The Reformation: Which side was right?

Jude:

MT 13:20-22 speaks of one receiving the word with joy, but it does not speak of salvation. Such a person is "unfruitful," that is, they NEVER bear fruit. The reason they never bear fruit is because they have never been born again.

HEB 2:1-3 - A threatening / warning to the Hebrews to whom it was written not to turn away from Christ. How does this prove your theory?

HEB 3:7-14 - At least you are now using a passage that might be considered for your cause...especially verse 12 that speaks of one who has an "unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God." Still, this does not prove that one can "fall from grace." It only reinforces the point that one "inside" the church can show that the heart they have is unbelieving (it never had faith). Verse 14 is consistent with the doctrine of the "preservation and perseverance of the saints": "We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first."

HEB 3:19 - Does not prove "falling away." Only shows that those who are unbelieving cannot enter into Christ's rest.

HEB 4:1,11 - Question: How does one enter the rest? Is it through divine grace (alone) or human effort?

HEB 6:4-8 - YES! THE prooftext for your position. What does it mean to have been enlightened, to have tasted the heavenly gift, to have shared in the Holy Spirit, and to have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age? Sounds like being part of a local fellowship - participating in the worship, partaking of the sacred ordinances, sitting under the proclamation of God's Word, etc. Yes, there are some who "fall away" from such fellowship, but they were never truly born again (1 JOHN 2:19).

HEB 10:23-27 - Yes, those who "keep on sinning" after they have received the truth will face judgment. No doubt there. Notice that they are the "enemies of God." Praise God that believers "have been justified through faith" and have "peace with God." God's wrath has been removed from the believer. We are no longer enemies because of Christ's blood! Praise God! (Romans 5).

Of course Rome responded that way! Why shouldn't they? That does not mean they were correct, though.

The reason mainline Protestant churches are dying is because they have left the teaching of the Word of God, and have (in reality) ceased to be Protestant (Evangelical).

Rev. G

 

If you study (American) church history you will find that Evangelicals (Protestants) agreed on about 95% of their beliefs prior to the Second Great Awakening. The differences came in areas dealing with polity and the ordinances. With the Second Great Awakening came the firm conviction of "democracy" in church life - including being able to "vote" on what one wants to believe. Individuals abandoned the "old beliefs" because they "interpreted" the Bible differently, and the number of denominations multiplied.

If you go back and look at the doctrinal statements prior to that time (historical confessions and creeds), you will notice a great deal of cohesion.

Rev. G

[ October 04, 2002, 12:02 AM: Message edited by: Rev. G ]

 

If you look at the doctrinal statements of the Lutherans, the Reformed, the Anglicans, the Presbyterians, the Congregationalists, and the Particular Baptists you will see agreement on soteriology (no Arminianism there - they were all "Reformational"). There was obviously no differing views on salvation, they all held to sola fide. The disagreement existed on the issues of polity (church government) and the ordinances (communion and baptism).

Do some study in church history, it might do you some good.

Rev. G

 

I didn't say there were NO differences. What I said is that there was essential agreement on doctrinal issues, such as justification, election, etc. (Read the Thirty-Nine Articles; also note that the Reformer Martin Bucer was quite influential in helping to form the doctrinal position of the Anglicans). They were of one mind on those "main" issues. As I stated earlier, the disagreements came in the area of the ordinances and polity. Luther and Zwingli had a heck of a fight over the Lord's Supper - they were not of one mind on that issue. But, at their conference, they agreed on EVERY OTHER POINT. It's too bad they fought the way they did.

Strictly speaking, Arminians are not "historic" Protestants.

No argument here about the quote on justification. The Reformers taught that justification is by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone. Unfortunately sola fide has been distorted in our day. Let's not forget how the Reformers fought against the antimonians of their day, and we should stand up for the truth of the Gospel as well.

Rev. G

 

Let's forget Calvin and Arminius and just stick to Scripture. One thing about dead theologians is that they have perfect theology now.

Calvin looked around and saw the Catholics killing the saints and stealing their property and such and was most likely asked by some of His flock if they would lose their souls as well. So, he searched for an answer and found eternal security, but went a bit overboard. Much like looking down the gun sight so hard that your eyes blur. He made too much ado over election misunderstanding how God's foreknowledge can handle that and yet predestinate a person of free will after they make a free choice to believe. If Adam's one free will decision to sin can throw him out of Eden forever why is it so hard to conmprehend that one free will decision to believe can save a soul for eternity? His followers went even further. I have heard of a 7 point Calvinist.

Arminius saw, as you do, the church folks not seeking holiness and was sure you could not live that way and stay saved even though Paul clearly teaches it. So, he did indeed find the free will that Calvin overlooked, but missed the fact the adoption and birth do not change with demeanor and that folks can be saved yet as by fire and even turned over to the devil that flesh may be destroyed and the soul saved. And his followers go even further than he did.

Biblical theology might in the terms of men be Calamin or Arminist, but again, we should follow the book and not men. Men make things far more difficult than God does. If the book was written for all saints to believe and be followed and since not many mighty or noble are called then the weak and the foolish should be able to understand it if they are born again and have the Spirit within them.

The Reformers came out of Catholicism and were "scholars" accustomed to "deep" thinking, logic and intensive dialogue and debate. Yet, Christ chose poor unlearned fishermen, a doctor and a tax collector to make apostles. Even though Paul would have had as many degrees or more than D. James Kennedy, he called all that dung and spoke of the simplicity of the Gospel though he could argue with the rabbis and philosophers.

Yet, the church grew more from the weak and foolish than it ever did by the "scholarly." I am afraid that their scholarship while it helped them to see the errors and come out from the Whore it was also a hindrance keeping them from coming completely out of the error bringing some of it into each denomination which like leaven brings us into the sin of those groups wanting to recognize and return to Mother.

Remember, the great scholars of Catholicism brought us into the Dark Ages creating a false priesthood that did not enter into Heaven and hindered those who would have gone. We now have a new group of Nicolaitanes trying to do the same thing in evangelical circles and these lads are leading their flocks back to the Whore and are engaging in whoredom themselves.

With these new lads telling the commoner that they cannot possibly understand the Word without them and that this passage may be Scripture or it may not be Scripture they secure for themselves a priesthood as strong as Rome ever had. They have destroyed the foundations of the Reformation and yea, the Word itself.

When the people had One Word and the pastors and scholars preached from it believing it was the very Word of God, we had numerous great revivals and a strong Church that was proactive in the world and respected by the world. Now, that the New Nicolaitanes are building their own kingdom with versions that contain the Word of God, but are not the Word the Church is a mockery, the "saints" base and the glory departed. Is it any wonder that these lads recognize their "spiritual" cousins in the Romanist institution and have great affinity for them? The philosophy and doctrine are the same and they play the same game and shall shear the same shame!

 

Election was not a "Calvin thing," ALL of the Reformers held to the doctrine of unconditional election. Luther wrote more on election than did Calvin. The doctrine of election is not much ado over nothing, it is, as Luther put it, at the cor ecclesia ("the heart of the church"). It is wrapped up with the "solas" of the Reformation, particularly GRACE ALONE and GLORY TO GOD ALONE.

Rev. G

 

What are the greatest revivals that have taken place (post-biblical)?

Rev. G