Featured Lets talk about this Organization:

You clearly disobey the Scriptures by bearing false witness. That poster clearly did not say the words that you try to put into his mouth. He basically said the opposite of what you alleged.

 

Are you one among the many who became the reason they exist?

 

If you think you can be lost, you do not have saving faith.

 

It's a sad day when the only "theologies" in a Christian's horizon are Calvinism or Arminianism.
So many see the errors of Arminianism, and when Calvinism posits itself as the solution, they rush there, not realizing they overcompensated for an extreme position by adopting another.

 

Do you not realize and see that you have also overcompensated and overreacted by adopting another extreme position--your KJV-only position?

 

So, according to Acts 21:21, if "forsak[ing]" Moses, means that those Jews never held to Moses in the first place, why would Paul or the Pharisees worry about that in Acts 21? It's the same word ("αποστασιαν", apostasian) in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, "αποστασια" (apostasia).

According to Merriam Webster's 1828, which normally uses scripture to define many of its words, it says:

"APOS'TASY, noun [Gr. a defection, to depart.]

1. An abandonment of what one has professed; a total desertion, or departure from one's faith or religion." - Websters Dictionary 1828 - Webster's Dictionary 1828 - Apostasy​

The etymological tracing says:

"apostate (n.)
mid-14c., "one who forsakes his religion or faith," from Old French apostat and directly from Late Latin apostata (which form also was used in English), from Greek apostasia, apostasis "defection, desertion, rebellion," from apostanai "to defect," literally "to stand off," from apo "off, away from" (see apo-) + stanai, aorist of histanai "to set, place," literally "cause to stand," from PIE root *sta- "to stand, make or be firm."

Used from mid-14c. in non-religious situations, "one who has forsaken the party, opinion, etc., to which he previously adhered."" - apostate | Origin and meaning of apostate by Online Etymology Dictionary​

In Luke 8:13, the word is "αφιστανται" (aphistantai), and means to leave or depart from, see also Hebrews 3:12, and is directly connected to "believ(ing)" ("πιστευουσιν", pisteuousin) over a period of time, "for awhile" ("προς καιρον", pros kairon).

In Hebrews 6:6, the word is "'παραπεσοντας", and it means through falling away, in connection with repentance, and the crucifixion of Jesus, the Son of God.

 

It looks like this thread has been hijacked from a discussion of Calvinistic alliances to a debate about loss of salvation.

I think Calvinism's view that once saved always saved is correct, but it is the other four points where I think the alliance is probably a hindrance to the unity of the church.

And the problem with trying to have a discussion on these matters is that the only posters arguing for the other four points of the TULIP are copy and pasters. They do not seem able to provide a rational defense for the views, so discussion quickly degenerates into ad hominems and absurd ill-founded arguments.

 

Not an accurate title, IMO. Rather an alliance of Calvinistic Indoctrinaters.

 

As I said earlier, there are some issues with it's organization, as not everything in the "reformation" was worthy of keeping around. I worry a bit about the issues already mentioned, as well as ones that can crop up by returning to 'church fathers', even if they are protestant ones, for many of them held to Roman Catholic positions (here or there), at the beginning, middle and sometimes even at the end of their Reformation lifespan.

"The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals is an organization of Christian individuals that believes evangelicals have largely forgotten the foundations of the Christian Gospel and is dedicated to calling on the Protestant churches, especially those that call themselves Reformed, to return to the principles of the Protestant Reformation"​

Calvinism, one of its 'return' positions:

"The alliance promotes the traditional doctrines of the Protestant Reformation, particularly Calvinism,[2]"​

This one frightens me the most, as 'Calvinism' (though not particularly Calvin himself), for the issues already named, but even more so for its adherence to a very dangerous Roman Catholic ideology, namely that it too thought it could correct heretics by persecution. Calvinism (other than Henry VIII's 'religion') most resembled the doctrine of Romanism, in it's 'two swords' theology than any other. In Geneva, etc.

 

Basically inclined to agree, though some aspects (of 'Reformation') are worthy of consideration, minus some of the dangerous theological and practical positions of Calvin (he wasn't all bad, and had some good).

 

Yes, I have enjoyed reading several insightful passages from his commentaries, but OTOH, some of his views are relics of the dark ages.

 

True. I have read the history of the Reformation by Merle D'Aubigny, and also the Reformation in the Time Of Calvin, and also Wylie's work, etc. I find that most people that refer to Calvin, have never even read that much, let alone what he wrote. A case in point, is Calvin with Michael Servetus. They think Calvin was the one that desired his execution by pyre as if some 'protestant pope', but Calvin actually tried to mitigate the pyre, and the execution was actually carried out by the council (syndics) of Geneva (issued Oct. 26th, ""Let him," so ran the decree of the Council, as described in the Register, "be condemned to be led to Champel, and there burned alive, and let him be executed tomorrow, and his books consumed." 5 (Rilliet, page 208), James A Wylie, History of Protestantism, Volume 2, Book 14, Chapter 22, page 334").

"At this supreme hour one man alone comes forward to attempt a mitigation of the punishment of Servetus. Who is that man? He is John Calvin. He earnestly interceded with the Council, not that the unfortunate victim might (335) be spared, but that the sword might be substituted for the fire; but he interceded in vain. "It is to him, notwithstanding," says Rilliet, "that men have always imputed the guilt of that funeral pile, which he wished had never been reared." ...

... As yet Servetus was ignorant, that he was to die by fire. Calvin had earnestly besought the Council that the miserable man might be spared this terrible surprise, but he had pleaded in vain. The magistrates would not permit him to influence their proceedings in the matter, even to the extent of substituting the sword for the stake." (ibid., 335)
​

As for the death to heretics, that was very much a part of the existing 'state' laws at the time.

 

Yes, rather than disparage Calvin the man, we should disparage or embrace his views on biblical doctrine.

 

Amen.

 

Is the Papacy the Antichrist, recognized as such during the Reformation? The problem with Evangelicals is the Papal doctrines that became embedded in their thoughts since then. Free will salvation is at the heart of Catholicism. The Jesuit doctrines of "futurism", designed to remove the Papacy as Antichrist from protestant thinking is another. So I see this organization more as an attempt by Evangelicals to once again remove Antichrist from their midst. Where he once ruled by force through the State, he now remains seated in the temple of God Doctrinally.

 

In the greater picture,
Is that all that important, my friend?

" At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.
27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and [he] to whomsoever the Son will reveal [him]." ( Matthew 11:25-27 ).

" For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, [are called]:
27 but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, [yea], and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 that no flesh should glory in his presence." ( 1 Corinthians 1:22-29 ).

According to these,
God is not a respecter of persons, and "Bible degrees" mean nothing to Him.
He reveals Himself to people that are otherwise "nobodies"...

In other words,
He completely bypasses our admiration and use of such things, and saves people contrary to our way of doing things.

 

@Salty :

I don't support alliances of any kind,
even though on the surface, their doctrines are aiming in the right direction.

 

To me they are both, Dave.
Apostates are those who have professed Christ, but have fallen away.
they never made it "the whole distance", and were bogged down in their growth.

They are of the first 3 "soils" that the Lord has not prepared,
While His children are of the last and bring forth true spiritual fruit unto righteousness.
As I see it, apostates are clear result of a lack of being born again and believing to the saving of the soul.
In other words, they never really did believe, continue in the word, or were led into all truth.

That is the evidence of the Spirit within us as believers...
Him working, pruning, growing, us abiding in the vine, etc.

Those who fall away were never His.

 

Back to the OP:

I find that I cannot support this sort of thing ( which I do not support in principle, anyway ) mainly because of the 4 main groups that are in the alliance...
Anglicans, Baptists, Reformed and Presbyterian.

Many truths of the Bible that I hold dear are not supported by even 2 of these 4 groups,
and none of them is, in my estimation, without grave error in some of their doctrines and / or teachings.
Some teach infant baptism ( even for those who are children of believing parents, like Presbyterians do ) which is reserved for believers alone...
Not unbelievers who have never confessed Christ as Lord and Saviour.

Anglicans have their own set of problems, IMO, such as affirming or ordaining those who disobey the Lord's commands in matters of sexuality.
some Presbyterians also ordain women pastors, which is not in accord with the Scriptures.

As far as I know,
both Presbyterians and Reformed teach amillennialism, which is also, in my studied opinion, a grave error.

The one thing in common that I am in agreement with them,
is their ( apparent ) stand on God's sovereign grace...
which most nowadays hate with a vengeance and brand as "Calvinism".

They and I would stand on that as a common ground...

But, regrettably, there are far too many other issues that I know would come to the surface,
and that I would and should break fellowship over them with.