| Author | Message | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 172 Registered: 2-2003 |
Apropo Reformed Theology, I read through the Westminster Confession recently for some preparation I was doing for Bible college. This is still considered the definitive statement of the Reformed position as far as I know. I came across some interesting stuff about the covenants, the law and the Sabbath. I will post a couple of extracts; the whole thing can be read online here: http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=westminster_conf_of_faith.html CHAPTER XIX. Of the Law of God. I. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it; and endued him with power and ability to keep it. II. This law, after his Fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon mount Sinai in ten commandments, and written in two tables; the first four commandments containing our duty toward God, and the other six our duty to man. CHAPTER XXI. Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath-day. VII. As it is of the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in his Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which in Scripture is called the Lord's Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath. VIII. This Sabbath is to be kept holy unto the Lord when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations; but also are taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy. Well I must say, apart from the change of the Sabbath, this is rather reminiscent of Ellen White. I used to wonder where she got the idea of the 10 commandments being perpetual. She may have taken on some aspects of Arminianism, but it looks like she lifted chunks of Reformed Theology too. The above tenets sound completely unbiblical to me. Any thoughts? God bless, Adrian | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 272 Registered: 7-2004  |
Hi Adrian, Good to see you posting again. Several months ago I came across the Westminster Confession and was really bothered by how they present the Sabbath. The Babtist Confession reads almost identical in that regard. For that reason, I will not have anything to do with any church that subscribes to the Westminster Confession or a similar one. During the same time of coming across the Westminster Confession, I believe it was the Augsburg Confession where I read that they have what equates to a "New Covenant" understanding of the Sabbath. I'd have to research it all again, but I think the Augsburg Confession was written before the Westminster Confession, and the Augsburg is what Martin Luther went with. | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 273 Registered: 7-2004 |
BTW, it's like Greg Taylor says in his book, that the SDA's are still arguing with the Puritans over which day is the Sabbath. In reality, they're both in error for trying to remain under the Old Covenant. | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 274 Registered: 7-2004 |
Here's what the Augsburg Confession (written in 1530) says about the Sabbath, from this website: http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/concord/web/augs-028.html
| ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 851 Registered: 10-2004  |
Adrian, I believe EGW's Methodist/Wesleyan/Arminian heritage also taught the idea of the Ten Commandments being perpetual. That is most likely where she got it from. Regarding the regeneration/faith discussion: Here are some passages which seem to teach that faith does not come after regeneration: "Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, 'THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.'" (Galatians 3:11 NASB.) "This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit [REGENERATION] by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?" (Galatians 3:2 NASB.) "But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast." (Ephesians 2:4-9 NASB.) Verse 5 seems to say that being "made alive" is the same thing as being "saved." And verse 8 says that we have been saved by grace through faith, and that not of ourselves (since we were dead?), but as a gift of God. Jeremy | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 907 Registered: 7-2003  |
Adrian, I too believe that the reformed understanding of the covenants, the Law, the Decalogue, and the Sabbath is in grave error. If fact, the reformed view of these matters is nearly identical to the SDA view. Chris | ||
| Cindy Registered user Username: Cindy Post Number: 709 Registered: 7-2000 |
Hi everyone...I am trying to quickly catch up on many months of reading here...an almost impossible task to do without just quickly skimming. I kind of wish there was just one "discussion" area and one "prayer" area to scroll down in order to simplify things. I guess the key is to not stay away so long! :-) It is great to see all the new names (and now even some faces!). I've enjoyed this present discussion having attended church at the 10th Presbyterian in Philadelphia for a few years and also going to a number of their Reformed Theology conferences with Michael Horton as one of the speakers. (This was back a few years ago when James Boice, now deceased, was pastoring.) Their "Theology of the Cross" conference was outstanding, I remember. One of the last conferences at the church was disappointing in that they were pushing Sunday observance...but I guess that was to be expected with their Westminster Confession of Faith, a confession that just doesn't seem to see the glory and new wine of Christ's NEW Covenant supercedes and just doesn't mix with the Old Covenant from Sinai. grace always, cindy | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 543 Registered: 3-2005 |
Cindy, That 10th Presbyterian is a great church. They had Donald Grey Barnhouse, and then James Montgomery Boice, and I am not sure who is pastoring now. I agree that Michael Horton, and even R.C. Sproul are wrong about the Sabbath transference, and perpetuity of the 10 commandments, but Rod Rosenblatt, the Lutheran representative on the White Horse Inn doesn't agree with him. The practical effect of their teaching though doesn't even come close to Sabbatarianism in Adventism, as none of these people really keep Sunday like SDAs keep Saturday. I agree with Raven about the Augsburg over the Westminster Confession, but nonetheless these are great creeds of the faith. I agree Ric b, that this is a great discussion. I can't remember in the 4 months I have been posting here anything like the interest generated by this discussion. I think it also proves, that no group has an exclusive corner on the truth, and all denominations have some things that are in error. There is a resurgence in the US in interest among evangelicals about Reformed theology, and I think people like Michael Horton, with his enthusiasm, and RC Sproul, with his clear precise teaching has done a lot to renew interest in the great doctrines of the Reformation. Soli Deo Gloria, Stan | ||
| Patriar Registered user Username: Patriar Post Number: 110 Registered: 3-2005 |
Stan: I forgot to thank you for your words of encouragement! Jeremy: I am trying to follow your questions, but am having difficulty. Would you mind, if you have time, posting what your thoughts are specifically about regeneration happening before or after faith? Thank you! Doc: I appreciated your comments as well. I am so grateful to be getting such a well-rounded lesson in Reformed Theology! Patria | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 173 Registered: 2-2003 |
Hi Raven, Thanks for your welcome. I read the Augsburg Confession too, in connection with the same project, and they seem to have got the Sabbath right. Actually, there was stuff in both confessional documents I seriously disagreed with, but they are both important steps forward, considering they had just come out of the mediaeval church. I don't like the way they trashed the Anabaptists - having been brought up in the Baptist tradition myself :-) Jeremy, You could be right about the Methodists and the TCs, I did not check on that. The idea certainly was very widespread in 19th century America, and I guess the cults just took it on. I believe the Mormons are also Sabbath keepers (Sunday in their case). I tried explaining to a Mormon once about the Sabbath and Sunday, and he had no idea what I was talking about! LOL. In which case, then all these traditions had the Sabbath wrong in that period! As to regeneration, the Bible says it is a work of the Holy Spirit, and also comes by hearing the word of God. See John 3 and Titus 3: 5 for the former, as well as: "He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created" (James 1:18). "For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God." (1 Pet. 1:23). Also consider, "Faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ." (Romans 10. 17). I don't know any verse which would state specifically that the new birth precedes faith or repentance. If the Calvinist view were correct, then it would seem the new birth could occur even without anyone hearing the gospel, if it is simply an arbitrary work of God. The Ephesians verse is interesting. I have heard it claimed that the Bible teaches that saving faith is a gift of God, but I cannot see this in Scripture. This verse certainly does not teach it. If there is another verse, then let me know. The English here is not clear, but the Greek is more obvious. Word for word, it says, "for by-grace you-are having-been-saved though faith and this not from you, of-God the gift" Both grace and faith are of feminine gender in Greek, so if Paul was saying that faith is a gift, then the relative pronoun "this" would also be feminine, but it is not, it is neuter. So it could either refer forward to gift, which is neuter, or back to the whole sentence. "By grace you have been saved though faith" °- which is in fact the gospel, would be the gift of God, not just the faith. Adrian | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 8 Registered: 1-2004  |
I found an interesting article that relates to Calvinism, by a former Calvinist. It's not that long and I thought it had good points to consider. http://lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=63 The author assumes he knows the correct meaning of Romans 9. Whether or not his interpretation is correct, I was impressed with the OT background he gives. Jeremiah | ||
| Cindy Registered user Username: Cindy Post Number: 710 Registered: 7-2000 |
Jeremiah, That was an interesting article; makes me want to study into those Scriptures more.... But it is hard for me to understand how someone would turn from Protestantism to Catholicism! My co-worker is Catholic and her parish priest is a former Presbyterian minister who is now one of the few married (with children) Catholic priests...allowed by "the Church" now for converted/already married men. cindy | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 544 Registered: 3-2005 |
Jeremy, That passage you quoted from Ephesians 2:5, and put in bold print "But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, MADE US ALIVE TOGETHER WITH CHRIST (by grace you have been saved), and RAISED US UP TOGETHER... This is the clearest statement I know of stating that Regeneration comes first in the process. It is God making us alive (when we were DEAD! in our tresspasses), and it is God doing the raising from our dead state. If we are spiritually dead, then it is impossible to exercise faith. A corpse cannot exercise faith, and a spiritual corpse is what we are until God sovereignly saves us at a time and place of His choosing and not ours. To quote from R.C. Sproul, "Dead men cannot make themselves come alive. Dead men cannot create spiritual life within themselves." I don't see how the Arminians explain away these verses in Eph 2. If the exercising of our faith precedes Regeneration, then it becomes a work of man to reach out to God first, where to be truly saved by grace, it has to be a work of God first resurrecting our dead spirits--then comes our response of faith and repentance. Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 545 Registered: 3-2005 |
Doc, Welcome back to FAF. I read some of your posts last Oct on this topic, but I am not quite sure where you are coming from. On a post above, you expressed a question about whether saving faith was a gift of God, and you said "but I cannot see this in scripture". Do you not believe that saving faith is a gift of God? Could you clarify that statement? Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 547 Registered: 3-2005 |
Many critics of Calvinism will say that only Paul seemed to teach these doctrines in Romans and Ephesians. But I think the Gospel of John in Jesus' own words teaches TULIP. John 3:8, where Jesus was talking about the new birth from above to Nicodemus, "The wind blows wherever it pleases...So it is with everyone born of the spirit"-This seems to be talking about the work of the Spirit in regeneration. John 5:24 "...whoever hears my word...has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life" That is the strongest statement of the Perseverance of the saints. Then in John 6, you have the most unpopular sermon that Jesus ever preached. Notice He started out with 5,000 people who had followed Jesus because He had given them something that they wanted--food! But notice that when Jesus starts talking about Predestination, look at how they all slinked away, and Jesus was left with his 12 disciples. John 6:37 "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me, I will never drive away" (The Father elects those who will come, and they will never be lost.) John 6:44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day" It seems that in those texts above you have implied all of the TULIP except maybe the Limited atonement. Then in John 10 Jesus gives a detailed treatise on how He is the Good Shepherd. John 10:11 "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for THE SHEEP" John 10:14 "I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me--...v.15 ...and I lay down my life for THE SHEEP" John 10:17 "The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life--only to take it up again" Who is Jesus laying down His life for? The goats? No, He is laying down His life for the sheep. Maybe the above is too simplistic, and I would welcome comments on it. I have only thought more about this topic in the last 4 months, but the more I think about the implications of a universal atonement vs. a definite efficacious atonement for those that the Father covenanted with the Son to save, then I don't see any way around this problem. If Jesus' atonement is truly a penal substitutionary act, and "the wages of sin is death", then how did Jesus pay for the sins of those who were in Hades when Jesus was on the cross, and on what basis does anyone end up in hell, if their penalty was paid for. This seems to be where Universalism comes from. I am not a theologian, and I certainly don't have all the answers, but thinking about these questions has certainly caused me to stay awake at night. Stan | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2305 Registered: 12-2003  |
At this point (and I admit my conclusions may change with time and study) I'm thinking that no one confession or "ism" states the entire reality about this subject. I'm increasingly convinced that the Reformed view of God's sovereignty is Biblical. I still like Grudem's explanation that God is absolutely sovereign over everything (being the Creator and all!), including the future (which He does know) and even our decisions (which are free because He awakens us to make free decisions). Grudem also points out that our definition of "free choice" might be part of our problem. As humans, we tend to think of "free choice" as a decision we make without outside interference from God--freely on our own. However, he points out that a decision we make apart from input from God would make us "without God". Such a choice would really not be free; it would be a choice of death. Because God is God he ordains free choice for us, but that intrinsically means choices we make under the umbrella of His sovereignty. This idea make perfect sense to me. Further, I like his pointing out that the questions left unanswered by Calvinism and Arminianism bring us face to face with the real issue of who God is. (See my post previously.) I do not believe Reformed theology has the Biblical understanding of the Ten Commandments. (I taught with some Reformed colleagues and also know some people through church who grew up Reformed and were very legalistic about Sunday.) Perhaps this legalistic tendency makes for a sort of cold, precise religious practice. I still think the New Covenant is what truly brings people to life. Once a person understands what Jesus really did and is born again, his understanding of the sovereignty of God, etc. begins to grow and expand. I still see a paradox at work which we cannot fully explain. For example, 2 Cor. 5:21 says, "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." "To be sin" can be translated "to be a sin offering", but both NIV and NASB render it "to be sin". Galatians 3:13 says, "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for usófor it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree"-- These verses say more than that Jesus died for our sins. He didn't just pay a price; he BECAME a curseóHe BECAME sin. He didn't just hang on the cross and die in our place, although He did do that. He endured God's wrath against sin itself. He was able to open the new, living way to the Father by His blood not just befcause He died in our place but because He BECAME a curse and sin, and He endured God's wrath against the entire sin of the universe. The universe can be restored eventually because Jesus became the curse and became sin and endured God's wrath against it. The result for us is not just that we are forgiven, but as 2 Cor. 5:21 says, He became sin so that we "might become the righteousness of God." This process was more than substitution. It was total identification. He became sinóeven though He had no sin in Himóand as a sinless person He endured God's wrath against sin. We, by our regeneration by the Holy Spirit, become God's righteousness. We become new creations. Jesus also adopted an identity not intriniscally His ownóbut He became a curseóso we can become righteousnessóan identity not intrinsically our own. Now if Jesus became sin and a curse and took on the wrath of God for the entire creation, His life and death and sacrifice were not just about us. Romans 8:18-23 talks about creation itself groaning while it waits for us, the sons of God, to be reveled by the redemption of our bodies so creation itself "may be brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God." Jesus' sacrifice was not only about forgiving and restoring humanity to sinless oneness with God. It might be the main purpose, but actually we can't even know now exactly all the ramifications of Jesus' death and resurrection. This being the case, I think we might be looking at Christ's sacrifice for us from a narrow perspective. Perhaps the question is really not whether or not Jesus paid the price for everyone's sins or just the elect's sins. John the Baptist said of Jesus, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29) Jesus said, "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him" (John 3:17). Hebrews 10:28-31 reminds people that anyone who broke the law of Moses was condemned to death on the witness of two or three people. "How much more severly do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,' and again, 'The Lord will judge his people'.' It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." While I absolutely believe that people are predestined, as Romans 9 clarifies, I still think that somehow the Holy Spirit's quickening of our hearts makes us able to say "yes" or "no" to Jesus. (The great paradox.) Also as Grudem affirms, our choices have eternal consequences. How this works, I cannot explain, but I think I can see how Jesus could have died for all creation without that meaning that those who are lost are paying for their sins a second time. The way I see it is this: without Jesus, ALL creation would have been lost. Sin tore the fabric of the universeóeven more than the universe--all creationóand only Jesus could repair that with His death. Those who do not accept Jesus will be lost because they have rejected eternal life. They remain spiritually dead and unregenerate. Somehow in God's sovereignty, He foreknows and predestines those who will be saved and those who will be lost. But it seems to me the lost are lost because they reject Jesusóone of those free choices they make which have eternal consequencesóand not because Jesus didn't atone for their sin. This situation, of course, is not explainable in human terms, but even the Calvinistic position is that humans have free choice under the umbrella of God's sovereignty. In short, I can't quite see Limited Atonement. But as I said, this is just how I see it right now. My views have already changed a lot over the past few months, and they may continue to change. But now, it seems to me that God's sovereignty and our free choice are both at workówith our choices being influnced by God's sovereignty, paradoxically enough--and I just can't explain how that works. If I could, though, then God would be small enough for my finite mind to comprehend. I praise Himósalvation belongs to our God! Colleen PS--welcome back, Adrian! I had been wondering about you and how you were doing! It's great to hear from you. | ||
| Gmatt Registered user Username: Gmatt Post Number: 11 Registered: 3-2005 |
Colleen, I like your statement above!! "If I could, though, then God would be small enough for my finite mind to comprehend." | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 908 Registered: 7-2003 |
Hmmmmm......I don't know if I agree with you Colleen that "the Calvinist position is that humans have free choice". Calvinists reject libertarian free will or what we would normally consider to be free "choice". They accept compatablist free will. That is, any so-called "choice" that any creature makes is entirely dependent upon the nature of that creature. You can only want or "choose" in accordance with what you are. So as a spiritual corpse, you cannot "choose" Christ. You cannot choose anything but sin and death nor would you want to. As a regenerate person you cannot help, but choose Christ. Saying "no" is not an option; because God sovereignly chose you and created you as a new being that will infallibly say "yes". In the final analysis, there is never the option to choose "yes" or "no". You only do one or the other based on whether God chose you or not. Grudem is quite clear on this in his systematic theology. Our choices are no more than the result of a choice already made by God. Grudem uses the story of Macbeth as an example. In the play, Macbeth commits a murder, but while on one level you can say that Macbeth committed the murder, on a higher level it becomes apparent that it is really Shakespeare who decreed that Macbeth would murder. While Macbeth is culpable for the murder, the author, Shakespeare, is the one who decreed it. While we are culpable for our choices, God has already decreed every "choice" and action in advance. Hence the term "free" will does not apply in any normal sense of the word. The term "compatabalist" is more apt. We only have "choice" in so far as that "choice" has been pre-decreed. Grudem even goes on to say that every time a set of dice is rolled and they come up a certain number, the action of rolling the dice and the number they would show was predetermined, decreed, and willed by God before the foundation of the world. If all this is true, then God also decreed and willed every murder, every rape, molestation, every abduction of every child and on and on. If God is Shakespeare in Grudem's analogy, is not God the ultimate author of all evil? I see this as highly problematic. Chris | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 174 Registered: 2-2003 |
Jeremiah, Thanks for that article on Romans 9. It certainly made a lot of sense. Hello Stan, Thanks for the welcome. As to where I am coming from, it depends what you mean. If you want to stick me into a box bearing the label of some theological tradition, then I donít think I can oblige. Iím not sure myself. I believe Colleen made some comment about no single ëismí having the entire truth. I agree. I am clearer about what I am not than what I am. I am pretty sure I am not a Calvinist, either in terms of their soteriology, or their whole Reformed theological system. As to your specific question about what I think about faith being a gift of God. Where I am coming from is, that if I am expected to believe and accept something as absolutely reliable truth, then I want to see absolute Scriptural evidence. I happen to believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and therefore a reliable, sure foundation for my faith, so I will accept explicit Scriptural evidence, in fact, I would put my life on it ñ which is what we are supposed to do, right? However, I am not so happy about accepting theological premises based on presuppositions, speculation, logical deductions, philosophical considerations or opinions of certain theologians, even if supported by subsequent proof-texting. Of course, these may be correct, but not necessarily. I have been duped too many times to let it happen to me again without a fight. By sticking to Scripture and not going beyond it, this means I have to say, ìI donít knowî more than I used to, but it does not seem to bother me. I donít think the Bible gives us the answer to every question that we can possibly think of, but it does teach us what we need to know to be saved and to live in a way which is pleasing to God. I am still studying and learning, but I enjoy it. So my question was, and is, does anyone know if the Bible states specifically that saving faith is a gift of God? If it does, I will accept it, if not, then I reserve the right to question it. Is that OK? Adrian | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 175 Registered: 2-2003 |
On the subject of the ordo salutis, it just occurred to me: According to Reformed theology, the new birth and the baptism in the Spirit or receiving the Spirit are the same thing, right? (I do not agree, but that would be a subject for another discussion.) Just postulating that the Reformed position is correct for the sake of argument, then what about all the cases in Acts where the converts received the Spirit after they had believed and were baptised? In fact, there is only one case in which it is ambiguous as to the order, Cornelius and his household in chapter 10: 44-48. The order is belief ñ baptism ñ receiving the Spirit in the following cases: the original 120 disciples in chapter 2 (I think we can postulate they believed if they had been following Jesus for 3 years, see John 2: 11); the Samaritans in 8: 12-17; Paul in 9: 3-19; the Ephesian disciples (why were they interested in being disciples at all if they were ìtotally depravedî without the Spirit?) in 19: 1-7. Does that help anyone? doc |
