JDS
New Member
Posts: 48
|
Post by JDS on Oct 7, 2022 5:12:02 GMT -8
Hello folks. Thank you Civic for inviting me to participate on this forum. It is a blessing.
This is my first post and my first thread starter and by way of explanation of my request in the thread title, I will just say that IF it is a requirement to accept Reformed doctrine, as it is expressed by the T.U.L.I.P. as being an alternate expression of the teaching of the scriptures, then I am out. I do not believe this expression of "the faith," which is the doctrines of Christ, the doctrines that define his person and work, can be redefined and repackaged like the Reformed do, and still be the gospel which is able to deliver a sinner from the awful penalty of his sins, which is eternal separation from God in the lake of fire called the second death. These doctrines of Christ are the fundamentals of the Christian faith and are chronicled and described and defined in the New Testament scriptures, beginning with the gospel accounts that informs us of his virgin birth and his pedigree of being the very Son of God in the flesh and as being the very narrow way of salvation for all sinners.
2 John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
The phrase, "doctrine of Christ," is found twice in the KJV. This second passage will define the doctrine of Christ as foundational to his person. Look.
He 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
3 And this will we do, if God permit.
The "therefore" in V 1 demands we understand his previous comments. They say this:
He 5:11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.
12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
If one does not get the foundational doctrines right, he has zero chance of ever understanding the deeper things of God and is liable to fall to the best philosophy the world can offer, like Calvinism, where words, plain as they can be, has some deep mystical meaning, but certainly do not mean what they say.
Consider that a body of doctrine exists in the NT that is founded upon the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It was not preached in the OT. The name of this body of doctrine is called simply, "the faith." I am not going to detail this truth now but one would do themselves a favor if they one look this phrase up. It is in the NT 42 times. This doctrine will get you saved from your sins if you are not born again and will give you hope of one day receiving a new glorified body so we may live in the very presence of God, the real meaning of predestination.
Here are a couple of those verses that has to do with the true Christian and his instruction of how to respond to those err concerning it. It is not exhaustive;
Paul says:
8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
Peter
1 Pe 5:9 Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world.
Jude
Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
We are not to be passive around those who err concerning the faith. It is too important.
Some people want to say that we just have a different opinion, and I agree, but we also have a different definition and response to THE FAITH. The T.U.L.I.P. is not "The faith." It is an error and men who hold to this doctrine errs from the faith. It is that simple.
I do not believe that all persons who is in that system are unsaved. Far from it, but they are deceived by it. They should repent and get out of it. Most in it are there after they got saved. Few can say they were saved because of it. We should mark it and warn people against it. We should defend the faith, not embrace it or ignore it.
My request is real. I have been on other forums and have had many of my comments taken down and edited because some one was offended by them and hit the report button. That left my whole defense of the faith compromised and someone who might read it later might miss important points that is important to my whole argument. If I break rules that is a different matter but I should be allowed to defend the faith within the rules. In those other forums I was not.
|
|
|
|
Post by civic on Oct 7, 2022 5:50:09 GMT -8
Welcome to the forum JDS and I'm glad you are here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Obadiah on Oct 7, 2022 8:12:05 GMT -8
Hello folks. Thank you Civic for inviting me to participate on this forum. It is a blessing. This is my first post and my first thread starter and by way of explanation of my request in the thread title, I will just say that IF it is a requirement to accept Reformed doctrine, as it is expressed by the T.U.L.I.P. as being an alternate expression of the teaching of the scriptures, then I am out. I do not believe this expression of "the faith," which is the doctrines of Christ, the doctrines that define his person and work, can be redefined and repackaged like the Reformed do, and still be the gospel which is able to deliver a sinner from the awful penalty of his sins, which is eternal separation from God in the lake of fire called the second death. These doctrines of Christ are the fundamentals of the Christian faith and are chronicled and described and defined in the New Testament scriptures, beginning with the gospel accounts that informs us of his virgin birth and his pedigree of being the very Son of God in the flesh and as being the very narrow way of salvation for all sinners. 2 John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. The phrase, "doctrine of Christ," is found twice in the KJV. This second passage will define the doctrine of Christ as foundational to his person. Look. He 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. 3 And this will we do, if God permit. The "therefore" in V 1 demands we understand his previous comments. They say this: He 5:11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. 12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. 13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. 14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. If one does not get the foundational doctrines right, he has zero chance of ever understanding the deeper things of God and is liable to fall to the best philosophy the world can offer, like Calvinism, where words, plain as they can be, has some deep mystical meaning, but certainly do not mean what they say. Consider that a body of doctrine exists in the NT that is founded upon the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It was not preached in the OT. The name of this body of doctrine is called simply, "the faith." I am not going to detail this truth now but one would do themselves a favor if they one look this phrase up. It is in the NT 42 times. This doctrine will get you saved from your sins if you are not born again and will give you hope of one day receiving a new glorified body so we may live in the very presence of God, the real meaning of predestination. Here are a couple of those verses that has to do with the true Christian and his instruction of how to respond to those err concerning it. It is not exhaustive; Paul says: 8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. Peter 1 Pe 5:9 Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world. Jude Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. We are not to be passive around those who err concerning the faith. It is too important. Some people want to say that we just have a different opinion, and I agree, but we also have a different definition and response to THE FAITH. The T.U.L.I.P. is not "The faith." It is an error and men who hold to this doctrine errs from the faith. It is that simple. I do not believe that all persons who is in that system are unsaved. Far from it, but they are deceived by it. They should repent and get out of it. Most in it are there after they got saved. Few can say they were saved because of it. We should mark it and warn people against it. We should defend the faith, not embrace it or ignore it. My request is real. I have been on other forums and have had many of my comments taken down and edited because some one was offended by them and hit the report button. That left my whole defense of the faith compromised and someone who might read it later might miss important points that is important to my whole argument. If I break rules that is a different matter but I should be allowed to defend the faith within the rules. In those other forums I was not. There are a few of us here that were former Calvinist but have deconstructed from the form of theology. We've been set free! So welcome and I'm glad you're here and looking forward reading some of your posts. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2022 17:22:34 GMT -8
Hello folks. Thank you Civic for inviting me to participate on this forum. It is a blessing.................. We are not to be passive around those who err concerning the faith. It is too important. Some people want to say that we just have a different opinion, and I agree, but we also have a different definition and response to THE FAITH. The T.U.L.I.P. is not "The faith." It is an error and men who hold to this doctrine errs from the faith. It is that simple. I do not believe that all persons who is in that system are unsaved. Far from it, but they are deceived by it. They should repent and get out of it. Most in it are there after they got saved. Few can say they were saved because of it. We should mark it and warn people against it. We should defend the faith, not embrace it or ignore it. My request is real. I have been on other forums and have had many of my comments taken down and edited because someone was offended by them and hit the report button. That left my whole defense of the faith compromised and someone who might read it later might miss important points that is important to my whole argument. If I break rules that is a different matter but I should be allowed to defend the faith within the rules. In those other forums I was not. And what is the faith to which you subscribe? Can you define it? Articulate it in your own words? Are you Dispensationalist? |
|
JDS
New Member
Posts: 48
|
Post by JDS on Oct 8, 2022 16:41:08 GMT -8
Hello folks. Thank you Civic for inviting me to participate on this forum. It is a blessing.................. We are not to be passive around those who err concerning the faith. It is too important. Some people want to say that we just have a different opinion, and I agree, but we also have a different definition and response to THE FAITH. The T.U.L.I.P. is not "The faith." It is an error and men who hold to this doctrine errs from the faith. It is that simple. I do not believe that all persons who is in that system are unsaved. Far from it, but they are deceived by it. They should repent and get out of it. Most in it are there after they got saved. Few can say they were saved because of it. We should mark it and warn people against it. We should defend the faith, not embrace it or ignore it. My request is real. I have been on other forums and have had many of my comments taken down and edited because someone was offended by them and hit the report button. That left my whole defense of the faith compromised and someone who might read it later might miss important points that is important to my whole argument. If I break rules that is a different matter but I should be allowed to defend the faith within the rules. In those other forums I was not. And what is the faith to which you subscribe? Can you define it? Articulate it in your own words? Are you Dispensationalist? I have defined it using the scriptures themselves. They do a much better job than I can. The answer is "the doctrine of Christ". That does not mean the doctrine he teaches but the doctrine he is. There are some things about our Lord Jesus Christ that we cannot get wrong and be justified. I will quote the op here.
2 John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
The phrase, "doctrine of Christ," is found twice in the KJV. This second passage will define the doctrine of Christ as foundational to his person. Look.
He 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
3 And this will we do, if God permit.
The "therefore" in V 1 demands we understand his previous comments. They say this:
He 5:11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.
12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
One preacher called this the doctrine of moving on.
Am I a dispensationalist? Everyone is a dispensationalist to some degree. I am a literalist. This makes me a dispensationalist by default.
Here is another quote from my op.
I do not believe this expression of "the faith," which is the doctrines of Christ, the doctrines that define his person and work, can be redefined and repackaged like the Reformed do, and still be the gospel which is able to deliver a sinner from the awful penalty of his sins, which is eternal separation from God in the lake of fire called the second death. These doctrines of Christ are the fundamentals of the Christian faith and are chronicled and described and defined in the New Testament scriptures, beginning with the gospel accounts that informs us of his virgin birth and his pedigree of being the very Son of God in the flesh and as being the very narrow way of salvation for all sinners.
|
|
JDS
New Member
Posts: 48
|
Post by JDS on Oct 8, 2022 17:38:11 GMT -8
I would like to make it easy for those who are interested in "the Faith" to read these verses that speaks of it. One can use some God given logic and reasoning and draw some conclusions from this phrase. Taken together, what does it mean? Why would we be exhorted to examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith lest there was a possibility we were not and we were therefore reprobate because of it? Does this verse, 2 Cor 13:5 for instance, assume that upon self examination and self proving we found we were not in the faith, that we could get in the faith? Would this not lead us to repentance and faith as the corrective measure?
One will notice that all these verses about the faith are post death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This phase is first mentioned in the scriptures in Acts 3:16. Four thousand years had passed in human history before God brought up this phrase. Why? Be cause this faith was not revealed. It is particular. It involves the name of Jesus Christ.It involves his death and resurrection from the tomb. No one could have believed this before it happened and very few did after it happened, only 8000 during this Feast of Weeks festival of the Jews when the Holy Spirit was given as the gift of God from heaven, poured out on Israel in Jerusalem in AD 30.The receiving of the gift of God, the Holy Spirit, is the definition of passing from death to life.
Please read these verses and give some thought. My position is that there are fundamentals of the faith that one must grasp and believe with his heart and they involve the gospel of Jesus Christ. They are simple to understand but they do require faith to believe them. One will not be saved unless he embraces this gospel from the heart. It is the faith.
Ac 3:16 And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.
Ac 6:7 And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.
Ac 13:8 But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith.
Ac 14:22 Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.
Ac 16:5 And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily.
Ac 24:24 And after certain days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, which was a Jewess, he sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ.
Ro 1:5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:
Ro 3:3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
Ro 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
Ro 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
Ro 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
1Co 16:13 Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong.
2Co 13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
Ga 1:23 But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.
Ga 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Ga 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Ga 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Eph 3:12 In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.
Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
Php 1:27 Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;
Php 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
Col 1:23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and [be] not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;
Col 2:7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.
Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
1Ti 1:2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
1Ti 3:9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
1Ti 3:13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1Ti 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
1Ti 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
1Ti 6:21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace [be] with thee. Amen. « [The first to Timothy was written from Laodicea, which is the chiefest city of Phrygia Pacatiana.] »
2Ti 2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
2Ti 3:8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
2Ti 4:7 I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith:
Tit 1:1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;
Tit 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
Tit 3:15 All that are with me salute thee. Greet them that love us in the faith. Grace be with you all. Amen. « [It was written to Titus, ordained the first bishop of the church of the Cretians, from Nicopolis of Macedonia.] »
Jas 2:1 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.
1Pe 5:9 Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world.
Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
Re 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.
Re 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
|
|
|
|
Post by Exeter on Oct 8, 2022 18:22:55 GMT -8
This is my first post and my first thread starter and by way of explanation of my request in the thread title, I will just say that IF it is a requirement to accept Reformed doctrine, as it is expressed by the T.U.L.I.P. as being an alternate expression of the teaching of the scriptures, then I am out. I got the impression from the invitation to join Berean Apologetics that a healthy dislike of Calvinism was a sought after characteristic. |
|
|
|
Post by civic on Oct 8, 2022 18:35:03 GMT -8
This is my first post and my first thread starter and by way of explanation of my request in the thread title, I will just say that IF it is a requirement to accept Reformed doctrine, as it is expressed by the T.U.L.I.P. as being an alternate expression of the teaching of the scriptures, then I am out. I got the impression from the invitation to join Berean Apologetics that a healthy dislike of Calvinism was a sought after characteristic. Healthy discussions between Calvinists and non Calvinists where we can discuss our differences is a respectful manner . That is my hope and prayer . |
|
JDS
New Member
Posts: 48
|
Post by JDS on Oct 9, 2022 4:46:52 GMT -8
This is my first post and my first thread starter and by way of explanation of my request in the thread title, I will just say that IF it is a requirement to accept Reformed doctrine, as it is expressed by the T.U.L.I.P. as being an alternate expression of the teaching of the scriptures, then I am out. I got the impression from the invitation to join Berean Apologetics that a healthy dislike of Calvinism was a sought after characteristic. I think God in the scriptures does not expect us to know all his wonderful doctrines when we first first get saved. Our instruction from him is to study his words and he will teach us. He does require us to believe his gospel before he will save us. The foundation is what is most important. The gospel is the foundation. It is fundamental to our understanding of God. Fundamentalists and Reformed differ on every doctrine that we discuss, including the gospel. To pretend that everybody is believing the truth because we all say the same name, Jesus, is not right. |
|
|
|
Post by civic on Oct 9, 2022 5:00:42 GMT -8
I got the impression from the invitation to join Berean Apologetics that a healthy dislike of Calvinism was a sought after characteristic. I think God in the scriptures does not expect us to know all his wonderful doctrines when we first first get saved. Our instruction from him is to study his words and he will teach us. He does require us to believe his gospel before he will save us. The foundation is what is most important. The gospel is the foundation. It is fundamental to our understanding of God. Fundamentalists and Reformed differ on every doctrine that we discuss, including the gospel. To pretend that everybody is believing the truth because we all say the same name, Jesus, is not right. Amen brother ! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2022 7:05:17 GMT -8
And what is the faith to which you subscribe? Can you define it? Articulate it in your own words? Are you Dispensationalist? I have defined it using the scriptures themselves. They do a much better job than I can. The answer is "the doctrine of Christ". That does not mean the doctrine he teaches but the doctrine he is. There are some things about our Lord Jesus Christ that we cannot get wrong and be justified. I will quote the op here.
2 John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
The phrase, "doctrine of Christ," is found twice in the KJV. This second passage will define the doctrine of Christ as foundational to his person. Look.
He 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
3 And this will we do, if God permit.
The "therefore" in V 1 demands we understand his previous comments. They say this:
He 5:11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.
12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
One preacher called this the doctrine of moving on. What "one preacher" was that? What did the Reformers teach on this? First, I can appreciate the comment, " Everyone is a dispensationalist...." and hope it is likewise appreciated everyone is Catholic to some degree, everyone is preterist to some degree, and every Protestant is Reformed to some degree  . More op-relevantly, though, moving the goal posts away from dispensationalism to literalism dodges the question. It may even make it worse because being a literalist could be evidence of a difference from the doctrine of Christ! Neither Christ nor the Biblical writers were literalists! The correct way to read scripture is to read it the way the writers read it! Where they read it literally that is where Every Christian should also read it literally. Where they read and asserted it figuratively that is where we too should read and accept it figuratively. We'll probably have plenty of opportunity to observe that as the thread unfolds. The basic argument of this op is, " Scripture says X about the doctrines of Christ, Reformed doctrine says Y. Because those subscribing to Reformed doctrine are not following the doctrines of Christ they are not Christians." And you've stated you'd like to be banned from the forum if you cannot obey the forums rules. This op is dangerously close to violating rules 1b and 1c which prohibit derogatory language and attacking others' religious beliefs. I cannot think of a worst attack than insinuating a person who beilieve in the person and work of Jesus Christ is not a Christian. I am surprised not one else, including civic and the admins, did not catch, note, and address this. Appeals to No True Scotsman have ALWAYS been a problem in Christian forum Arminian versus Calvinism boards. It invariably leads to the kind of rancorous (non-)discourse this forum proactively seeks to avoid. It would, however, be better for this discussion of this thread when two things are posted. The first is to provide evidence the Reformers teach something different than Jesus. This can be done by examining the Reformers' views on the Bible passages quoted in this op. So, prove the Reformers did not teach the doctrines of Christ and do it in a manner that proves it, and not just evidences it based on a literalist, non-Reformed-doctrine reading of scripture (by which this discussion should be measured), and doesn't end up hypocritically committing the exact same error being attributed to Reform doctrine and do it without violating the forum's rules. Shall we start with what the Reformers taught about the first passage quoted in this op? The first passage quoted is 2 John 1:9-11 using the KJV. It's a curious choice because only the KJV and the Douay-Rheims translations translate " didache" as " doctrine." All the others simply say "teaching." Forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but the KJV is a Reformation translation. Ironic given the stated purpose of this op. More importantly, when the Greek manuscripts of scripture were translated into the English King James Version the meaning of the word, " doctrine" was different than we now use the term, different than the way the term was applied in the Reformation, and different from the way it is now being used in this op. This should be addressed decisively if the op is to prove correct. Remember: there was little Reformed doctrine in 1611. The Reformation was less than 100 years old, the practice (Church-wide) of forming doctrine was new (it took the RCC nearly 400 years and every Christian is also Catholic to some degree ). The term doctrine has come to mean " a belief, or set of beliefs, held and taught by a person, group of people, or institution." That is not the definition of " didache" in the first century. So let us know if " didache" is to mean teaching, or to mean doctrine in the modern sense. If neither is the definition intended for use in this discussion, then start by defining terms as you intend to use them and us to understand them. Make sure the definition(s) is demonstrably in accordance with the didache/teaching of Christ . . It has not been shown the Reformed redefine and repackage the doctrines of Christ. Several commentaries on the 2 John 1 text can be found HERE. The reader can, therefore, peruse the commentaries from the Reformed-minded commentators (such as Matthew Henry) and those from the Dispensationalist minded (such as John Darby of Cyrus Scofield), and see if there's any difference from one another and the doctrines/teachings of Christ, and see who is identical or closest. Otherwise, I suspect the single greatest challenge of this op will be an accurate presentation of Reformed doctrine because the second biggest problem in Arm v Cal debates is the straw man. It's not only common in Christian discussion forums, but also in our extra-biblical source material. I remind everyone participating in this thread the Reformation was a response to bad doctrine and practice in the RCC. EVERY Protestant is, therefore, Reformed. Unless a poster is RCC then s/he is to some degree abiding by "redefined and repackaged" doctrine. Arminius was Reformed!!! So.... if you're not Reformed (either Calvinist or Arminian), and you're not RCC, then you are something new and different (and likely mistakenly thinking it is the doctrines of Christ), which is why I mentioned Dispensationalism. I, for one, am looking forward to this conversation (as long as it remains topical, well-mannered, and respectful). |
|
JDS
New Member
Posts: 48
|
Post by JDS on Oct 10, 2022 5:16:16 GMT -8
I have defined it using the scriptures themselves. They do a much better job than I can. The answer is "the doctrine of Christ". That does not mean the doctrine he teaches but the doctrine he is. There are some things about our Lord Jesus Christ that we cannot get wrong and be justified. I will quote the op here.
2 John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
The phrase, "doctrine of Christ," is found twice in the KJV. This second passage will define the doctrine of Christ as foundational to his person. Look.
He 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
3 And this will we do, if God permit.
The "therefore" in V 1 demands we understand his previous comments. They say this:
He 5:11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.
12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
One preacher called this the doctrine of moving on. What "one preacher" was that? What did the Reformers teach on this? First, I can appreciate the comment, " Everyone is a dispensationalist...." and hope it is likewise appreciated everyone is Catholic to some degree, everyone is preterist to some degree, and every Protestant is Reformed to some degree . More op-relevantly, though, moving the goal posts away from dispensationalism to literalism dodges the question. It may even make it worse because being a literalist could be evidence of a difference from the doctrine of Christ! Neither Christ nor the Biblical writers were literalists! The correct way to read scripture is to read it the way the writers read it! Where they read it literally that is where Every Christian should also read it literally. Where they read and asserted it figuratively that is where we too should read and accept it figuratively. We'll probably have plenty of opportunity to observe that as the thread unfolds. The basic argument of this op is, " Scripture says X about the doctrines of Christ, Reformed doctrine says Y. Because those subscribing to Reformed doctrine are not following the doctrines of Christ they are not Christians." And you've stated you'd like to be banned from the forum if you cannot obey the forums rules. This op is dangerously close to violating rules 1b and 1c which prohibit derogatory language and attacking others' religious beliefs. I cannot think of a worst attack than insinuating a person who beilieve in the person and work of Jesus Christ is not a Christian. I am surprised not one else, including civic and the admins, did not catch, note, and address this. Appeals to No True Scotsman have ALWAYS been a problem in Christian forum Arminian versus Calvinism boards. It invariably leads to the kind of rancorous (non-)discourse this forum proactively seeks to avoid. It would, however, be better for this discussion of this thread when two things are posted. The first is to provide evidence the Reformers teach something different than Jesus. This can be done by examining the Reformers' views on the Bible passages quoted in this op. So, prove the Reformers did not teach the doctrines of Christ and do it in a manner that proves it, and not just evidences it based on a literalist, non-Reformed-doctrine reading of scripture (by which this discussion should be measured), and doesn't end up hypocritically committing the exact same error being attributed to Reform doctrine and do it without violating the forum's rules. Shall we start with what the Reformers taught about the first passage quoted in this op? The first passage quoted is 2 John 1:9-11 using the KJV. It's a curious choice because only the KJV and the Douay-Rheims translations translate " didache" as " doctrine." All the others simply say "teaching." Forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but the KJV is a Reformation translation. Ironic given the stated purpose of this op. More importantly, when the Greek manuscripts of scripture were translated into the English King James Version the meaning of the word, " doctrine" was different than we now use the term, different than the way the term was applied in the Reformation, and different from the way it is now being used in this op. This should be addressed decisively if the op is to prove correct. Remember: there was little Reformed doctrine in 1611. The Reformation was less than 100 years old, the practice (Church-wide) of forming doctrine was new (it took the RCC nearly 400 years and every Christian is also Catholic to some degree ). The term doctrine has come to mean " a belief, or set of beliefs, held and taught by a person, group of people, or institution." That is not the definition of " didache" in the first century. So let us know if " didache" is to mean teaching, or to mean doctrine in the modern sense. If neither is the definition intended for use in this discussion, then start by defining terms as you intend to use them and us to understand them. Make sure the definition(s) is demonstrably in accordance with the didache/teaching of Christ . . It has not been shown the Reformed redefine and repackage the doctrines of Christ. Several commentaries on the 2 John 1 text can be found HERE. The reader can, therefore, peruse the commentaries from the Reformed-minded commentators (such as Matthew Henry) and those from the Dispensationalist minded (such as John Darby of Cyrus Scofield), and see if there's any difference from one another and the doctrines/teachings of Christ, and see who is identical or closest. Otherwise, I suspect the single greatest challenge of this op will be an accurate presentation of Reformed doctrine because the second biggest problem in Arm v Cal debates is the straw man. It's not only common in Christian discussion forums, but also in our extra-biblical source material. I remind everyone participating in this thread the Reformation was a response to bad doctrine and practice in the RCC. EVERY Protestant is, therefore, Reformed. Unless a poster is RCC then s/he is to some degree abiding by "redefined and repackaged" doctrine. Arminius was Reformed!!! So.... if you're not Reformed (either Calvinist or Arminian), and you're not RCC, then you are something new and different (and likely mistakenly thinking it is the doctrines of Christ), which is why I mentioned Dispensationalism. I, for one, am looking forward to this conversation (as long as it remains topical, well-mannered, and respectful). I am really not looking for a debate about dispensational theology, as opposed to something else, on this thread. There is a forum for that subject. I am questioning the T.U.L.I.P as it relates to "the faith," the doctrine of Christ, which is a New Testament doctrine as I have demonstrated by quoting it in 42 New Testament verses. The faith as it is taught in the NT scriptures are the fundamentals and the doctrine of salvation. It is what we sinners must believe to be reconciled to God. It involves the person and work of Jesus Christ on behalf of sinners. According to Ga 3 we have this statement about this faith; It is a "before & after verse passage. 21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. 22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. 26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. Now, a man like yourself cannot get away from what is said here. These words have meaning and when one reads the entire context it is sure that God has opened the door of faith to Jews first and then gentiles and all of both people groups can believe and be saved. There is no limited atonement on God's side of this equation. The law of Moses for Israel did not save them. This is the point. It merely taught them as a school master that they could not be made righteous by the law. The law could only condemn them because they could not attain to it. Read the text. The "promise" he is speaking about giving to them who believe is God's Holy Spirit, who is life and righteousness. If one has the Spirit he is a son of God. Receiving the Spirit is the new birth. Ga 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? This is a question we should all answer. 5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? The Spirit is ministered by God upon hearing the gospel and believing it. 13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: 14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. The blessing of Abraham is the promise that God made to him in the Abrahamic Covenant that all nations would be blessed through him and his seed, who is Jesus Christ. What a blessing to know him and how thankful we should be that God sent the son of Abraham on the flesh side and the Son of God on the Spirit side so we could be redeemed. Thank you Lord GOD. Ponder these thoughts and compare them to T.U.L.I.P. Edit note: Obviously I have not figured out how to post comments here yet, sorry. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2022 9:38:59 GMT -8
The onus here is on you. You are the one implying Calvinists are not Christians because TULIP is supposedly a faith different than the one asserted in Galatians. It's not clear you correctly understand the Calvinist doctrine of Limited Atonement because it does not conflict in any way with the plain reading of Galatians 3. Based on the comments in this post it looks like you do not correctly understand the doctrine of LA, nor do you understand what Calvin taught. What this op looks like is a baseless set of accusations followed by a retort completely lacking in conscience. I say this because not only is TULIP completely consistent with Galatians 3 but what Calvin taught can be found for free within seconds with just a few mouse clicks. There is absolutely no reason fro not going to the original source and not knowing. Consider this: the words " atone" and " atonement" do not occur anywhere in Galatians 3. Now, I have just connected everyone to Calvin's commentary on Galatians 3. Notice that Calvin states the following, " But Paul's meaning is more extensive than the words may seem to convey. He means that the law was published in order to make known transgressions, and in this way to compel men to acknowledge their guilt. As men naturally are too ready to excuse themselves, so, until they are roused by the law, their consciences are asleep," and then he later adds, " This passage has tortured the ingenuity of Origen, but to no purpose. If God summon consciences to his tribunal, that those qualities in their transgression, which would otherwise give them pleasure, may humble them by a conviction of guilt, -- if he shake off the listlessness which overwhelmed all dread of his judgment-seat, -- if he drag to light; sin, which lurked like a thief in the den of hypocrisy, -- what is there in all this that can be reckoned absurd? But it may be objected: "As the law is the rule of a devout and holy life, why is it said to be added because of transgressions,' rather than because of obedience?'" I answer, however much it may point out true righteousness, yet, owing to the corruption of our nature, its instruction tends only to increase transgressions, until the Spirit of regeneration come, who writes it on the heart; and that Spirit is not given by the law, but is received by faith. This saying of Paul, let the reader remember, is not of a philosophical or political character, but expresses a purpose of the law, with which the world had been always unacquainted." ...and, "This passage has tortured the ingenuity of Origen, but to no purpose. If God summon consciences to his tribunal, that those qualities in their transgression, which would otherwise give them pleasure, may humble them by a conviction of guilt, -- if he shake off the listlessness which overwhelmed all dread of his judgment-seat, -- if he drag to light; sin, which lurked like a thief in the den of hypocrisy, -- what is there in all this that can be reckoned absurd? But it may be objected: "As the law is the rule of a devout and holy life, why is it said to be added because of transgressions,' rather than because of obedience?'" I answer, however much it may point out true righteousness, yet, owing to the corruption of our nature, its instruction tends only to increase transgressions, until the Spirit of regeneration come, who writes it on the heart; and that Spirit is not given by the law, but is received by faith. This saying of Paul, let the reader remember, is not of a philosophical or political character, but expresses a purpose of the law, with which the world had been always unacquainted." And, just to address the matter of Limited Atonement, this is really a very simple and straight forward position that is often abused by critics of Calvin. Calvin himself various debated this with himself but only those who've actually read Calvin ever seem to know this or share it with others. The position is that the work of Christ is sufficient for all humanity, not just some. It is, howevrr, efficient, or efficacious, only in the lives of those who are saved. Since Calvinism is a monergistic soteriology it couches ALL things first and foremost in the sovereignty, will, and purpose of God, not the unregenerate sinner. This means the efficiency of the atonement is based first and foremost on God's sovereignty, God's will, and God's purpose, and not any will, work, or quality of the unregenerate sinner God is saving. That all could be saved is not a dispute between Calvinists or Arminians, nor monergists or synergists of any kind. Neither is the efficiency per se. Everyday ordinary observation of life tells us some are saved and many are not. Scripture plainly tells is few enter in through the narrow gate and many the wide one. The dispute is about HOW the few exist. And there is absolutely nothing in Calvin's view of Galatians 3 proving your accusations. You made the accusations. You appealed to Galatians 3. You did so without defining your terms - or any term for that matter. You did these things without referencing anything specific Calvin said. You did this without consulting his commentary on the very scripture passage you cited. You did this without citing any source as the basis for these accusations! And, worst of all, imo, by your own confession you made these accusations with an express unwillingness to debate them. The essence of these two posts (the op and the post to which I now reply) is, "I am going to post baseless accusations in a Christian discuss board and refuse to discuss my baseless accusations." I am completely content to let that be your testimony but if your words are to be taken as written then that means you are abdicating any further privilege to respond to anyone and everyone who replies to this op. You don't want to debate it. You've painted yourself into the proverbial corner because if you don't debate it then you're a guy who posts stuff in a place deliberately created for debate with no intent to act in accordance with that purpose. If you do debate this op then you're the guy who says one thing and does another..... by his own hand! I say this because this is the third poster in BAM in the last week or two who I have read post something and then frame his refusal in terms of "debate" and openly refuse to discuss it. No one should bring their opinions into a discussion board with no intent to discuss them. The onus is on you. Now, can you prove Calvinism teaches something contrary to Galatians 3 or not? If so, then do so. If not, then say so and let that be the end of it. If the former then I encourage and exhort you to use scripture and Calvin, and not second-hand and third-hand critics of Calvin, especially not those who quote mine Calvin unjustly to prove their opinions with straw men arguments and red herrings. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2022 9:44:17 GMT -8
I am really not looking for a debate about dispensational theology, as opposed to something else, on this thread. There is a forum for that subject. I am questioning the T.U.L.I.P as it relates to "the faith," the doctrine of Christ, which is a New Testament doctrine as I have demonstrated by quoting it in 42 New Testament verses. The faith as it is taught in the NT scriptures are the fundamentals and the doctrine of salvation. It is what we sinners must believe to be reconciled to God. It involves the person and work of Jesus Christ on behalf of sinners. According to Ga 3 we have this statement about this faith; It is a "before & after verse passage. 21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. 22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. 26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. Now, a man like yourself cannot get away from what is said here. These words have meaning and when one reads the entire context it is sure that God has opened the door of faith to Jews first and then gentiles and all of both people groups can believe and be saved. There is no limited atonement on God's side of this equation. The law of Moses for Israel did not save them. This is the point. It merely taught them as a school master that they could not be made righteous by the law. The law could only condemn them because they could not attain to it. Read the text. The "promise" he is speaking about giving to them who believe is God's Holy Spirit, who is life and righteousness. If one has the Spirit he is a son of God. Receiving the Spirit is the new birth. Ga 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? This is a question we should all answer. 5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? The Spirit is ministered by God upon hearing the gospel and believing it. 13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree 14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. The blessing of Abraham is the promise that God made to him in the Abrahamic Covenant that all nations would be blessed through him and his seed, who is Jesus Christ. What a blessing to know him and how thankful we should be that God sent the son of Abraham on the flesh side and the Son of God on the Spirit side so we could be redeemed. Thank you Lord GOD. Ponder these thoughts and compare them to T.U.L.I.P. Who, or what kept them under the law? Who or what shut them up to the faith that would afterwards be revealed? Who justified them by faith? To what promise is Paul referring and when was it made? How many times is any of it attributed to God? How many times is any of it attributed to the unregerate's sinner's will? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2022 9:48:45 GMT -8
Edit note: Obviously I have not figured out how to post comments here yet, sorry. The trick here, JDS, is to post something below the text box immediately after quoting the post. That reserves a space for you to continue posting if any later edits to the quote are made. |
|
. More op-relevantly, though, moving the goal posts away from dispensationalism to literalism dodges the question. It may even make it worse because being a literalist could be evidence of a difference from the doctrine of Christ! Neither Christ nor the Biblical writers were literalists! The correct way to read scripture is to read it the way the writers read it! Where they read it literally that is where Every Christian should also read it literally. Where they read and asserted it figuratively that is where we too should read and accept it figuratively. We'll probably have plenty of opportunity to observe that as the thread unfolds.