How Calvin helped create Unitarianism

[Rippon]

True faith is not in a systematic theology, it's in our Lord

Faith in our Lord needs to be fleshed out a bit. The phrase has become too hackneyed and nebulous. Our faith as believers is built upon propositional truths of the Word of God. These propositional truths need to be explained and proclaimed. That's why we have preachers,Bible commentators and systematic theologians. And John Calvin was strong in all three areas.

 

[David Lamb]

I would say that graduates of Oxford and Cambridge from about 1840 ONWARD are all homos.

A simple question, Nazaroo: How do you know whether or not all graduates from the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge since about 1840 were homos*xuals?

For instance, how do you know whether Mildred Emily Barwell, Geoffrey Baynes, Michael Foster and Harold Baldwin (names taken at random from a Cambridge alumni site) were hetero-s*xual or otherwise? (I could ask the same about Oxford Alumni).

BUT of course it would be equally wrong to assert that no graduates from the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge since about 1840 were homos*xuals, and I am not saying that.

(in answer to Rippon, who had said that Nazaroo had made an outlandish statement about Hort being "enslaved to the occult"): Yes, its quite outlandish, in that I did not include the entire hierarchy of the Church of England, since 1810.

Yet again, how do you know that (according to you) "the entire hierarchy of the Church of England, since 1810" has had anything to do with the occult? Show me, if you can, that J. C. Ryle, bishop of Liverpool, or John Sumner, an Evangelical Archbishop of Canterbury, even dabbled in the occult, let alone became enslaved to it. (Those two are just examples).

BUT of course it would be equally wrong to assert that no one in the the hierarchy of the Church of England since 1810 has been "enslaved to the occult", and I am not saying that.

Incidentally, in your "summing up" post (201) you wrote:

Westcott and Hort were Homos*xuals, like all graduates of Cambridge and Oxford in the 1880s.
​

However, the link leads to a Wikepedia article about the so-called "Cambridge Five", recruited as spies by the communists in the 2nd World War. It does not support your statement about "all graduates of Cambridge and Oxford". Indeed, the University of Oxford is not even mentioned!

 

[webdog]

Faith in our Lord needs to be fleshed out a bit. The phrase has become too hackneyed and nebulous. Our faith as believers is built upon propositional truths of the Word of God. These propositional truths need to be explained and proclaimed. That's why we have preachers,Bible commentators and systematic theologians. And John Calvin was strong in all three areas.

Wrong. Christ said we need the faith of a child to be saved. I don't know too many children who "flesh out" their faith via systematic theologies. We need to merely know our condition, how it affects us, what was done on our behalf to rectify this condition. The mechanics involved is NOT necessary in having faith.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Wrong. Christ said we need the faith of a child to be saved. I don't know too many children who "flesh out" their faith via systematic theologies. We need to merely know our condition, how it affects us, what was done on our behalf to rectify this condition. The mechanics involved is NOT necessary in having faith.

You are right but you are wrong.

You are right in that faith is simplistic and child like in the sense that faith is simple reliance upon a right object - the substitutionary Person and work of Jesus Christ to save you.

You are wrong in the sense of the obstacles that prevent natural man from this committment of trust in Christ. The obstacle is that the natural man LOVES darkness and HATES light, and before he is willing to come to the light, this heart problem must be reversed. His willingness is hinged on his love/hate disposition toward darkness and light. This dispositon must be reversed or he will never come to the light (Jn. 3:19-20). This change is called the new birth (Jn. 3:3-9) and the new birth is in part, God giving a new heart (Ezek. 36:26-27), one that hates darkness and loves light which is made manifest by coming to the light (Jn. 3:21).

Bottom line, child like faith is a "gift" of God (Eph. 2:8; Philp. 1:29) that Christ is both the author and finisher of (Heb. 12:2) and is purely of grace (Rom. 4:16) and not all men have faith (2 Thes. 3:3) because God does not give it to all men (Acts 13:48; Jn. 17:2).

 

[preacher4truth]

Wrong. Christ said we need the faith of a child to be saved. I don't know too many children who "flesh out" their faith via systematic theologies. We need to merely know our condition, how it affects us, what was done on our behalf to rectify this condition. The mechanics involved is NOT necessary in having faith.

You don't know man's condition as you fail in understanding spiritual death and it's impact upon lost mankind.

 

[preacher4truth]

You are right but you are wrong.

You are right in that faith is simplistic and child like in the sense that faith is simple reliance upon a right object - the substitutionary Person and work of Jesus Christ to save you.

You are wrong in the sense of the obstacles that prevent natural man from this committment of trust in Christ. The obstacle is that the natural man LOVES darkness and HATES light, and before he is willing to come to the light, this heart problem must be reversed. His willingness is hinged on his love/hate disposition toward darkness and light. This dispositon must be reversed or he will never come to the light (Jn. 3:19-20). This change is called the new birth (Jn. 3:3-9) and the new birth is in part, God giving a new heart (Ezek. 36:26-27), one that hates darkness and loves light which is made manifest by coming to the light (Jn. 3:21).

Bottom line, child like faith is a "gift" of God (Eph. 2:8; Philp. 1:29) that Christ is both the author and finisher of (Heb. 12:2) and is purely of grace (Rom. 4:16) and not all men have faith (2 Thes. 3:3) because God does not give it to all men (Acts 13:48; Jn. 17:2).

Amen! Well said. :thumbsup:

 

[webdog]

You are right but you are wrong.

You are right in that faith is simplistic and child like in the sense that faith is simple reliance upon a right object - the substitutionary Person and work of Jesus Christ to save you.

...and that's what we are discussing.

You are wrong in the sense of the obstacles that prevent natural man from this committment of trust in Christ. The obstacle is that the natural man LOVES darkness and HATES light, and before he is willing to come to the light, this heart problem must be reversed. His willingness is hinged on his love/hate disposition toward darkness and light. This dispositon must be reversed or he will never come to the light (Jn. 3:19-20). This change is called the new birth (Jn. 3:3-9) and the new birth is in part, God giving a new heart (Ezek. 36:26-27), one that hates darkness and loves light which is made manifest by coming to the light (Jn. 3:21).

Bottom line, child like faith is a "gift" of God (Eph. 2:8; Philp. 1:29) that Christ is both the author and finisher of (Heb. 12:2) and is purely of grace (Rom. 4:16) and not all men have faith (2 Thes. 3:3) because God does not give it to all men (Acts 13:48; Jn. 17:2).

I wan't addressing the heart issue...but thanks The new heart comes with faith, not pre though.

My post was in response to E, W & T's assertion that calvinism is the "true faith"

 

[webdog]

You don't know man's condition as you fail in understanding spiritual death and it's impact upon lost mankind.

...and you don't know my position as you cannot reflect it accurately in your posts. Back to ignore...

 

[Dr. Walter]

...
The new heart comes with faith, not pre though.

You are right and you are wrong again.

You are right that The new heart comes "with" faith because the new heart is a believing heart and when God gives the heart he gives faith (Rom. 10:10).

You are wrong that faith "pre" cedes the new heart. The old heart cannot believe because it hates God, hates the light and "COMETH NOT to the light." That is precisely why a new heart must be given and why Nicodemus is told FIRST that he must be "born again" BEFORE Christ shared the gospel to him.

You cannot love something until you first stop hating it. If the old heart could stop hating and start loving there would be no need to give a "new" heart (Ezek. 36:26-27).

Another thing I don't think you understand and therefore do not accept is that there are two different types of eternal life provided at new birth/conversion. There is SPIRITUAL life as a consequence of new birth/quickening (Jn 3:1-11). There is LEGAL eternal life as a consquence of conversion to the gospel called "justification of life." The first makes us a child of God, the latter is our ADOPTION as a son of God or LEGAL heir. The first is a direct product of the Holy Spirit IN the elecct whereas the second is the LEGAL act of God IN HEAVEN in connection with the Law of God that declares us righteous and thus fit for adoption as sons of God - legal heirs. By justification we have eternal life LEGALLY before God.

Spiritual life by new birth LOGICALLY (not chronologically as they are simeltaneous in action) precedes legal life by justification/adoption. The difference in scriptures is distinguished by the Greek terms "teknia" versus "huios."

Hence, there is no such thing as a born again unbeleiver in Christ OR an unregenerated believer in Christ.

 

[webdog]

Walter, you are begging the question and straying from the intent of my original statement. I don't wish to rehash the pre, post faith regeneration debate again. I'm confident in my understanding of it.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Walter, you are begging the question and straying from the intent of my original statement. I don't wish to rehash the pre, post faith regeneration debate again. I'm confident in my understanding of it.

How am I begging the question? Did we both agree that saving faith is in Jesus Christ and is a child like trust? How is that begging the question?

You are not the first to be confident in error and you won't be the last. You simply do not understand that this simple faith does not originate in a vacuum or from a heart that loves sin and hates light. That is the condition of every human's heart and child like faith cannot originate from that heart. If it could then there would be no reason for God to give a "new" heart as the heart you have would do quite fine.

Your confidence is based on a HALF truth and half truth is still a WHOLE error. You are teaching that the unregnerate man or the man whose heart is still in love with sin and hates the light can come to the light when Jesus said it cannot (Jn. 3;19-20).

 

[preacher4truth]

...and you don't know my position as you cannot reflect it accurately in your posts. Back to ignore...

Cool. Put me on ignore. I'm man enough to not put you there.

Your position on spiritual death is false and unbiblical.

Go ahead. Hide.

 

[webdog]

You are begging the question by assuming pre-faith regeneration is fact, when in actuality not only is it not fact, Scripture plainly refutes it.

My confidence is in the position I hold as a result of being Spirit led which is faith and regeneration being simultaneous. The moment we are in Christ we have passed from death to life. This is biblical truth. At any rate NONE of us hold to WHOLE truth as we are finite. If you disagree you are in error.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You are begging the question by assuming pre-faith regeneration is fact, when in actuality not only is it not fact, Scripture plainly refutes it.

My confidence is in the position I hold as a result of being Spirit led which is faith and regeneration being simultaneous. The moment we are in Christ we have passed from death to life. This is biblical truth. At any rate NONE of us hold to WHOLE truth as we are finite. If you disagree you are in error.

How well do you read? Did not I say previously that there is no such thing as a unregenerated believer OR a regenerated unbeliever? Did not I also say that regeneration precedes faith logically but not chronologically? Well, in laymen's terms that means they are simeltaneous in action.

However, whether you acknowledge it or not there is a distinction between Spirit regeneration or quicken/giving life and legal declaration of eternal life. There is a logical order but not a chronological order as both occur simeltaeous or one does not occur without the other.

Before you make another false assumption, do you know the difference between regeneration and justification? One takes place IN you while the other takes place IN HEAVEN. One has to do with your CONDITION and the other with your POSITION. One determines your PRACTICE while the other determines your LEGAL standing. One gives SPIRITUAL life while the other declares LEGAL life. One makes you a CHILD of God by nature while the other a SON of God by adoption. Both give eternal life but one gives it INSIDE your person while the other gives it OUTSIDE your person before the throne of God in the Person of Jesus Christ and that is why we are now "seated in Christ" in heavenly places.

In relationship to faith LOGICALLY regneration occurs first - spiritual life while justification occurs afterward or judicial life. Hence, faith is preceded and followed by eternal life in regard to LOGICAL seqence but without CHRONOlogical order in real time.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

How well do you read? Did not I say previously that there is no such thing as a unregenerated believer OR a regenerated unbeliever? Did not I also say that regeneration precedes faith logically but not chronologically? Well, in laymen's terms that means they are simeltaneous in action.

However, whether you acknowledge it or not there is a distinction between Spirit regeneration or quicken/giving life and legal declaration of eternal life. There is a logical order but not a chronological order as both occur simeltaeous or one does not occur without the other.

Before you make another false assumption, do you know the difference between regeneration and justification? One takes place IN you while the other takes place IN HEAVEN. One has to do with your CONDITION and the other with your POSITION. One determines your PRACTICE while the other determines your LEGAL standing. One gives SPIRITUAL life while the other declares LEGAL life. One makes you a CHILD of God by nature while the other a SON of God by adoption. Both give eternal life but one gives it INSIDE your person while the other gives it OUTSIDE your person before the throne of God in the Person of Jesus Christ and that is why we are now "seated in Christ" in heavenly places.

In relationship to faith LOGICALLY regneration occurs first - spiritual life while justification occurs afterward or judicial life. Hence, faith is preceded and followed by eternal life in regard to LOGICAL seqence but without CHRONOlogical order in real time.

I liked it! Well said Walter:thumbs:

 

[webdog]

How well do you read? Did not I say previously that there is no such thing as a unregenerated believer OR a regenerated unbeliever? Did not I also say that regeneration precedes faith logically but not chronologically? Well, in laymen's terms that means they are simeltaneous in action.

However, whether you acknowledge it or not there is a distinction between Spirit regeneration or quicken/giving life and legal declaration of eternal life. There is a logical order but not a chronological order as both occur simeltaeous or one does not occur without the other.

Before you make another false assumption, do you know the difference between regeneration and justification? One takes place IN you while the other takes place IN HEAVEN. One has to do with your CONDITION and the other with your POSITION. One determines your PRACTICE while the other determines your LEGAL standing. One gives SPIRITUAL life while the other declares LEGAL life. One makes you a CHILD of God by nature while the other a SON of God by adoption. Both give eternal life but one gives it INSIDE your person while the other gives it OUTSIDE your person before the throne of God in the Person of Jesus Christ and that is why we are now "seated in Christ" in heavenly places.

In relationship to faith LOGICALLY regneration occurs first - spiritual life while justification occurs afterward or judicial life. Hence, faith is preceded and followed by eternal life in regard to LOGICAL seqence but without CHRONOlogical order in real time.

The doctrine of immutable confusion and twist strikes again. Regeneration is simultaneous...but it occurs first...one chronologically, one logically. Gotcha. How something can be both simultaneous, and yet not simultaneous is anything but "logical".

Like I said initially I didn't want to discuss pre-faith regeneration, been there and done that already. Later.

 

[Rippon]

Scripture Citations Taken From 2011 NIV

True faith is not in a systematic theology, it's in our Lord

In post 219 E,W,&f referenced my defense of the faith.Don't get that confused with saving faith WD.

In Jude 3 it says "to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God's holy people." That's the sense of "faith that I am speaking of. as Gordon Clark once said:"the doctrinal content of Christianity." It's the whole system of biblical truths -- the majors and the minors.It's the whole range of evangelical truths.

This faith is the same referenced in 1 Timothy 1:19 where Paul spoke of "the faith." And then again in 6:12 of the same book where Paul discusses "the good fight of the faith."

So I talking about propositional truths from the Word of God which need to be believed.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

In post 219 E,W,&f referenced my defense of the faith.Don't get that confused with saving faith WD.

In Jude 3 it says "to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God's holy people." That's the sense of "faith that I am speaking of. as Gordon Clark once said:"the doctrinal content of Christianity." It's the whole system of biblical truths -- the majors and the minors.It's the whole range of evangelical truths.

This faith is the same referenced in 1 Timothy 1:19 where Paul spoke of "the faith." And then again in 6:12 of the same book where Paul discusses "the good fight of the faith."

So I talking about propositional truths from the Word of God which need to be believed.

Once again ...THANKS :thumbs: On another note, I no longer desire to discuss the merits of Systematic Theology with those who dont understand it & and then criticize it. As for me, it is & remains an important vehicle to my understanding my own Faith (and is highly personal to me). I will leave it there.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The doctrine of immutable confusion and twist strikes again. Regeneration is simultaneous...but it occurs first...one chronologically, one logically. Gotcha. How something can be both simultaneous, and yet not simultaneous is anything but "logical".

Like I said initially I didn't want to discuss pre-faith regeneration, been there and done that already. Later.

Let me break it down simpler. Do you know the bullet and the hole analogy? Which comes first the bullet or the hole? When I speak of logical versus chronological we are speaking about cause versus effects rather than time sequence. Regeneration stands in a cause relationship to faith like the bullet stands in cause relationship to the hole, the cause (bullet) versus effect (hole). It is a simeltaneous action but logically the bullet precedes the hole.

 

[webdog]

Once again ...THANKS :thumbs: On another note, I no longer desire to discuss the merits of Systematic Theology with those who dont understand it & and then criticize it. As for me, it is & remains an important vehicle to my understanding my own Faith (and is highly personal to me). I will leave it there.

From one who has exhibited the fruit of not understanding it themselves :laugh:

Thanks for that :laugh: