• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

1689 Baptist Confession of Faith

They are pretty much identical. Baptism being the primary difference.
The sections on Free Will: I find the same objection to both on the wording, and apparently the notion, that man is merely "enabled to will and to do that which is spiritually good". To my mind, Philippians 2:13 ("For it is God who works in you, both to will and to do, according to his good pleasure.") speaks of direct causation —not merely enabling us to spontaneously choose of his good nature and passions to do according to God's purposes. No creature is strictly spontaneous.

One of my favorite points in arguing against the Arminian notion of Freewill, uses this very point, and adds to it that it is also illogical, that man can
do anything uncaused. I have also noticed that in less vehement moments, the Arminian doesn't object to the notion that this or that circumstance, upbringing, geography —whatever— causes one to choose as he does; but suddenly, somehow, when the notion of God causing all those things is brought to bear, they scream, "Violence!".

In fact, the WCF under the section on God's decree, says that God did establish, rather than violate, the will. To me that is causal —not merely an enabling.
 
Back
Top