Are you Arminian, Calvinist, or other?

[Eleanor]

Amen. Nothing should teach that no thing but the Scripture can be a Spiritual Authority...

Previously addressed.
That is precisely what the authors of the original WCF mean by Sola Scriptura; i.e., that Scripture is the sole authority.

When a Council is Biblical, it is a Spiritual Authority...

 

[ReverendRV]

Previously addressed.
That is precisely what the original WCF means by Sola Scriptura.

I'm glad it means that when Scripture agrees with a Council, the Council has Authority Sister...

 

[Eleanor]

I'm glad it means that when Scripture agrees with a Council, the Council has Authority Sister...

Okay, so you're saying authoritative interpretation of Scripture.

 

[ReverendRV]

Okay, so you're saying authoritative interpretation of Scripture.

I'm saying that in Chapter 1 paragraph 10 of the WCF, it says the Doctrines of Men which pass the test of Scripture, are Authoritative Christian Doctrine...

You aren't arguing just to argue, are you? I'm your Calvinist Brother...

 

[Eleanor]

I'm saying that in Chapter 1 paragraph 10 of the WCF, it says the Doctrines of Men which pass the test of Scripture, are Authoritative Christian Doctrine...

You aren't arguing just to argue, are you? I'm your Calvinist Brother...

Redundant?

The "doctrines of men" which pass the test of Scripture would also be the "doctrines of Scripture," or they couldn't pass the test.

I don't take my doctrine from Calvin, I take it from Paul. I knew Paul before I knew Calvin.
That Calvin is in total agreement with Paul is a kudo for Calvin.

 

[ReverendRV]

Redundant?

The "doctrines of men" which pass the test of Scripture would also be the "doctrines of Scripture," or they couldn't pass the test.

I don't take my doctrine from Calvin, I take it from Paul. I knew Paul before I knew Calvin.
That Calvin is in total agreement with Paul is a kudo for Calvin.

That's a Circular Argument, so that's not what I mean. I mean the Dictrines of Men that pass the test of Scripture, are further Teaching, or clarified Teaching of the Bible. They are Doctrines of MEN; not Scripture. What does the Bible have to say about the Doctrines of Men? Nothing good, right? But the WCF says that when the Doctrine of Men is Scriptural, it's good...

Elanor, you get it...

 

[makesends]

The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved.21

The WCF has to say this, or you can't Rest in the WCF; right?

The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith

www.the1689confession.com

Your link didn't take me to any particular part of the BCF, so I don't follow your argument.

No, no; the WCF doesn't reject Sola Scriptura. It rejects SOLO Scriptura. Read the WCF chapter one paragraph ten. I Posted about this earlier...

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/are-you-arminian-calvinist-or-other.33/post-892

I guess then, by Solo Scriptura, you mean to say you reject the notion that Scripture alone is useful? Not saying you reject that Scripture alone is authoritative?

 

[Eleanor]

That's a Circular Argument, so that's not what I mean. I mean the Dictrines of Men that pass the test of Scripture, are further Teaching, or clarified Teaching of the Bible. They are Doctrines of MEN;

Evidently, I'm not following you.

Scriptural teachings are not doctrines of men, they are the word of God.

In context of 1690, "doctrines of men" would be such things as assumption of Mary into heaven without dying, "indulgences," merit of works, transfer of merit in the church, etc.

not Scripture. What does the Bible have to say about the Doctrines of Men? Nothing good, right? But the WCF says that when the Doctrine of Men is Scriptural, it's good...

Elanor, you get it...

I'm thinking context is the problem.

 

[ReverendRV]

Your link didn't take me to any particular part of the BCF, so I don't follow your argument.

I guess then, by Solo Scriptura, you mean to say you reject the notion that Scripture alone is useful? Not saying you reject that Scripture alone is authoritative?

No, Scripture Alone is very useful. I would deny that Scripture is the only God Ordained Spiritual Authority. Those who have received the Spiritual Gift of Teaching, teach Authoritative lessons to us. Saint Paul said, 'I say to you, not the Lord...'. In that instance, he taught something as a Teacher with the Spiritual Gift of Teaching; that didn't have to be received as a Command from the Lord...

To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. - 1 Corinthians 7:12


When I say things like this, I half expect the Argument to end; but what in the world am I thinking?? Why should I have to use a Verse, to defend my not having to only use Verses?

Just kidding Why? Because the Verse is the highest and final Spiritual Authority to end our dispute...

 

[ReverendRV]

Evidently, I'm not following you.

Scriptural teachings are not doctrines of men, they are the word of God.

In context of 1690, "doctrines of men" would be such things as assumption of Mary into heaven without dying, "indulgences," merit of works, transfer of merit in the church, etc.


I'm thinking context is the problem.

It's okay. Let's take a break...

 

[Eleanor]

No, Scripture Alone is very useful. I would deny that Scripture is the only God Ordained Spiritual Authority. Those who have received the Spiritual Gift of Teaching, teach Authoritative lessons to us. Saint Paul said, 'I say to you, not the Lord...'. In that instance, he taught something as a Teacher with the Spiritual Gift of Teaching; that didn't have to be received as from the Lord...

Was it the spiritual gift of teaching, or was it that Paul had received his doctrine from Christ personally, and had been caught up to the third heaven (where God dwells) where he heard things he was not allowed to repeat, and knew the mind of Christ well enough to know what Christ would have prescribed in that case?

To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. - 1 Corinthians 7:12


When I say things like this, I half expect the Argument to end; but what in the world am I thinking?? Why should I have to use a Verse, to defend my not having to only use Verses?

Just kidding Why? Because the Verse is the highest and final Spiritual Authority...

 

[ReverendRV]

Was it the spiritual gift of teaching, or was it that Paul had received his doctrine from Christ personally, and had been caught up to the third heaven (where God dwells) where he heard things he was not allowed to repeat, and knew the mind of Christ well enough to know what Christ would have prescribed in that case?

I say to you, (not the Lord); that Saint Paul said his statement "was NOT of the Lord": he didn't receive it from Christ personally while in the Third Heaven...

You've been doing pretty good until now Sister. Now I do think you just want to argue. As I said, when I say things like 1 Cor 7:12, the Argument should be over. When it isn't over after it should be, I'm used to people at CARM Forums not caring about the obvious; and saying ANYTHING to try to be right. Take this as a word from me (not the Lord), from someone with the Spiritual Gift of Teaching; you are trying too hard and are in danger of slipping into Cognitive Dissonance...

Break time...

You will get to the point that you appreciate my other Arguments one day; when they're not against you...

 

[Eleanor]

I say to you, (not the Lord); that Saint Paul said his statement "was NOT of the Lord": he didn't receive it from Christ personally while in the Third Heaven...

Read it again, that's not what I said. Paul would have known Christ's mind even though he had not received a word from Christ specific to this case.

You've been doing pretty good until now Sister. Now I do think you just want to argue. As I said, when I say things like 1 Cor 7:12, the Argument should be over.

Read it again, you are not responding to what I said.

When it isn't over after it should be, I'm used to people at CARM Forums not caring about the obvious; and saying ANYTHING to try to be right. Take this as a word from me (not the Lord), from someone with the Spiritual Gift of Teaching; you are trying too hard and are in danger of slipping into Cognitive Dissonance...

Break time...

You will get to the point that you appreciate my other Arguments one day; when they're not against you...

Which speaks for itself.

Read it again, you are not responding to what I said.

The issue here is not whether Paul received this particular instruction on marriage from Christ in the third heaven,
the issue is that Paul's authority to give such instruction did not derive from his "spiritual gift of teaching,"
but from his appointment by God and Jesus Christ as an Apostle.

Do you not see that you are conflating the spiritual gift of teaching with apostleship authorized by Christ?
It's that conflation I referred to before resembling the SDA hermeneutic.

 

[Ladodgers6]

I voted Calvinist, BUT I probably am more Calvinistic . I do understand that certain camps would not grant me the ' title ' of Calvinist and some wouldn't even extend the hand of friendship if you don't hold 100% to their beliefs. ( I always find comfort in R.C. & Johnny Mac. ..That's the way I want to be. essentials 100% agreement .. other things, conscience ? )

I can resonate with you, I love Luther, he's the first reformer I learned a lot from, especially Justification by Faith Alone, Law & Gospel. I like John Owen, William Perkins, Polycarp, Anselm, R.C, a variety for sure.

 

[Ladodgers6]

He says it is the Duty of All people to believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Most Calvinists will agree to that, but they may disagree that everyone could be Saved by the Gospel. Fuller taught that anyone can be Saved by the Gospel...

It is a Topic for another Thread...

Calvinism teaches that the Gospel is sufficient to save everyone, but it is only efficient in saving the elect.

 

[Ladodgers6]

I voted somewhere between Calvinism and Arminianism, though I'm a Calvinist; since I'm the most liberal 5-Point Calvinist you will meet. I like Fullerism, so I guess by the definition, I would be between...

Be very careful with Fuller, I have to dig up a book I have on him. To be continued...

 

[ReverendRV]

Be very careful with Fuller, I have to dig up a book I have on him. To be continued...

When I say I like Fuller, I'm just speaking about a Cursory understanding I have of Duty Faith...

 

[David1701]

Do you believe that Christ bore the sins of every single person, and received their punishments, when he shed his blood and died on the cross; or, do you believe that he only bore the sins and punishments of the elect?

Bump for @ReverendRV.

 

[ReverendRV]

Bump for @ReverendRV.

No; Jesus only bore the Confessed Sins of the Unconditionally Elect...

Jesus only bore the Sins Nailed to his Cross by Believers. Use this point to prove Limited Atonement. Because I believe All Sin isn't Nailed to the Cross, I am a 5-Point Calvinist; right?

No matter what else I say that may sound unusual...

 

[Carbon]

No; Jesus only bore the Confessed Sins of the Unconditionally Elect...

Jesus only bore the Sins Nailed to his Cross by Believers. Use this point to prove Limited Atonement. Because I believe All Sin isn't Nailed to the Cross, I am a 5-Point Calvinist; right?

No matter what else I say that may sound unusual...

What do you mean by "confessed sins?"