Rebuttal of the dreadful doctrine of reprobation

[steko]

Sure. Why not?

CR dice che crede che questo.

 

[God's Truth]

Please show me where the Bible says that.

Do you think it was a creed? lol

Please show me where the Bible says it is a creed. Haaaaa

 

[Cross Reference]

CR dice che crede che questo.

whatever that means.

 

[steko]

whatever that means.

In Italian it means. CR says that he believes this.

The English word 'creed' comes from the Latin 'credere' or 'credo-I believe'.

Creeds were developed as concise statements of core Christian beliefs. A new believer would recite a creed demonstrating his alignment with core Christian believes in order to be accepted into the community of believers. Also in the early Church martyrdom was anticipated as a very real possibility in the near future for any believer. The believer would hold on to his creed-"I believe this", unto death.

There is no doubt that some historical creeds have been factually wrong with regard to scripture, but even that doesn't mean that all creeds are wrong.

When one asks you what do you believe with regard to Biblical truth claims, do you then proceed to recite Genesis through Revelation or do you give them a concise synopsis of core Christian beliefs?
When one does so, he is proclaiming a 'credo-I believe' this.

If Muslims had captured you and demanded that you recite the Shahada with a threat to remove your head, and you responded with, "Jesus is LORD and the Son of GOD"..... that's a creed.
Can you find fault with it's proclamation?

 

[steko]

Do you think it was a creed? lol

Please show me where the Bible says it is a creed. Haaaaa

Zip...right over your head...again.

 

[Cross Reference]

Steko

"Creeds were 'developed' as concise statements of core Christian beliefs."

. . . by vulnerable men. Isn't that a fact? Do you believe that?

 

[nikolai_42]

With no credit open;y going to the Holy Spirit outside their "feelings" in the matter, which leaves it all open for unbelief to advance on schedule, they are denying God and in the process are heaping the glory on themselves. . . . which no doubt the reason Spurgeon is known for nothing more than being a great preacher with only one message.. .Well, maybe two.

CR,

I tried to take a step back last night and look at see if I'd missed the Spirit in favor of an argument. The two scriptures that stood out to me were 1 Corinthians 4:20 and 2 Corinthians 3:6 :

For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.
I Cor 4:20

Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
2 Cor 3:6

I think your contention is that the Holy Spirit (the power here spoken of) is being traded for eloquence or some self-aggrandizement with which men (primarily, in this case, the Reformers and Spurgeon) will align themselves - at the cost of the power of the Spirit. And in anything that emerges from that, there will be a heaping to one's self of glory - whereas if man were to come right out and say "I am speaking by the Spirit", he is directly deflecting that glory from himself and towards God. I would have to disagree that this is necessarily the way to so deflect it. There are (and I think you will agree), numerous Charismatic preachers alive today whose every appearance is peppered with expressions that are portrayed as those of the Spirit of God. But in many cases, it is apparent that the lives of these men betrays them (if not their speech, as well). So I have to say that the life of a man is a much better guide to whom he follows (self or God). And if a man is led by the Spirit, that man need not point out the work of the Spirit (whose coming and going is like the wind - no man knows when and where it comes and goes). The Spirit's work is to reveal Christ, to convict and teach of Him and not of itself. So in that sense, the ministry of the Spirit is hidden. And I would contend that the life of a minister of the gospel is a far better indicator of what spirit that man speaks by. Do men gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles (Matt 7:16)? And when the man of God does not take pains to point out whatever God is doing through him, then he blends more into the background of that work than if he were to pipe up and say "This is God speaking (or doing)....".

I listened to a short recounting of the life of John Knox - and his every breath was taken with the goal to serve his Master. He knew the burden he bore and the great task God had given him (and what God was working through him) so that when he confronted the Queen directly on the matter of the Mass, his words to her were couched in an understanding (and he even said so) that all this was being done in the presence of the Almighty. He knew the gravity of his work and the critical time he was in - and there was (by all accounts) something in everything he preached that brought men to repentance. A man cannot do that - and he never took that credit.

So I examined what Calvin said about the above verses and found this that, I think, brings out the concern that is found in Reformed circles for preserving God's glory to Him alone that (I believe) falls into line with the above approach :

Accordingly, during several centuries, nothing was more commonly said, or more generally received, than this — that Paul here furnishes us with a key for expounding Scripture by allegories, while nothing is farther from his intention. For by the term letter he means outward preaching, of such a kind as does not reach the heart; and, on the other hand, by spirit he means living doctrine, of such a nature as worketh effectually (1 Thessalonians 2:13) on the minds of men, (380) through the grace of the Spirit. By the term letter, therefore, is meant literal preaching — that is, dead and ineffectual, perceived only by the ear. By the term spirit, on the other hand, is meant spiritual doctrine, that is, what is not merely uttered with the mouth, but effectually makes its way to the souls of men with a lively feeling. For Paul had an eye to the passage in Jeremiah, that I quoted a little ago, (Jeremiah 31:31,) where the Lord says, that his law had been proclaimed merely with the mouth, and that it had, therefore, been of short duration, because the people did not embrace it in their heart, and he promises the Spirit of regeneration under the reign of Christ, to write his gospel, that is, the new covenant, upon their hearts. Paul now makes it his boast, that the accomplishment of that prophecy is to be seen in his preaching, that the Corinthians may perceive, how worthless is the loquacity of those vain boasters, who make incessant noise while devoid of the efficacy of the Spirit.
...
When Paul, however, calls himself a Minister of the Spirit, he does not mean by this, that the grace of the Holy Spirit and his influence, were tied to his preaching, so that he could, whenever he pleased, breathe forth the Spirit along with the utterance of the voice. He simply means, that Christ blessed his ministry, and thus accomplished what was predicted respecting the gospel. It is one thing for Christ to connect his influence with a man’s doctrine. (383) and quite another for the man’s doctrine to have such efficacy of itself. We are, then, Ministers of the Spirit, not as if we held him inclosed within us, or as it were captive — not as if we could at our pleasure confer his grace upon all, or upon whom we pleased — but because Christ, through our instrumentality, illuminates the minds of men, renews their hearts, and, in short, regenerates them wholly. It is in consequence of there being such a connection and bond of union between Christ’s grace and man’s effort, that in many cases that is ascribed to the minister which belongs exclusively to the Lord. For in that case it is not the mere individual that is looked to, but the entire dispensation of the gospel, which consists, on the one hand, in the secret influence of Christ, and, on the other, in man’s outward efforts.

{John Calvin on 2 Corinthians 3:6}

And from the other verse mentioned :

For the kingdom of God is not in word As the Lord governs the Church by his word, as with a scepter, the administration of the gospel is often called the kingdom of God Here, then, we are to understand by the kingdom of God whatever tends in this direction, and is appointed for this purpose — that God may reign among us. He says that this kingdom does not consist in word, for how small an affair is it for any one to have skill to prate eloquently, while he has nothing but empty tinkling. Let us know, then, a mere outward gracefulness and dexterity in teaching is like a body that is elegant and of a beautiful color, while the power of which Paul here speaks is like the soul. We have already seen that the preaching of the gospel is of such a nature, that it is inwardly replete with a kind of solid majesty. This majesty shows itself, when a minister strives by means of power rather than of speech — that is, when he does not place confidence in his own intellect, or eloquence, but, furnished with spiritual armor, consisting of zeal for maintaining the Lord’s honor — eagerness for the raising up of Christ’s kingdom — a desire to edify — the fear of the Lord — an invincible constancy — purity of conscience, and other necessary endowments, he applies himself diligently to the Lord’s work. Without this, preaching is dead, and has no strength, with whatever beauty it may be adorned. Hence in his second epistle, he says, that in Christ nothing avails but a new creature (2 Corinthians 5:17) — a statement which is to the same purpose. For he would have us not rest in outward masks, but depend solely on the internal power of the Holy Spirit.
{John Calvin on I Cor 4:20}

I simply can't see how this denies the power of God.

 

[Cross Reference]

CR,

I tried to take a step back last night and look at see if I'd missed the Spirit in favor of an argument. The two scriptures that stood out to me were 1 Corinthians 4:20 and 2 Corinthians 3:6 :

For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.
I Cor 4:20

Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
2 Cor 3:6

I think your contention is that the Holy Spirit (the power here spoken of) is being traded for eloquence or some self-aggrandizement with which men (primarily, in this case, the Reformers and Spurgeon) will align themselves - at the cost of the power of the Spirit. And in anything that emerges from that, there will be a heaping to one's self of glory - whereas if man were to come right out and say "I am speaking by the Spirit", he is directly deflecting that glory from himself and towards God. I would have to disagree that this is necessarily the way to so deflect it. There are (and I think you will agree), numerous Charismatic preachers alive today whose every appearance is peppered with expressions that are portrayed as those of the Spirit of God. But in many cases, it is apparent that the lives of these men betrays them (if not their speech, as well). So I have to say that the life of a man is a much better guide to whom he follows (self or God). And if a man is led by the Spirit, that man need not point out the work of the Spirit (whose coming and going is like the wind - no man knows when and where it comes and goes). The Spirit's work is to reveal Christ, to convict and teach of Him and not of itself. So in that sense, the ministry of the Spirit is hidden. And I would contend that the life of a minister of the gospel is a far better indicator of what spirit that man speaks by. Do men gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles (Matt 7:16)? And when the man of God does not take pains to point out whatever God is doing through him, then he blends more into the background of that work than if he were to pipe up and say "This is God speaking (or doing)....".

I listened to a short recounting of the life of John Knox - and his every breath was taken with the goal to serve his Master. He knew the burden he bore and the great task God had given him (and what God was working through him) so that when he confronted the Queen directly on the matter of the Mass, his words to her were couched in an understanding (and he even said so) that all this was being done in the presence of the Almighty. He knew the gravity of his work and the critical time he was in - and there was (by all accounts) something in everything he preached that brought men to repentance. A man cannot do that - and he never took that credit.

So I examined what Calvin said about the above verses and found this that, I think, brings out the concern that is found in Reformed circles for preserving God's glory to Him alone that (I believe) falls into line with the above approach :



And from the other verse mentioned :



I simply can't see how this denies the power of God.

You are misconstruing what I am saying [I think] and I can't find anymore words to explain my position except maybe look at the fruit or absence of it, thas has been produced over the years..

 

[steko]

. . . by vulnerable men. Isn't that a fact? Do you believe that?

Yes and fallible.

However, we're just as fallible and when we on this forum post our opinions about what the Bible actually says, we are stating "I believe this is what it says and this is true!"

Should we stop posting because we're fallible or should we keep trying to express our thoughts about what we believe(credo)?

 

[Cross Reference]

Yes and fallible.

However, we're just as fallible and when we on this forum post our opinions about what the Bible actually says, we are stating "I believe this is what it says and this is true!"

Should we stop posting because we're fallible or should we keep trying to express our thoughts about what we believe(credo)?

Fallible doesn't enter into my thinking. Responsibility does; giving my best to make sure what I interpret from the scriptures is, accurate. . . and in an object way, perform it.

 

[Sonnet]

HE DID! He was made the singular anarthrous sin of all mankind. But keep on obfuscating.

LOL.

Nothing here that deals with what I wrote - but you don't debate.

 

[God's Truth]

Zip...right over your head...again.

No, it did not go over my head. I know exactly what nonsense you are saying. I already explained it to you, looks like I have to explain it again.

Just because someone in the Bible says how they feel and or what they believe...that is NOT a creed.

There are NO creeds in the Bible, and my saying that is not a creed. lol

 

[Sonnet]

Thank you for the kind words.

The doctrine of Salvation is succinctly spelled out in the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Belgic Confession, The Heidelberg Confession, the Canons of Dordt, and others.

The Calvinist doctrines are. Not sure re the others.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Nothing here that deals with what I wrote - but you don't debate.

That's because what you wrote was an albatross. A strawman. That was the point. Just a simple point.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Creeds are additions to the Bible.

Study more, talk less. It will reduce your ignorance on matters of the faith.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Wisdom? Thought? Without expressed knowledge and explanation open to those with understanding who might take issue with the details? Creeds offer only a closed understanding written by godly men but nevertheless, closed to criticism. Inquistions were birthed in such an environment. . . and to a great degree are still being birthed.

Over generalized wiffenpoofle.

The creeds and confessions have withstood criticism for many, many, hundreds of years. The church is Scripturally mandated to confess that which it holds dear, often as a result of these "criticisms" you think were not permitted. Yes, creeds and confessions can be misused, but I have spoken of their proper place and use. Just because something gets misused is no warrant to quitclaim them entirely.

And just in case it has been overlooked, "Just Me and My Bible" is a creed. As indicated herein, a very bad one, too.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Great! Now explain it?

Asked and answered.

See also Witsuius' excellent two volume commentary: https://witsius.wordpress.com/resources/downloads/

Tolle lege. :AMR:

AME

 

[Cross Reference]

Over generalized wiffenpoofle.

The creeds and confessions have withstood criticism for many, many, hundreds of years. The church is Scripturally mandated to confess that which it holds dear, often as a result of these "criticisms" you think were not permitted. Yes, creeds and confessions can be misused, but I have spoken of their proper place and use. Just because something gets misused is no warrant to quitclaim them entirely.

And just in case it has been overlooked, "Just Me and My Bible" is a creed. As indicated herein, a very bad one, too.

AMR

And the church is full of dirty white robes as a result of your untoward religious bent.

Creeds are not canon.

 

[TulipBee]

I always laugh when people try to claim Calvin murdered Servetus which is a genetic fallacy. Let's say Calvin really did though.

#1. If infact Calvin did do this heinous sin, that doesn't mean that the one opposing Calvinism has an argument.

#2. You don't believe Calvinism because he was a murderer yet love and believe the Psalms and at least half of the epistles, yet the Psalms were written by David who was a murderer, and by Paul who was a murderer before God came to him? A little bit of hypocrisy there.

#3 We have no idea if Calvin repented, but even if he didn't that doesn't make what he taught, which also what the Bible taught and teaches, less true.

Calvin didn't murder Servetus. What exactly did he need to repent for? He wasn't the one who sentenced Servetus to death, nor did he light the match. He had no say in the matter. In fact, he pled with Servetus to repent, hoping he could avoid execution. He also asked the ones in charge to consider a more humane death, which they declined, as Calvin had no say in the matter.
It was the common practice to kill heretics at the time. Servetus escaped incarceration elsewhere for similar crimes, but by the Catholics, and then made his way to Geneva to basically taunt Calvin. But Calvin did not have the power to order the execution.*
Anyone who blames Calvin for Servetus' death, is showing their own historical ignorance.

 

[God's Truth]

Study more, talk less. It will reduce your ignorance on matters of the faith.

AMR

Jesus died for ALL, for the whole world.

For those who lived, disobeyed, and died long ago in the times of Noah, to those who are living now.

Your many men that you glorify are not God's Truth.