"No Creed But the Bible"

Denominational Theology will NEVER replace the Gospel of Christ...................

Man will NEVER REPLACE Jesus..................

But, you guys keep trying..........

People want to come out with stuff like this when the Truth is that they themselves cherry pick what parts of Scripture they impose upon the members of their Denomination/Congregation.

As with this one openly states that women can not have authority over women, or be Pastors of a Congregation because Paul taught such. AND YET they completely FAIL to impose upon the women of their Denomination/Congregation the REST of Paul's teachings concerning women.............Wonder why?

Women are not to speak in Church. Paul made this clear. That means they are not to sing, pray aloud, or speak in any other way, including teaching Sunday School.

Women are to dress in modest fashion, not doll up their hair, paint their lips and faces, wear jewelry and wear form fitting clothes.

Women are not even to read the Bible. If they want to learn ANYTHING, they are to ask their husbands at home.

Wonder why such as this one manages to ignore these teachings, and how he calls himself a Preacher4truth?

Cherry picking Scripture to suit Denominational Theology IS NOT TRUTH!

I was looking at the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith that you posted a link to and I was referencing that specifically.

A lot of it was really good and spot on.

Some of it I didn't agree with because it left it kind of open to bring people back under the law. And therefore back into religion and chains.

I didn't think you wanted to debate the actual 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith and it wasn't my goal to do that either.

But if you want, ring the bell... lol You know I'll be up for a little verbal pugilism...

The fastest I have ever read the Bible all the way through was 6 months. And I pretty much thought I was setting a World Record...

Guess not... lol

No.

I hear you. There is no intent in the 1689 to put people under the law, yet, the things they state need to be thought through on a deeper level as to meaning. Which portion are you referring to?

Complete straw man and baseless accusation. Yours is the ignorance not needed among believers. Please lose your baseless accusations and libel.

Same here bro, lol!

Chapter 19 number 3 and number 5.

I agree that there probably is no intent to put people under the law but number 3 and number 5 leaves the door open to that possibility, imo.

I guess we have a ways to go before we are as awesome as we think we are...

I'd agree yet the people back then were so grounded in Scripture and the Gospel they would not see it that way. Moral laws are eternal and righteous laws of holiness before God. it has to do with the sanctification and the holiness of believers showing salvation. That said we've lost a lot of ground with the errant theologies that have come along since.

Hey, I'm proud of my humility. Lol!

You know why we fail to impose those? because the churches dont want to lose 90% of their members.

The church folks couldnt care less what the bible says, thats why! Feminism and western modern culture trumps the Bible and its interpreted in that light.

I cant remember who it was but some guy whose dudebro card I confiscated recently for using the word misogynistic patriarchy on this forum, can you imagine how people like him would react if churches did all those things you listed Paul teaching? They would bounce and quick.
Same with modern women, you best believe churches would lose MOST of their members. Granted the few and faithful would obviously stay, there is always a REMNANT. God always keeps a remnant. The amish for example deal kind of similar to that, and they got female members, some even joined willingly! But for the majority, thats a no no!

Thats a lost cause, its gonna go more feminism, not less.
It is what it is.

But my question to you rehbein is: WHAT do you suggest we do? Just throw it all out, or go back to it?

Why doesnt the emergent church movement just come out and say:

"We dont care what the Bible says. We will do what we do"

After that I would no longer have a bone to pick with them. At that point they have stated honestly what they believe, instead of playing around talking about "God's word" and printing out bibles left and right. Using a verse there and here for a cool 20minute story sermon-

That confession would save them a lot of trouble too! No more need to try to twist verses and talk about culture and bla bla bla

So, you admit to throwing out Paul's teaching on women, then say all we need is the Bible.

That would be acknowledging they are wrong. They have a twisted mindset controlling their followers, any sense of wrong doing would make some take a deeper look into reality. And that would be not good for those in control.

For the record, EVERY SINGLE PERSON who says and believes in "No Creed But The Bible" (or anything similar) are not thinking deeply or accurately at all.

Every single one of you write your own "Confession of Faith" on here daily, and most, if not all who adhere to the above creed are in grave error concerning the Gospel and Scripture. That is a fact.

So, that said, your "No Creed But The Bible" stance is a total misnomer and is thus a false statement.

All we need is the parts of the Bible I like!

Let's get some things out of the way first.
I have said nothing against the men who put together the confessions of faith. So that is not the issue. Those men were fine Christians trying their best to interpret Scripture, but allowing false interpretations into their confessions. And I am certainly not suggesting that the churches are better off today than in the 1600s. Quite the opposite.
There is no question that it is at the insistence of Puritans (Calvinists) that King James agreed to a fresh translation of the Bible. And there were many Puritans who were involved with the translation. What is critical to note is that they did not allow their theology to cause them to tamper with the text, but faithfully translated what was actually written in the Hebrew and Greek (while consulting all existing English translations, and many other documents besides). And they are to be commended for that.
Certainly. I will take just one example – which is a GLARING ERROR – and proclaims that God predestines some men for everlasting life (salvation), and others for eternal damnation.

III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death... VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praised of His glorious justice. (Chapter III, Of God’s Eternal Decree, Westminster Confession of Faith)

Scripture says that Christians (believers, the ones who have been justified) are predestined to be conformed to the image of God’s Son (ultimately glorified) and also to be given all the privileges of sons of God (termed *adoption*): For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.(Rom 8:29,30)

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will (Eph 1:4,5)

How serious and grievous is this error in this Confession?

1. Does the Bible not teach that Christ died for the sins of the whole world? Then how can anyone claim that only some men are predestined to receive eternal life?

2. Does the Bible not teach that the Gospel is to be preached in all the world and to every creature? If the majority are already predestined for Hell, why would God deceive the world with a hollow offer of eternal life?

3. Does the Bible not teach that God commands all men everywhere to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ? If the majority are already predestined for Hell, why would God command all men to obey the Gospel?

4. Does the Bible not teach that *whosoever will* may come and take of the water of life freely? If the majority are already predestined for Hell, why would God say *whosoever* instead of *only the elect*?

In view of all these Bible truths, the Westminster Confession is presenting “another Gospel”. And I have taken just one example. It would require an E-book to address everything else.

They arent readily accessible confessions. I mean London 1689? Westminster?

Christians are worldwide not just a small subset in London or westminister back in the 1680s. If theres a document its in the Bible itself...its only because so many people DONT bother to read the Bible that they had to make these creeds as shorthand.

What about Stephens confession before he was matryed. He was confessing what he believed and he did a pretty good summary. Check out acts chapter 7.