I’m not there any more, friend, but I would substantially affirm the LBCF1689.
OT Nephilim and the ‘sons of God’
Re: OT Nephilim and the ‘sons of God’
0 x
Re: OT Nephilim and the ‘sons of God’
Okay. It may be helpful to know that such confessions are in fundamental conflict with Anabaptism as a whole.
The 1689's confession's origins are in the 1644 confession, which was explicitly written to distinguish them from Anabaptists (and denounce them as well). Considering how sour most Reformed confessions are towards Anabaptists, I hope you can understand our lack of enthusiasm for them. Some people like me would simply be frank and say they are false doctrine, and hope anyone so deceived by them eventually finds the true light.
0 x
Re: OT Nephilim and the ‘sons of God’
I think despite the many differences Christians may have with each other, that the Lord who looks on the heart is often pleased to be gracious to us, though we are but worms, and not men. When I think of the thief on the cross and how small his theology was, I struggle to even know for certain that the man died a Trinitarian (albeit, surely he died a Binitarian). So I do think that for all those on whom the Lord has had mercy, it can be said that they have found true light, indeed.JohnH wrote: ↑Sat May 02, 2026 1:01 pmOkay. It may be helpful to know that such confessions are in fundamental conflict with Anabaptism as a whole.
The 1689's confession's origins are in the 1644 confession, which was explicitly written to distinguish them from Anabaptists (and denounce them as well). Considering how sour most Reformed confessions are towards Anabaptists, I hope you can understand our lack of enthusiasm for them. Some people like me would simply be frank and say they are false doctrine, and hope anyone so deceived by them eventually finds the true light.
May it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life of you and of me.
2 x
Re: OT Nephilim and the ‘sons of God’
Interesting this thread resurfaced as I was just reading Ephesians and noticed that Paul called them "sons of God". I find this a curious phrase because I'm not sure what pot he was stirring by using this provocative phrase. Those familiar with the Hebrew scriptures would have recognized it as previously used only to describe mysterious and powerful angelic beings (Gen 6, Job 1) and I assume it would have sounded strange to those familiar with Greek pagan mythology as well. Today it just sounds like Bible language.
0 x