians rejoice in it.
;Acts2.
23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Acts4:
26 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.

27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,

28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

 

I admit I hate the doctrines of Calvinism. I do not hate Calvinist. Not even you Austin. If I hated Calvinist I would not even try to place them on the right path.
MB

 

God's plan isn't nonsense but your Calvinism is.
MB

 

The phrases God out of God, refers to the eternal "generation" of Jesus Christ from God the Father, in the Godhead. Read the history of the terms used, where the Father is seen as the sun, as primary source, and Jesus Christ, as the rays from the sun, as secondary. This is demonic heresy! I have stuided this in the Greek texts with comments from the fathers who framed these "creeds".

 

Each have their eternal roles to fulfill

 

you show your foolishness! There is not ONE verse in the entire Bible that supports the reformed heresy that God was PLEASED when Adam and Eve sinned against Him!

 

Even more nonsense is your free will Gospel!

 

NO subordination of any Persons in the eternal Godhead!

 

No support for the free will Gospel some hold to here

 

Where does the 1689 Baptist Confession state Jesus is not fully God?

 

Each one of them have unique roles to do, as Jesus is the great High Priest. not the father