The Pelagian Heresy is Alive and Well in America

[JesusFan]

I'm not saying that TULIP, nor even anything man comes up with, is hard to grasp. I'm saying that we can't sound the depths (for obvious lack of any other way to get you (over years now, it seems), to accept what I'm constantly getting at). TULIP may be true, it is indeed very useful and helpful, it is implied by many sound doctrines and doctrinal statements and by the Word of God and good reason, but it is not THE TRUTH.

Like fashion, while Calvinism to me explains the most biblical way what Biblical Sotierology itself is, and also defined for us by DOG, none of them are either the scriptures not the Gospel, just best explanations for what salvation means in the bible itself

 

[JesusFan]

Which Confession, and where in that confession?

In both The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) and the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith (LBCF)

 

[CrowCross]

TULIP is not particularly hard to grasp, imho.

The hardest part for me to grasp is that it "feels like" it is us who makes the decision for Christ....though I know it's not us who chooses Jesus but Jesus who chooses us.

 

[Arial]

The hardest part for me to grasp is that it "feels like" it is us who makes the decision for Christ....though I know it's not us who chooses Jesus but Jesus who chooses us.

We do make a decision. If we hear his voice and follow him (believe) it is because our ears have been opened. The Holy Spirit has regenerated us. It is a monergistic work of God is us. We choose in the sense, that if we are doing something (following Christ) we are doing something by choice. Not the puppet strings or robot analogy by those who protest against the TULIP.

So, the issue isn't really why it seems like we make the choice. It is understanding why we made the choice.

It is the, in effect, brain washing teaching and assurance given by those in the pulpit and for so many centuries, that tells people if they say a prayer inviting Jesus into their life, he will come into their life. And they must make that choice. It is that which has made so many who have counted on that afraid to not believe it. They have trusted it and now Calvinism turns that on its head. It requires the trust to be in God and not us and the choice we made. And no one (there may be exceptions of course) can find a single reason within themself that would cause God to choose them. It is forgotten that the Bible says again and again, believe and you will be saved. That believing in the person and work of Jesus is the way to eternal life. A person wrestling with the idea of whether they are among the elect or not, ought to be checking what it is they believe about Jesus. Instead of simply continuing to insist that the word "choose" comes before the word "believe".

 

[CrowCross]

We do make a decision. If we hear his voice and follow him (believe) it is because our ears have been opened. The Holy Spirit has regenerated us. It is a monergistic work of God is us. We choose in the sense, that if we are doing something (following Christ) we are doing something by choice. Not the puppet strings or robot analogy by those who protest against the TULIP.

I have no problem with that....We can't choose Jesus until after we're saved. Which is why I said..."it "feels like" it is us who makes the decision for Christ."

So, the issue isn't really why it seems like we make the choice. It is understanding why we made the choice.

It is the, in effect, brain washing teaching and assurance given by those in the pulpit and for so many centuries, that tells people if they say a prayer inviting Jesus into their life, he will come into their life. And they must make that choice. It is that which has made so many who have counted on that afraid to not believe it. They have trusted it and now Calvinism turns that on its head. It requires the trust to be in God and not us and the choice we made. And no one (there may be exceptions of course) can find a single reason within themself that would cause God to choose them. It is forgotten that the Bible says again and again, believe and you will be saved. That believing in the person and work of Jesus is the way to eternal life. A person wrestling with the idea of whether they are among the elect or not, ought to be checking what it is they believe about Jesus. Instead of simply continuing to insist that the word "choose" comes before the word "believe".

Typically, not always but typically if a person comes forward after hearing the gospel preached they already believe...or perhaps just believed.
They believed because God gave them the faith and used the message to help them understand their salvation. As I have just said regeneration has already or just happened.
When they come forward at the invitation of an altar call...to pray the sinners prayer...I would say they are already saved prior to the prayer.

 

[Josheb]

I'm not saying that TULIP, nor even anything man comes up with, is hard to grasp. I'm saying that we can't sound the depths (for obvious lack of any other way to get you (over years now, it seems), to accept what I'm constantly getting at). TULIP may be true, it is indeed very useful and helpful, it is implied by many sound doctrines and doctrinal statements and by the Word of God and good reason, but it is not THE TRUTH.

I disagree.

 

[makesends]

In both The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) and the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith (LBCF)

Where, specifically, in the WCF and in the 1689 LBCF?

 

[makesends]

Like fashion, while Calvinism to me explains the most biblical way what Biblical Sotierology itself is, and also defined for us by DOG, none of them are either the scriptures not the Gospel, just best explanations for what salvation means in the bible itself

Best so far, perhaps, and best for the most people, perhaps. But they are crutches, I say, for fallen [though regenerated] humanity.

An analogy, a little exaggerated for this, but: God uses liars, sinners, and ignoramuses to preach the Gospel, because what he intends this or that person to hear and understand at any one time, they will not get from directly reading the Bible nor meditating on what it says. They will misunderstand from someone who misspeaks, and still, what truth makes it from one's mouth to another's mind is God's truth.

 

[JesusFan]

Best so far, perhaps, and best for the most people, perhaps. But they are crutches, I say, for fallen [though regenerated] humanity.

An analogy, a little exaggerated for this, but: God uses liars, sinners, and ignoramuses to preach the Gospel, because what he intends this or that person to hear and understand at any one time, they will not get from directly reading the Bible nor meditating on what it says. They will misunderstand from someone who misspeaks, and still, what truth makes it from one's mouth to another's mind is God's truth.

My main concern on the Confessions would be that it does cause me pause when some seem to quote and use them befoe the bible, as if very nearly scripture equivalent

 

[makesends]

My main concern on the Confessions would be that it does cause me pause when some seem to quote and use them befoe the bible, as if very nearly scripture equivalent

I don't blame you for that. I agree that is wrong.

But it may serve to understand that "we" (I don't really identify as Calvinist nor Reformed, but as Calvinistic / Reformed-ish) generally use them as concise, and humanly-derived-for-the-sake-of-human-understanding, statements of Biblical truth. They are well written, better than I could have come up with, and are useful as such —Scripture sometimes being obscure or cryptic or otherwise self-explanatory in long-chain combinations of many passages. You may have noticed that some versions of the Confessions include many references, but not many quotes. You probably also notice that the Confessions don't often "proof text" off just one verse.

I don't know of many Reformed/Calvinists who use them as though they were Scripture. Just as a very apt help in making a point of doctrine understandable.

 

[JesusFan]

I don't blame you for that. I agree that is wrong.

But it may serve to understand that "we" (I don't really identify as Calvinist nor Reformed, but as Calvinistic / Reformed-ish) generally use them as concise, and humanly-derived-for-the-sake-of-human-understanding, statements of Biblical truth. They are well written, better than I could have come up with, and are useful as such —Scripture sometimes being obscure or cryptic or otherwise self-explanatory in long-chain combinations of many passages. You may have noticed that some versions of the Confessions include many references, but not many quotes. You probably also notice that the Confessions don't often "proof text" off just one verse.

I don't know of many Reformed/Calvinists who use them as though they were Scripture. Just as a very apt help in making a point of doctrine understandable.

I think that they are very helpful , as they do provide scripture references to each doctrine being discussed, just was addressing that a times have dialoged with fellow Christians who seemed to almost equate them as scripture, almost as if in order to be orthodox had to submit to one of them or use

 

[Josheb]

My main concern on the Confessions would be that it does cause me pause when some seem to quote and use them befoe the bible, as if very nearly scripture equivalent

I don't blame you for that. I agree that is wrong.

But it may serve to understand that "we" (I don't really identify as Calvinist nor Reformed, but as Calvinistic / Reformed-ish) generally use them as concise, and humanly-derived-for-the-sake-of-human-understanding, statements of Biblical truth. They are well written, better than I could have come up with, and are useful as such —Scripture sometimes being obscure or cryptic or otherwise self-explanatory in long-chain combinations of many passages. You may have noticed that some versions of the Confessions include many references, but not many quotes. You probably also notice that the Confessions don't often "proof text" off just one verse.

I don't know of many Reformed/Calvinists who use them as though they were Scripture. Just as a very apt help in making a point of doctrine understandable.

I think that they are very helpful , as they do provide scripture references to each doctrine being discussed, just was addressing that a times have dialoged with fellow Christians who seemed to almost equate them as scripture, almost as if in order to be orthodox had to submit to one of them or use

Imagine a conversation on salvation in which one participant posts the Canons of Dort and a respondent posts the Remonstrant Confession in refutation. What would the competing appeals to creed accomplish in terms of establishing a correct soteriology?

 

[JesusFan]

Imagine a conversation on salvation in which one participant posts the Canons of Dort and a respondent posts the Remonstrant Confession in refutation. What would the competing appeals to creed accomplish in terms of establishing a correct soteriology?

Without the supreme and final authority of sacred scriptures, it becomes a "he said she said" discussion

 

[makesends]

Imagine a conversation on salvation in which one participant posts the Canons of Dort and a respondent posts the Remonstrant Confession in refutation. What would the competing appeals to creed accomplish in terms of establishing a correct soteriology?

At the most, I would say the truer creed might be used by God for communicating truth to the mind of at least one participant. Hopefully one Confession does a better job than the other in representing and/or communicating Scriptural truth.

Your question sounds to me almost like what I hear people say: "We all have opinions. One is as good as the other." —As though there is no objective truth.

 

[Arial]

At the most, I would say the truer creed might be used by God for communicating truth to the mind of at least one participant. Hopefully one Confession does a better job than the other in representing and/or communicating Scriptural truth.

Your question sounds to me almost like what I hear people say: "We all have opinions. One is as good as the other." —As though there is no objective truth.

The confessions came out of the Reformation and the sola scripturas of the Reformation that were aimed directly at the false teachings of the RCC. Their purpose was to lay out Protestant doctrine, pulled directly and solely from the Scriptures as the full counsel of God, as a statement of faith, covering all doctrines, and the basis of the teaching tool of catechisms. It was designed as a means of the unity of faith within a Christian community, and knowledge of it and agreement with it the criteria for membership in that visible body. That is my understanding of the Creeds.

They do not have the authority of Scripture and were never intended to be used that way, replacing Scripture. Both Voddie Baucham and Sproul quote from the Baptist Confession of 1689 and the WCD respectively. I have not seen them do so as a replacement of Scripture but rather to show it nonconformity to Scripture.

That does not remove our responsibility to check all things with Scripture.

 

[JesusFan]

The confessions came out of the Reformation and the sola scripturas of the Reformation that were aimed directly at the false teachings of the RCC. Their purpose was to lay out Protestant doctrine, pulled directly and solely from the Scriptures as the full counsel of God, as a statement of faith, covering all doctrines, and the basis of the teaching tool of catechisms. It was designed as a means of the unity of faith within a Christian community, and knowledge of it and agreement with it the criteria for membership in that visible body. That is my understanding of the Creeds.

They do not have the authority of Scripture and were never intended to be used that way, replacing Scripture. Both Voddie Baucham and Sproul quote from the Baptist Confession of 1689 and the WCD respectively. I have not seen them do so as a replacement of Scripture but rather to show it nonconformity to Scripture.

That does not remove our responsibility to check all things with Scripture.

The Confessions are useful tools to have a check on what one believes and why, as they will give passages to support doctrine form the scriptures, but at times have had some dialoging with almost use them in place of bible, or that a true christian should use them.

 

[Josheb]

At the most, I would say the truer creed might be used by God for communicating truth to the mind of at least one participant. Hopefully one Confession does a better job than the other in representing and/or communicating Scriptural truth.

Perhaps, but the point is an appeal to creed is fallacious if the creed is used to say "This creed says 'X' so, therefore, I am right and your are wrong."

Your question sounds to me almost like what I hear people say: "We all have opinions. One is as good as the other." —As though there is no objective truth.

Well, the creedalist using any creed the way you and @JesusFan were discussing certainly believes truth is objective. Their truth, that is.

 

[makesends]

The Confessions are useful tools to have a check on what one believes and why, as they will give passages to support doctrine form the scriptures, but at times have had some dialoging with almost use them in place of bible, or that a true christian should use them.

I have seen them used as a reference to what a true Reformed believer should believe, more often than as a substitute for Scripture. It's not the same thing.