If it were a sin, the fall would have already happened.
There was no particular sin required, any sin would have initiated the fall of man.
London Baptist Confession of 1689: Do you hold to it?
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Dale-c, Jun 13, 2007.
Page 2 of 5
-
-
Adam and Eve according to the plain reading of the scripture had no knowledge of either good or evil. They didn't sin by being naked because they had no concept of sin, not because being naked was an okay thing. The only and I mean only rule that we are told in scripture that God gave them was not to eat the fruit of a particular thing.
They had the capacity for both good and evil, but no knowledge. If good is obedience to God's command and evil disobedience (and I believe that this is clearly taught in scripture) and the only command God gave them was not to eat of the fruit, then how could any other action possibly be sin to them?
Remember, it was immediately after they ate that they realized that being naked, naked as they usually were, was now a bad thing. What changed? God? No, God knew perfectly well they naked and allowed it or they wouldn't have been naked.
What changed was their knowledge. Before they knew there was a difference between good and evil they committed no sin. Not because they never performed a sinful act, but because they simply had no concept that there were other things beside eating that fruit that God considered sin. -
Find a better arguement. -
I'm pretty much in agreement with LCF1789, except the part about the universal church, which doesn't exist.
-
No Sunday football???
Chapter 22, last paragraph:
The sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering their common affairs aforehand, do not only observe a holy rest all day, from their own works, words and thoughts, about their worldly employment and recreations, but are also taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy. -
I wish the Abstract of Principles had Scripture proofs :(
-
You do not believe in a universal invisible church, made up of all believers? -
And, there will be a great general assembly in heaven made up of all believers.
But the "universal" church is an imaginary, useless fantasy which has no reason for existence.
Don't mean to derail this discussion. I made my original comment in a remark about the LCF -
The point is that Biblical truth doesn't change.
The LBC was no more written only for the people 400 years ago than the Bible was written only for the people of the day that it was written.
A confession is basically just an elaborate statement of Faith.
True doctrine has NOT changed in the last 400 years, even though there are pleny of false doctrines now.
Surely YOU don't think that God's truths and doctrines have changed over the past few hundred years do you? -
I don't think God has changed one bit. What has changed is man's attitudes toward interpreting God's word. Our last inspired interpreter of God's word was Paul(notice I said interpreter not writer). All who came after were not directly inspired and therefore were not infalliable in their interpretations. There are even things in Paul's writing that he tells us directly are his own opinions.
All taken together a 400 year old document is 400 years short of the knowledge we have available today. Not only, but I still have yet to hear a good explanation of why they thought the Law was written on Adam and Eve's hearts. -
I would strongly disagree that we have 400 years more knowledge when it comes to doctrine.
In fact I think we have 400 more years of corrupted church tradition.
the LBC is not infallible but it is an important document nonetheless.
To say we have available more knowledge of GOd's doctrine today is to say there has been new revelation in the past 400 years which the Bible says there won't be. -
Now if you asked if we agreed with all or part of it, I could give a more complete/better answer. There are parts of it that I don't disagree with, though I'm still studying it.
(I'm tired tonight and my dyslexia is being a problem. Sorry about any spelling mistakes) -
The point is what do you hold that the Bible says?
I am not saying that you have to hold to this particular, though I do for the most part (I say mostly because, like you I am still studying)
It is worth noting that I believed just as you not too long ago.
I am just trying to explain what I have realized what purpose things like this have and why they are important.
We alll have confessions of our faith, some are written, others are not. -
I did like the way the author of the 1689 LBCF worded point 5 in the section entitled, "The Lord's Supper"
Non-alcoholic. -
Have you seen a doctor about your addiction to this irrational crusade? Don't give it up all at once or you'll have withdrawal symptoms. -
The Word of God declares the wine at the Lord's Supper to be non-fermented. The 'fruit of the vine' could not be the poison of dragone. It could not be that which bites like a serpent and stings like an adder.
Truth is, the authors of the 1689 LBF were not advocating an alcoholic beverage at all. -
But the LBC is in modern English, and the writers of the LBC 1689 were smart enough to say "grape juice" if they meant "grape juice". They meant wine. -
They were indeed advocating something. They were advocating wine 'as it was before. That wine at the Lord's Supper before was non-alcoholic
God's Word testifies that the wine at the Lord's Supper was not alcoholic.
It is the ultimate authority. It was around at that time. -
the grape issue is getting REALLY old, really fast.
We know how you feel, HBSMN...let's give it a rest, please...
Page 2 of 5